Why Hydrogen Cars REALLY Failed

[@Wheelsandjourneys]

Honestly one of the most greatest and interesting presenters on the planet! Rory is phenomenal

[@robertsanders7060]

He is everyone's perfect son-in-law

[@briangriffiths114]

Agreed, he is great at what he does and we could with more presenters with his level of professionalism and neutrality in all fields of journalism.

[@jackeryq4908]

He's like iridium in that sense

[@joetz1]

You either have “it” or you don’t have “it” Not sure what it is exactly but this guy has it

[@rneoman]

What's the difference between "most greatest" and greatest?

[@andrewbarrett7207]

Rory has a great ability to explain big issues concisely and backed up with facts and figures. Hope he's able to continue doing so.

[@tipperarymick5337]

I think Hydrogen makes a lot of sense for the transport industry. You don't need thousands of refuelling stations, the transport companies just need them in their depots, and in ports.

[@wojciechmuras553]

Or, they could just have chargers installed at the depots...

[@tipperarymick5337]

@@wojciechmuras553 True. But at the moment batteries are extremely heavy, which makes an electric truck heavy reducing payload. They have limited range and are slow to charge. The number of chargers and the colossal power requirement would be an issue. Countries such as the UK which are set to have a large proportion of nuclear energy will be in a position to provide an abundance of Hydrogen for the transport industry. That's partly why so much research into Hydrogen is now concentrated in Sweden.

[@Gargantu4]

@@tipperarymick5337 how much will it cost a kW (liter?) of Hydrogen considering the value chain that needs to put in place to bring the power to the wheels? I do agree that hydrogen is lighter and faster to reload but the 22% efficiency is going to cost a lot, which will drive up the cost of transport. Battery will get more capacity and quicker charge at lower cost due to way less complicated supply chain.

[@tipperarymick5337]

@@Gargantu4 Hydrogen produced from nuclear power is far more efficient than the 22% which applies to hydrogen from renewable sources. Can't remember the exact figure but I do remember reading about the various sources. For the record I think battery electric is probably the way forward, but with smaller batteries and using technology such as ELONROAD which is currently being tested in Sweden or similar. Charging the battery while on the move.

[@TestTest12332]

@@tipperarymick5337 And shoving same electricity from nuclear power straight into car batteries is still ~2.5x more efficient and much cheaper than converting it into hydrogen... Hydrogen makes no sense from cost and efficiency perspective unless you have extreme energy density requirements.

[@superchargedpetrolhead]

Think of it like this batteries are a perfect replacement for everything that burns petrol, hydrogen is the perfect replacement for everything that burns diesel or kerosene....

[@marcusburger1523]

And I think you‘ve summed it up perfectly.

[@tonylee-UK]

The industry is covering up battery disposal. It's a massive issue that they don't have the infrastructure to cope.

[@superchargedpetrolhead]

@@tonylee-UK yep, kinda true...whenever people say that batteries can be recycled they don't realise that just because it can be done doesn't mean it is financially viable to do...

[@kalvds9345]

@@superchargedpetrolhead BBC did an interesting piece on this issue and showed that while it is possible to recycle the batteries, it is not economically viable to do so as they need to be dismantled under laboratory conditions to avoid them exploding!

[@Miester7]

Batteries are not the perfect replacement for anything. The impact to 3rd world countries and environment, specially water shortages for mining lithium and cobalt is just bad full stop. This planet can only give so much. We will rinse it dry like the nieve humans we are. Its hilariously catastrophic, all the recycling, electric going hipster vegans think they are saving the planet.

[@pauldayao7644]

I own a Mirai myself. So far so good. I love it. it drives really smooth and quiet! The only downfall is a not enough infrastructures in Cali. when mirai came out yrs ago they were only 5 infrastructures now I believe there's 43. Thats still not much but its moving in the right direction IMO! We will see what happens down the road with these cars.

[@MsNickie1001]

I’ll bet that’s a nice car. Toyota really builds a fine automobile. I wish I could have a Mirai, but alas, this is Florida. Coal and gas country, no hydrogen fuel here. At least I have a Prius, and I drive like an old lady. Wait a minute, I am an old lady!

[@pauldayao7644]

@@MsNickie1001 lol

[@pauldayao7644]

@@MsNickie1001 Ty! Yes it is a nice car. Unfortunately only Cali has these type of car. Hopefully in the future Toyota will start distributing them in other states.

[@rhinoTube]

I find the Mirai fascinating, I would really consider it, but here in South Africa we don't have any infrastructure for it yet. I would like to ask, what kind of range do you normally get on a tank of hydrogen? I have always been wondering what the real world range of the Mirai is.

[@MsNickie1001]

@@rhinoTube I don’t know. But it seems that Toyota has been caught interfering in American elections. I sure won’t be looking into a new one until this shakes out. Honda is looking better, but no hydrogen model yet.

[@rogerking7258]

Love the clarity of this presentation. One of the big mistakes people make is when they describe hydrogen as an energy source. It isn't, it's just a means of storing energy that originally came from another source, be it wind, solar, coal, nuclear, etc. Only time will tell if the inefficiencies in its production will matter very much - and that depends on the future price and availability of electricity; unfortunately you can make a case for this going either way at the moment, so who knows. I think you're right when you say the emphasis for hydrogen should shift to commercial vehicles; anyone buying a battery car can charge it at home from even a 13 amp socket, albeit very slowly, but you have absolutely no option on this if your vehicle needs hydrogen. Commercial organisations have the ability to construct their own hydrogen storage facilities to get around this problem, and who knows - if that does come to pass, they might then make surplus capacity available to the public.

[@freeboski]

It seems mad to me to waste all that electric in hydrogen production where you could just put it straight into a car. Battery tech will come on a long way in the next 20 years that hydrogen may not be relevent.

[@tonyhawk123]

Except people don't really care about how much energy is wasted. Did you really care that 90% of the energy in a petrol car was wasted in all the years you drove one? Even after all the energy used to run oil platforms in the sea, giant refinery plants, oil tankers, distribution networks - of the energy that makes it into your ICE car the majority is wasted again as heat. What would be “mad” is to pretend people ever cared about energy waste, instead of how it affects us (oil spills, air full of smog and carcinogens, political dependancies on unsavoury countries).

[@Neojhun]

@@tonyhawk123 Umm sure Driver's don't care. But the COMPANIES who have to sell you the energy care very much. That is a massive amount of $$$ Wasted. Greed is the ultimate motivation.

[@tonyhawk123]

@@Neojhun its not that simple. A kwh of energy holds different value depending on how and when its used. If energy in of itself was the only value, wind turbines would never be turned off. It's distribution and storage which costs money too. Energy which gets to you via a £billion battery facility (pumped hydro) costs more. It's about how its used, not how much is used. There is no “straight into a car”. There are always inefficiencies. Heat loss from charging (just like charging your phone), heat loss from discharge, battery health losses, losses from accelerating all that mass, losses from electrical grid, grid off-peak storage, electric motor inefficiencies, manufacturing and recycling, and so on. Would any of that prevent me from using a BEV? No, because ultimately i dont care about inefficiencies, i care about convenience, performance, comfort, cost, health, environment. Nobody lost a wink of sleep when 90% of energy from a combustion car was wasted, so why would they now.

[@Neojhun]

@@tonyhawk123 LOL what a bunch of idiotic diversion. Yes it's that simple on a gigantic scale. You are just trying to invent extra complication to justify your falsehoods based agenda. Yes I did consider making green hydrogen from Energy Surplus like the Intermittent Renewables problem. Even that is not really viable on a gigantic scale. What it still boils down to is financial cost out of operational difficulty and inefficiency. Where you could use the energy in other ways that is more profitable and easier.

[@LBrisk01]

@@tonyhawk123 you care about cost, health, and environment yet dont care about inefficiencies? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Inefficiencies drive higher cost and greater pollution which effects your health.

[@falxonPSN]

A great video showing why hydrogen is just a poor choice for personal cars. The inefficiencies alone make it barely better than gas/petrol, not to mention the utter lack of infrastructure.

[@arturama8581]

Hydrogen is about the only sensible way we have to store energy. In the summertime there's a lot of energy lost because people are at their workplace, while their solar cells are producing the most energy. As most countries do not have the infrastructure yet to return all that energy to the grid or store it, it's as good as all lost. What's better? Storing part of that lost energy in H2 or let it go to waste completely? And don't forget we have a lot of experience with all kinds of batteries, but are just starting out with H2. There will be innovations and there are industries that produce H2 as waste from making other products. As long as governments do subsidize BEVs with billions of Euro's/Dollars and don't invest a penny into H2, it 's not going to take off. I'd like to drive a Mirai, but it's twice as expensive as a comparable BEV, cause those are very heavily subsidized. I think H2 has failed uptill now, because of the subsidizing of BEVs and not because BEVs are better in any way. Trillions are invested in BEV-tech, including charge stations and other infrastructure for BEVs. To compare it to H2: I live in The Netherlands and untill a few years back, we had TWO H2 filling stations in the whole country. The Netherlands now has so many BEV charge stations, that parking space for is becoming a problem, because there are so much charging stations that occupy normal parking spaces. It's not fair to compare both, while the one is hyped and heavily subsidized and the other is not.

[@HairyCheese]

CASB could be better for storage than Hydrogen. But I think for vehicles it still doesn't make sense for hydrogen. I think battery technology is still changing very fast. Hydrogen from my pov appears to be a way for the fossil fuel industry wanting to stay relevant with Gray and Blue hydrogen.

[@redbaron6805]

@@arturama8581 "And don't forget we have a lot of experience with all kinds of batteries, but are just starting out with H2" This is a common misconception, that the world just woke up a few years ago and started trying to use Hydrogen. GM showed the Electrovan concept back in 1966. H2 is not floundering due to lack of government support, it is simply a dead end technology for passenger cars. Even today, it cost $90 to fill up a Hydrogen car, while it costs $10 or less to fully charge an EV with an equivalent range. Hence, Hydrogen cars have to come with a massive upfront subsidy, a Hydrogen card with $15000 or 3 years worth of "free hydrogen" to get anyone even slightly interested. Simple fact is, Hydrogen stations are hyper expensive to build, are not cost competitive, and no one is interested in putting up the money to build out something that was DOA before it even started from a cost perspective. Did I mention in the USA Hydrogen stations are heavily subsidized, and still no one is interested..?

[@iareid8255]

Doublestrike photo, It is far less effcient than petrol or diesel engined cars. It is difficult and expensive to make and store

[@HairyCheese]

@Shdnajsjsj Dhsjs , this is your view. Mine is electric cars are best. I can say I drove petrol and diesel vehicles for over 25 years before driving only electric for 5 years. My experience tells me electric is best. BTW hydrogen cars are electric fuel cells, so technically they're electric and the energy source is storage.

[@jeffreyatlee8785]

First: I am super happy about how well Rory is doing while being mad about how criminally under used he was on that TG show. Second: hydrogen will and indeed must improve because most of the world's people and goods travel over land. Rail is amazing but politically problematic. So we have to get a decent (and that's all it might be) long distance road fuel.

[@ap3401]

"Rail is amazing but politically problematic" could you explain what do you mean by saying "politically problematic"? From my point of view, because of coved 19 pandemic need to avoid all places with people concentration as much as you can.

[@TestTest12332]

I've been telling for years hydrogen cars make no sense whatsoever. The whole cycle is horribly inefficient. By the way- most hydrogen today is made from fossil fuels- natural gas, which completely defeats the purpose of having hydrogen cars in the first place. But if you use electrolysis to make hydrogen- that's wasting what, 33% of energy here and then. Another 25% on compression and storage and transportation. Fuel cells themselves are only 40-60% efficient and horribly expensive. Combined efficiency of whole cycle is 66% * 75% * 60% ~= 30% efficient at best. On top of that, hydrogen is ridiculously difficult to store- it escapes steel containers and makes steel brittle. This whole thing also makes it very expensive. The only reason for promoting this technology for cars is to greenwash it, mislead people, delay advance of battery powered electric cars, or keep traditional power companies in the business (but distributing hydrogen instead of gasoline via same gas station network). Compare that with electricity and batteries. Electricity transportation losses over wires are under 5%. Battery charging loses another 5%. Electric motors are 80% efficient. Total efficiency of the entire system is 95%*95%*80% ~= 72%. That's a HUGE advantage. That being said- hydrogen still makes sense in certain niche applications. For example ships or planes where very high energy density is required (likely methane or ammonia instead of pure hydrogen will be used due to storage concerns). Or making zero emissions steel. But it doesn't make any sense for cars or trucks- use batteries instead.

[@rneoman]

I read somewhere recently that for an EV to have a smaller carbon footprint than its equivalent ICE car it has to cover 90,000 miles before it does that.

[@mistermood4164]

@@rneoman nah it’s closer to 25k miles

[@Tuppence442]

I remember back in the mid 00's when I first heard about fuel cell & biofuel vehicles and they certainly seemed like the way forward given how underwhelming many EVs were at the time. But now that the EV scene has improved so dramatically, especially in terms of infrastructure, I can't help but feel the demand for those alternative fuels has long since passed.

[@HandsUpforThePanther]

Has it really though or is it all just marketing?

[@Tuppence442]

@@HandsUpforThePanther The quintessential EV of the mid-00's was probably the REVA G-Wiz, and when that's your starting point, literally anything is an improvement.

[@tonyhawk123]

“Long since passed” argument could have been levelled at all EV cars, 20 years ago. Given that both battery powered cars and hydrogen powered cars existed over 100 years ago.

[@Neojhun]

I was the crazy few since 2004 who realised the massive potential of BEVs. While many forms of Bio fuel had already ran it's course and only got worse as Fertile Farming Land became more of problem. H2 on the hand was Absurdly stupid to use a vehicle energy distribution. That never was plausible if you simply understood the scale required. H2 is NOT all fuel cell. There is other forms of fuel cells which do not use H2. I think one of the alternative fuel cell cycles might be the perfect complement to BEVs.

[@Neojhun]

@@Tuppence442 LiFePO4 Prismatic Cells realy started jumping in production output in the mid 2000s. In 2004 I came across a university group working on Inverter Controller system for BEVs, basically to invent a tuneable profile throttle for high powered BEVs. They used Prismatic Cells simply because it was easily available and attainable price. It was not special prototype technology. The magic sauce making all the roughly 100 cells and all the power distribution to work properly. It was a bucking bull for the first couple of years.

[@PerdixDesignLtd]

Should be required watching for anyone who witters on about hydrogen in cars. I'm working on an industrial project, so get to see the inefficiency first hand. Rory is living the BBC motto: educating, entertaining, and informing.

[@guybrushthreepwood3002]

By the time hygrogen fuel cars become feasible for the masses, battery technology will have already evolved enough to make the idea obsolete anyway.

[@Brian-om2hh]

Hydrogen is already way way behind. The infrastructure alone needed to support workable hydrogen car ownership, would take 20 years or more to establish. There are around 12 hydrogen filling points in the *whole* of the UK. And just 4 or 5 of these are open to the public. It's a joke. It just isn't going to happen. Hydrogen hasn't just missed the train, it was thousands of miles from the station when the train departed. The way ahead - for passenger cars at least - is already established....

[@guybrushthreepwood3002]

@@Brian-om2hh i agree, my point being, even if fuel cells and the infrastructure had its act together, it would still be obsolete technology within a decade anyway, as the next generation of batteries come into production. I bought an Ioniq 5 recently, that's alresdy enough.

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@guybrushthreepwood3002 On that we are in total agreement. Nice choice of car! I'd go for the Ioniq 5 over the EV6. I can't get my head completely round the styling of the EV6. The Ioniq - to me at least - looks the more cohesive design. The smart, crisp styling does it for me. I've owned a Hyundai a few years back. It felt like a car that would never let me down.....and it didn't.

[@timaustin2000]

Quite. In 2011 a Leaf could only travel about 80 realistic miles to a charge. It didn't even take Nissan ten years to tripple that range in the same space for the same cost. Imagine what we'll have in ten years from today.

[@rneoman]

@@timaustin2000 but if everyone on the planet and all the trucks and construction machinery etc switch yo electricity where do they find the minerals needed to make these batteries and what damage does that do to the planet?

[@atefelabed8365]

A few years ago I was convinced hydrogen cars were the future and I think there's still hope for it be it a very small one. I think depending on how EVs develop and iron out their shortcomings, we could see a similar thing to what happened to televisions when plasma screens were the future only to see them completely trumped by LED screens within a few years.

[@Danlewis85]

You don't see plasma TVs anymore mainly because of their energy consuption not necessarily because it got superseeded by better tech. It became popular with manufacturers 10 or so years ago when looking where markets were going to push the green narrative, they could see where markets and regulations would end up where climate change was concerned and rightly avoided that PR nightmare.

[@999Bravo99]

When I was younger and didn't know any better I used to think like you. But then I grew up and gained some wisdom because if you do the math it just makes no sense.

[@johndoh5182]

Except, with BEV it's only a matter of different battery types really. Whatever you think the weakness is for BEV, there's probably already something replacing it or replacing it within a few years. What will really happen is there's different battery technology and certain technology is better for certain use cases and others for other use cases. But BEV has because so dominant as the up and coming technology AND with so much of the world's govts. buying into the technology, there isn't an underdog story. BEV is incredibly efficient, and this is why even though being a little arrogant, but I put this into the category of many brilliant people often don't understand proper etiquette so well, Elon Musk can say hydrogen is stupid, and he's right. It's too many conversions. It's too much energy in to get a little out and no matter how you twist an argument, there's no overcoming that. You need the conversion of water to hydrogen to be free before the rest makes any sense, and using electricity for electrolysis is not free, even if you're using green energy. BEV, in the next 5 years will be better than ICEV in any way conceivable, except demand on certain elements, but even that is mostly overcome already by having different battery types. And it WILL be this decade that more earth friendly batteries will be the main battery that goes into BEV, and if there's need for recycling to recover elements, it will be in place, since even recycling plants are already in development for certain battery types, especially in China where about 45% of all BEVs are on the road. So that's it really. Yes, new tech will come along, but it's in regards to the batteries that go into BEV because far and away, BEV wins out. Simpler construction is the key point but it does require totally different manufacturing processes so it's an upfront investment. Battery sends power to motor. Motor moves wheels. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[@paperhouse6282]

Hydrogen cars = plasma screen

[@Neojhun]

@@999Bravo99 What a bunch of pointless BS. I'm old and I still don't know jack all. No wisdom here.

[@user-sk8zq3fj1x]

James May aka captain slow, was amongst those 12 who bought a hydrogen car.

[@Brian-om2hh]

Yes, and he also recently bought a pub. How crazy is that? He is known for making left field choices and decisions.....

[@davidholden2658]

He also owns electric cars. He likes new technology

[@Make_Boxing_Great_Again]

You can also get internal combustion engine hydrogen vehicles which are also carbon neutral. These didn’t even get a mention here..

[@darlingms]

FCV cars have batteries and an electric motor. BEV cars have batteries and an electric motor - just more batteries. I genuinely don’t understand why Team Hydrogen want to perpetuate an operating model which requires distributing and storing fuel to save a bit of time filling up (which is largely flawed logic anyway)

[@shreyasvshetty3311]

Rory always nails it🙌🙌

[@andreiarama8745]

Great video as always Rory! I think that with the hydrogen they are doing everything the wrong way. First they have to do is turn all the big container ships to use hydrogen. You make it available in every port and you can produce it with green energy. Once the hydrogen is plenty for the ships you can start to move it to other things. Cars should be the last to go with hydrogen

[@faradaycool4058]

Maybe. Everyone said this about EV just over 10 yrs ago too ?

[@charliecollin3361]

A very well explained video Rory and the Autotrader team! Sometimes trying to explain the efficiency difference to people is difficult but you nailed it in this vid. There may still be a market for FCVs, perhaps haulage or planes where energy density is critical. Apart from that, BEV all the way!

[@tonyhawk123]

It was a good start. But it needed more context. Traditional petrol cars waste even more energy than hydrogen. Even after using energy to drill for oil, transport it, refine it, once its in the car most (over 50%) is wasted as heat. Then there's the toxic carcinogens petrol cars pump out. I just think its odd how petrol heads are now concerned about waste when they reported nothing on it before EVs gained traction.

[@charliecollin3361]

@@tonyhawk123 yeah, definitely agree with you there! Topic for another video probably.

[@mdjey2]

No one talks how much does a car battery weight impact efficiency?

[@charliecollin3361]

@@mdjey2 Sorry but wtf are you on about? You realise that BEVS still contain their batteries when somebody does a range test in one?

[@redbaron6805]

@@mdjey2 Not sure what there is to talk about. EV's are massively more efficient despite carrying all their batteries on board. This is mostly due to electric motors being well over 90% efficient, while combustion engines are typically 20% efficient.

[@nathanb2100]

I quite like the idea of hydrogen cars like the Hyundai Nexo or Toyota Mirai :D. But like regular EVs, there aren't many places at the moment where you can refuel/recharge them and hydrogen cars currently cost quite a lot, especially with conventional petrol/diesel cars. Great video Rory 😃👍

[@Nemoticon]

Any new technology that aims to replace conventional ICE cars will require investment into supportnig infrastructure across entire nations in order to properly take hold. If this doesn't happen, no altrenatives will be able to make a proper impact on the market.

[@HidingAllTheWay]

Thing is that with regular EVs even if many public charging stations suddenly closed down you could still charge them home, since every home in developed world has electricity. With FCEVs if the hydrogen stations close (like it happened in Norway) you are left with a very expensive oversized paperweight.

[@nicholaswilson9724]

I suspect it's easier to run power to charging spots than it is to build pressurized hydrogen tanks, and of course ease of charging at home (for those of us that can). Even if hydrogen is decided to be "better" due to fueling time, familiar paradigm of a gas station making it easy for people who can't charge at home etc, it might end up falling by the side just due to the relative ease of running some power cables. I have to imagine that the equipment to run a hydrogen pumping station probably runs off high-voltage cables anyway (I could be wrong).

[@stuartvasepuru1423]

Thanks, Rory, another informative video. The big negative of hydrogen cars is you can't refuel them at home, which is a real convenience for EV owners. No new nationwide fuel distribution network was required for EVs, because the electricity grid was already there! Yes, more public chargers are needed, but they use a local connection to the existing grid.

[@thunderbug8640]

That upside is also a downside to EV's. There is no way the grid as they currently stand in any country can handle the power requirements if even so little as 10% of cars were swapped for EV's. This power has to come from somewhere. EV’s don’t require much in the short term but in the future they will, although I don’t think they will actually, as I don’t expect them to last more than 2 or 3 more decades before a better more viable solution is found.

[@andrewminott7225]

The one thing that most people do not take into factor is the MONOPOLY that the electricity power companies will be having on the customer. You already have to pay for the electricity usage in your home to wash, iron and light your home (among other things) and then to add to the electrical expense, you now have to pay the extra to charge your car overnight. Just like batteries used in your cellphone, the constant recharging degrades the battery quickly. So, are you going to replace the battery, or replace the car, like most cellphones that have the battery built in? The electric car is a commercial and political wedding that screws up the end user, as there is the drive to give the end user NO OPTIONS. Compare that to saying you have the options of "fossil" fuels, hydrogen and electrical. Which do you want.

[@andrewminott7225]

The other dark side of EVs that are brushed over is this: Remember the days when your battery died suddenly, and you needed to jump start them? Sometimes this was due to a loose connection or a broken pole in the battery. How do you deal with that in an EV while on the road? How do you jump start or replace the battery, when the battery is an integral part of the vehicle (think built together with the super-capacitor). You may have to buy a new vehicle (think ala battery-integrated smartphone). Will the vehicle be cheap enough by that time, to just pay to replace it? Think of the scrap metal landfills for these EVs. And where will the batteries be disposed? ALL batteries contaminate the ground. EVs will be the new scourge of the planet.

[@andrewminott7225]

What about the new age of hackers who can build EMPs that disrupt electrical systems? Your EV is the new frontier for targeting. Think of driving down the road, and one being set off, either by a hacker, or by the police because you are going too fast. You are inside a coffin that cannot stop, because the brakes that generate power for the super-capacitor are tied to the electrical system. You'll be in free fall, either waiting for the vehicle to slow down to a stop, or heaven forbid, be still accelerating and becoming a road "missile" to the detriment of yourself and others on the road. Is that the scenario you can picture, with all the Tesla Y, Bugatti-Rimac Neveras, and other speed demons on the road? Not a future I ever want to see, when the electric companies won't take out insurance on me if that happens.

[@kalvds9345]

Hi Rory, great video as always and well explained but I think there are some significant gaps in your logic when it comes to hydrogen fuel cell cars. Yes there is significant energy lost when producing hydrogen but one way or another, we need to find ways of creating an energy surplus for the ever increasing energy demand. This is also true as demand for energy continues to increase for EV's. Yes the metals used in the production fuel cells are expensive and rare, however alternative materials are showing huge potential as alternatives to platinum. Lets not forget the significant environmental impact of mining Cobalt and Lithium required for battery technology. Solid State batteries are far off being feasible at the moment meaning that we cannot judge a technology such as EV's on what they might be able to achieve uin the future when they are being sold as a green alternative today. Also lithium ion batteries are very tough to recycle as they need to be disassembled in laboratory conditions. It is worth checking out a recent BBC article on the issues surrounding recycling Lithium batteries and how it is not economically viable to do so. Yes EVs are far more efficient, however we know from your video showing the recent Volvo comparative survey (EV's vs ICE), it clearly shows that when looked at on a global scale, producing an EV is far more CO2 intensive than producing a similar ICE vehicle. The survey shows that an EV requires 90,000 miles of mileage driven before you start to see a C02 saving over an ICE vehicle. EVs are currently practical on short journeys due to range constraints so even reaching the 90,000 mile mark will realistically take many years to achieve. ICE vehicles are also very inefficient as we know so I would love to see Volvos figures to include a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in terms of CO2 cost to produce the vehicle and include its life span etc, etc. If and when battery technology improve in the next 5-10 years (such as solid state batteries), will the EV's produced today ever see 90,000 miles to make them a real environmental alternative? alternative? Then we come to the source of the energy, and while there are "green energy" electricity tariffs etc out there, the reality is that only about 20% of the worlds energy today is produced from renewable sources, meaning that green tariffs are only available in certain locations and depending on the amount of renewable energy produced in the particular country. Energy production needs to be looked at on a global scale as climate change is a global problem. While more and more energy is being produced using renewable sources, energy demand is also dramatically increasing and hence the total percentage of renewable energy produced may only rise very gradually. Finally - Comparing the number of Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles sold vs EV's isnt an argument that EV's are better. Imagine saying that about Tesla in 2008? Rant over!

[@airchie2]

A few points I'd add. If we need to increase energy supply to cater for the new tech, be that hydrogen or EV, surely using the pure EV tech that's substantially more efficient makes more sense? You can't discount future advancements in battery tech and then herald future advancements in fuel cell tech. Current battery tech is available that uses no cobalt and lithium is extremely abundant. Battery recycling may be difficult but it is doable and will become ever more lucrative as demand (and thus cost) for raw materials increases. Volvo's figures are not the gospel, they will change substantially depending on the source of your electricity for example. Even if you assume Volvo has it spot-on and we assume grids don't continue to get greener etc, 90k miles is nothing for any modern EV with some sort of thermal management of the battery. Just because newer EVs with better batteries are produced, it doesn't mean older EVs will just be thrown into landfill.

[@tonyhawk123]

You only touched the surface of the oversights in this video. Vast majority is energy is wasted in ICE cars too (even after powering drilling platforms, refineries, tankers, distribution, the energy which makes it into the engine is mostly wasted as heat). After all his years of car reviewing, he finally cares about wastage, when it suits him.

[@kalvds9345]

@@airchie2 All fair points Craig, the main issue for me is that we are being asked to buy EV's as a way of reducing the global CO2 emissions today when the technology is still under development and they do not represent greener motoring over ICE vehicles until they reach a certain mileage (whatever that may actually be depending on where you live etc etc). Then there is the issue of depreciation if and when a new battery is developed which will most likely make the current crop of EV's completely redundant overnight with faster charging and longer range etc etc. I think you know where Im going here. Why I like hydrogen as a concept is that fuel cells are lighter and more sustainable and can be used in a wide range of applications from cars up to heavy duty vehicles but as Rory mentions, the future appears to be a combination of both. Now if we could crack nuclear fusion, that would represent a huge milestone in meeting our ever growing energy demand.

[@airchie2]

@@kalvds9345 Everything, even ICE vehicles, can be seen as under development. We didn't just build the first horseless carriage and stop there. However, in spite of more than a century of development, ICE vehicles remain less than 40% efficient on average. EVs are over 90% efficient this early in their development. So unless we break the rules of thermodynamics, we don't have much space to make EVs more efficient. Development will drive improvements in battery energy density and efficiency which tends to be more evolutionary than revolutionary. Combined with the decarbonisation of grids globally, EVs will continue to steadily increase their lead over ICE. Looking at depreciation, it's not going to be as bad as you think. The tech has advanced a huge distance from the original Nissan Leaf yet Leafs are still holding their value well. Some revolutionary breakthrough that makes EVs half the price with 10x the range, 2x less weight and a full charge in 2 minutes might appear. If it does, that will clearly impact the resale value of 2nd hand EVs but it wouldn't make them redundant. They'd still be ideal committing vehicles. Regarding fuel cells, they may be relatively light but the tanks for the hydrogen are pretty heavy and batteries are getting lighter and cheaper on a per KW basis over time. I'm not sure if say fuel cells are more sustainable though? They use extremely rare metals for their catalysts meaning scaling production of fuel cells would be an issue. I do agree solving fusion would be great though.

[@kalvds9345]

@@airchie2 Thanks for your reply and again all valid points well made, you certainly have me rethinking my view on the matter. What really concerns me however is that we are being asked to purchase EV's over ICE vehicles today as a means of reducing the CO2 produced by private transport. EV's are less practical and more expensive to buy that their ICE equivalent. Last year, Volvo did a very interesting paper comparing their Volvo XC40 vehicles, one being and EV and the other being an ICE vehicle which are both produced on the same production line. In summary Volvo found that the production of CO2 was much higher in making and EV than making a similar ICE vehicle however that the EV produced much less CO2 from its energy source than the ICE did. However depending on the location, it would take in the region of 90,000 miles of range before you start seeing a Co2 saving, but this was more like 52,000 miles of range in the UK. With that in mind, the average mileage per car in the UK is circa 7500 mile per year. I think its fair to say that this is primarily based on ICE vehicles and that EV's may be a little less, but lets stick to the 7500 miles for the purposes of this discussion. That means you need to own the EV for at least 7 years before you start to save on the vehicles Co2 production. I think it fair to say that the vehicle should be driven for at least 100,000 miles meaning that we are approaching 14 years for the vehicle to make a meaningful impact on its Co2 production over the equivalent ICE vehicle. Then we come to the question of what will battery technology be in 7 years time? What shape will the battery be in in 10-14 years time? ICE improved over the last 100 years but to be fair we are talking about a different developmental curve due to the fact that in the early days of motoring, only the privileged few were able to own a ICE vehicle until the dawn of cars such as the VW Beatle etc. What will battery technology be like in 7 years time and will you or I be willing to live with the issues of early EV's rather than trading it in for a new EV that has more range and can be charged much faster. That is my long winded logic as to why I wouldnt buy an EV (or Hydrogen Vehicle) any time soon. For those that do, I hope they have many years of fun and enjoyment with them!

[@wlhgmk]

Hydrogen does have some specialty uses. You can use it to produce Iron from its ore instead of using coal and this is already being done in Sweeden where I understand that all Volvos are made from steel produced this way. You can use it to achieve very high temperatures in a welding torch using pure oxygen and pure hydrogen. You can get even higher temperatures by ionizing the gasses before they are burnt. Potentially one could make cement powder with hydrogen instead of using fossil fuels. And there is an outside possibility that air liners could be powered by hydrogen because of the power to weight advantage.

[@iareid8255]

William, hydrogen could be used in steel production but it must be more efficient to use electricity directly. Iron needs carbon in it's manufacture which it gets from the smelting coke. Using hydrogen would not produce iron with the right characteristics. Hydrogen is not s nice gas and has many inherent difficulties in it use.

[@alessandrorusso4415]

Thanks Rory... A very good and fair video. Too many things must find their place before H became suitable for mass transportation. Even batteries have their problem. R&D must go on!

[@TheSar]

Great stuff Rory - you're killing it mate.

[@humphreybradley3060]

Not for cars & light vans, but for heavy haulage, ships & aircraft possibly.

[@tonyhawk123]

Actually, makes sense for small vans too (battery weight eats into payload). Ships benefit less (weight of battery isnt an issue). Aircraft, definitely yes.

[@Tom55data]

Great presentation Thank you for linking the energy plot to show the efficiency, good research and evidences based presentation.

[@asharak84]

When I was a kid I was team hydrogen. We just needed to work out how to build the infrastructure etc and it'd be great! Now, I can't see past the downsides without some huge developments. If we hand wave and pretend hydrogen refuelling was ubiquitously available I still wouldn't buy one, even at their current subsidised prices. Why? because they are worse vehicles. They're really heavy (even compared to EVs), their packaging is more complex so they've got less internal space, they're much more complex, they've shorter working lifespans before the fuel cells need replaced, they're less renewable and recyclable in terms of materials and less green in terms of total energy use. Heck, even the "refuelling time" isn't particularly one-sided vs EVs as yes, one car can refuel fast, but the next guy has to wait for the station to repressurise before fuelling so throughput isn't great, vs plugging in at home for me. If I couldn't plug in at home, or at work, or at the supermarket then that would substantially hinder EVs and thus swing that particular metric the other way. That's not to say never - every point is something that they've improved on in the last 20 years. Will they ever improve enough to be the better choice? Maybe, but I'm doubtful - and given our hydrogen firmly doesn't come from renewables and makes the grid load problem much worse I'm not sure if I hope they get there.

[@sunilnijran1515]

Rory isn't just a car reviewer.. he's a Chemistry teacher

[@kevmeister1702]

I agree hydrogen makes no sense now battery technology has moved on so much. What’s the point in using electricity to create hydrogen, then transport it to a hydrogen station so someone can drive their car there to fill up. It’s much better to send that electricity straight to a BEV.

[@Brian-om2hh]

And don't forget those whom have solar panels. You can't easily get hydrogen from solar panels.

[@tonyhawk123]

@@Brian-om2hh in principle, can get hydrogen from roof too. Just need rain and sun.

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@tonyhawk123 But how might you store it if you aren't actually there to put it in a vehicle? And I wonder how many Local Authorities might allow high pressure storage system in domestic situations?

[@Tom55data]

You could add more about the cost of the hydrogen station compared to a BEV charge station. Hydrogen charge station (using electrolysis) : $3,200,000, does not require piping as it is onsite storage. Battery charge station (Tesla supercharger) = £3,000 dollars. So I think it is a bit rich of the hydrogen company complaining about lack of support from the government. I would provide links, but they get deleted.

[@ApothecaryTerry]

Are you including the cost of electrolysis in the hydrogen station? If so, that's like including the cost of oil wells and refineries in the cost of a petrol pump, or the cost of a nuclear power station in the supercharger. The cost of a hydrogen charge station is the cost of converting a petrol/diesel tank then changing the pipes and pumps at an existing filling station.

[@markxr1]

I am pretty skeptical that you could get a EV battery rapid charger installed for £3k, but still would be much cheaper than 3M.

[@Tom55data]

@@markxr1 I quoted a figures from commercial systems, I think it was a Tesla super-charger. This does not include where the NDO local network needs upgrading.

[@cip5949]

you should know that an average petrol engine also works on H2, just like it works on LPG, and this is a very efficient way to turn it into energy

[@craigix]

No it absolutely isn't, you'd be lucky to get 30miles range out of a tank using it like that. The car would have to be the size of a lorry to carry enough to make it go even half the range of an electric car.

[@cip5949]

@@craigix it would take less H2 than LPG for the same range

[@asharak84]

@@cip5949 It'd take less mass. But hydrogen is very low density - you'd need a huge volume of hydrogen for the same range.

[@FormulaWhine]

I do think we will end up in the future with a choice of hydrogen FCEV and full electric BEV, much like the predominate diesel v petrol of the last couple of decades. BEV will be the main source for most family cars, while FCEV will be the main source for commercial vehicles and longer distance drivers where BEV range and the charging infrastructure aren't quite enough.

[@RichardButlerUK]

I am old enough to remember when cars were petrol and lorries and black cabs were diesel. then the early non-Turbo diesel cars starting to appear. usually they were owned and driven by people who drove a diesel taxi, van or lorry as their day job given the choice of BEV or FuelCell, I can see the FuelCell might be a "good choice" with people that work at places that use lots of H2 for commerical vehicle, and live on the 10th floor of a block of flats, with no where convenient to plug in a BEV overnight

[@franciscoshi1968]

The extra cost of running on Hydrogen will not let Hydrogen get even started. If your cost to fuel is 5 times and your maintenance is higher you will need an extremely good case to justify the extra running cost. BEV already do 400km easily. It is unlikely that 40min of daily charging will be able to cover the extra running cost of hydrogen especially if the charging happens while you are having lunch.

[@tomlane-petter]

your my fav presenter on autotrader

[@PiefacePete46]

Another thought-provoker... my initial knee-jerk reaction to hydrogen power was "not for me; too complex when compared to the BEV's that were just starting to appear in numbers". It's good to be shown the broader picture, with some numbers to back it up. Many thanks.

[@tonyhawk123]

Kind of. A broader picture would have been showing the energy waste of ICE cars which is more than hydrogen cars. Most energy is wasted drilling and refining oil, then most is wasted again once its used in a car (over 50% wasted as heat). And the broader picture would be the wasted energy from solar and wind because it couldnt be stored for later in the day - there's no shortage of solar energy, its storing the energy for peak use which is the issue, so why not send it to hydrogen plants instead of turning off wind turbines. And the other broader picture would be the rare materials in batteries, and ICE cars for that matter (which is why catalytic convertors get stolen) - he only mentioned it for hydrogen cars. Still interesting, but it needed more balance.

[@WillBecker]

@@tonyhawk123 There aren't really any rare materials that are necessary for EV batteries - that's a meme largely supported by dark oil money

[@tonyhawk123]

@@WillBecker “arent really”? You had to do some mental gymnastics to get that sentence out. Don't need to be an advocate for filthy big oil to make a basic observation that current batteries use rare earth materials, by the quarry full. Both big oil and battery tech empower unsavoury countries (Saudi, China) as is the case with any rare material, and i dont want to be enslaved to countries like China. China only overtook the USA a few short years ago in GDP and they're already ramping up their military. Either we need solid state batteries sooner than later, or forms of energy with lets every country provide for themselves. Given hydrogen forms our oceans,/lakes/rivers, falls out the sky and is even in our air, i'd say it fits the bill for universal access.

[@redbaron6805]

@@tonyhawk123 "Given hydrogen forms our oceans,/lakes/rivers, falls out the sky.." except of course, that Hydrogen isn't exactly in free form and can just be scooped up. It takes massive energy to separate it from those other elements. Hence, it simply has never become cost competitive, and also ignores the other part of Hydrogen cars, they have a DO NOT REFUEL after XX/XX date unless they are re-certified and the tanks replaced, something no one will bother to do.

[@karlgunterwunsch1950]

@@tonyhawk123 "to make a basic observation that current batteries use rare earth materials, by the quarry full. " that's a blatant false statement. The only rare earth metal that is being used in an EV (sometimes) is in the Neodyme magnets of one of the more efficient types of electric motors. The battery - contrary to the fuel cell - has not a single atom in them (not intentionally that is)!

[@rdeh1678]

AUTOTRADER there is another option that is not really being talked about , that in Squamish Bc canada there is a new company that has developed a machine that removes carbon emissions from the air and through a process this unit then converts it into synthetic fuel that can be used in any ice car , from my understanding it can be a much cleaner option with out causing a trillion dollar in forced ev car sale the company is called Huron clean energy and I believe what they call it is Carbon Harvesting ,. In my opinion this could make a great second option as the process actually cleans the air to make fuel for cars that already exist.

[@jeffreyatlee8785]

Another thought on the VW/ Rimac deal. I wonder about this synthetic fuel that Porsche is pouring so much "energy" into. Perhaps that's why there is Chinese wall between Rimac/Bugatti and the rest of VW. So that each team is like a skunk works and they can share developed tech without "adulteration".

[@jonathanmayor3942]

For me hydrogen is going to replace diesel stuff like heavy thing; trucks, semi, planes, etc. And ev gas vehicle like cars etc.

[@alibro7512]

I was about to say "There will always be a place for hydrogen, especially in trucks and busses." Then it occurred that if battery technology continues to improve at the current rate the place for Hydrogen will probably be short lived as it will become an expensive irrelevance. Probably.

[@jakem5039]

Not so much for trucks. Hard to get next day shipping if trucks take 50 minutes to recharge compared to 10 minutes for hydrogen over long distances. Electric range when towing is abysmal.

[@alibro7512]

@@jakem5039 In ten years battery cars went from being a joke to being a real threat to the legacy car industry. And that was just one company. The same will eventually happen to the trucking world. It might just take a bit longer.

[@jakem5039]

@@alibro7512 I mean I hope you're right but Hydrogen is a pre made solution that doesn't need billions in investment for that industry

[@KevinLyda]

@@jakem5039 Hydrogen refuelling stations cost millions and are expensive to operate. And we'd need as many hydrogen refuelling stations as we need petrol stations. There are over 8,000 petrol stations in the UK. Even if they came down to £1 million, that's still £8 billion just for refuelling stations and you haven't even generated any hydrogen yet. Meanwhile every house in the UK can refuel a BEV - and that's before considering the existing public charging network.

[@jonb5493]

No. The hydrogen atom is obviously lighter than other "competitors". Therefore, where gravimetric energy density is paramount, no other technology will approach it. So: long-distance air-travel. There may be niches where the same thing applies. So, say long-distance freight trucks that are far from any feasible electric supply. Or even ships carrying LH2 - running on boil-off from the LH2 that they are carrying.

[@APBaker-fk4ph]

Great video. Thanks for all the science simplified. I am very interested in using hydrogen as a fuel but isn’t there another problem not mentioned here? At the time of charging the hydrogen has to be in liquid form which means below -250 C. So there are issues when re-fuelling?

[@e_desta]

Hydrogen is attractive but very difficult to justify when ICE are still effective in saving time and operating cost. Hybrid cars seem to be very sustainable in extreme climate areas. At below zero temperature weather, nothing challenge ICE engines!

[@nicholaswilson9724]

Based off our experiences this winter with our EV, and years of seeing EVs driving around Quebec in temps well below 0F, let alone 0C, I have to disagree ;)

[@rtfazeberdee3519]

Until it gets too cold and diesel gets all jelly like

[@nicholaswilson9724]

Hells, in Quebec it can get so cold that cars with block heaters *still* won't start...

[@e_desta]

@@nicholaswilson9724 I see. A simple heating blanket would do the trick. Once fired up, it has more energy density than EV. May be hybrid is not bad idea!

[@nicholaswilson9724]

@@e_desta Higher energy density, but much less efficient, even running the heat in winter we're spending way less. Where I live gas just hit the equivalent of $5/gal US but because we're on hydroelectric it's much much cheaper to charge at home. Need more infrastructure to make it possible for everyone to charge when parked at home, even if it's on the street, but we'll get there.

[@raychang8648]

I like the idea of FCVs, but it seems they're just not feasible (at least not yet). Today I rode my EV motorcycle (Gogoro S1) 120km. Gogoros are absolutely everywhere here in Taiwan. Teslas, too. Plus I saw a Porsche Taycan. The thing about Gogoro is that you don't need to charge it yourself. If you are in an unfamiliar area and want to find batteries, open their app and choose the Map button. It's too convenient and Yamaha along with at least one other company produce bikes that use Gogoro batteries. For Hydrogen, it really is too bad that the cells are so expensive. I really enjoyed this video !

[@rando5673]

The saddest thing about hydrogen and electric is that we're chasing a total of 30% less CO2 emissions over the life of the vehicle, which can be achieved by simply driving about 15km/hr slower on the highway or driving a car instead of an SUV

[@ApothecaryTerry]

Efficiency will improve a little over time, but the energy surplus is the main thing that allows it to happen. BEVs are the current option, but it'll come down to whether producing hydrogen is cheaper than (fully) recycling batteries, which we're currently miles off doing at all. Tesla recycling 100% of its batteries is not even close to 100% recycling the material from each battery, for example. Recycling takes energy, but the alternative is digging things up still which isn't sustainable, obviously. Basically it's an arms race - can BEVs reach actual good charging speeds/infrastructure and get close to real 100% recycling before we get fusion. Honestly I doubt either will happen in my lifetime and I'm nearly 10 years younger than Rory!

[@flaviosalatino8192]

The problem of hydrogen is that in the end you have an EV with a lot of stupid processes in the middle. And in the long run you don't have the improvement path that batteries have. EVs are faster, more secure, WAYYY more efficient, less moving parts and less logistics and infrastructure. You might have some edge cases that it works ( planes). But as Elon said, hidrogen cars have "Fool cells" inside them.

[@masterofthepinkside]

Hydrogen totally exists by itself, but there's not much on earth because it just leaves. It's so incredibly inefficient, about 3x the electricity of battery electric. It leaks really fast because it fits between other atoms. It is WAY less convenient than a BEV because you can't charge at home. It has a low energy density. It is expensive to store and transport safely. You know numpties would refuel them without sealing them properly. Building hydrogen fueling infrastructure is crazy expensive even compared to petrol, let alone electric charging. The list goes on. It'll have a place, but for most uses and most people, batteries are just better even irrespective of infrastructure issues. Hydrogen trains make no sense at all because you can power them off the line so they don't even need batteries.

[@barrycarter7274]

For personal cars, the ship has sailed. I don't really see it catching on except for maybe sports cars and really expensive cars in the future. I think for trucks that drive really long distances there might be a use case. For planes, batteries aren't really a solution unfortunately until the technology improves (except for smaller planes that already exist). Hydrogen could be an answer but would need a lot of testing

[@benfarmer-webb1016]

Would be good for ferries and ships

[@barrycarter7274]

@@benfarmer-webb1016 yeah completely forgot about them when I was writing the comment. Definitely think there is room for the big shipping container ships.

[@philipmapletoft2392]

Really good simple reason why battery electric is the future for cars. Hydrogen is woefully inefficient

[@mmistermusic]

Once you are used with recharging your car at home, you will never accept a technology that requires you to go to a filling station. Even just that argument is enough.

[@candlercando]

I have all battery powered yard tools. No need to go to the gas station to fill up a gas can. Also, zero need to change spark plugs, get the right mix of oil and gas, etc.

[@EVinstructor]

The reason the concept of hydrogen cars will disappear is simply that they have no killer feature that’s better than a BEV. The fast filling is something they do better than a BEV, or is it. Most EV owners plug their car in at night and unplug in the morning with a full battery. This is a lot more convenient, and cheaper than going to a petrol, or hydrogen station. Yes, if you drive for 400 miles non stop, at the very least 8 hours, you can fill up quickly and drive on. However, this is not a usage scenario for many UK drivers and, as a driver trainer I’d point out, nobody should be driving for that long without stopping. It’s a Highway Code rule. Fuel and servicing is more expensive than an ICE car. The tanks are large making European sized cars difficult to build. Then when you find a hydrogen pump that fast fill up might not be so fast because they take 30 minutes to an hour to pressurise the hydrogen between fills. Then the nozzle can freeze in so you have to wait around for it to warm up. So, in every respect BEVs are better than HFCEV. Then we hear the large vehicle argument. Most truck manufacturers have battery trucks on sale and in development. Even artic size are being trialled in the UK by Tesco. As battery density improves and battery costs come down hydrogen will face the same problems it does with cars. The trucks will do everything better. The big disadvantage hydrogen has is, as you presented, the fact that only a quarter of the electricity used to make it turns the wheels of the vehicle. That electricity can be fed through the electricity grid that we already have and be used directly to power a BEV resulting in up to 90% of it turning the wheels. As the Hydrogen molecule isn’t going to change with development and the laws of physics around it won’t change, hydrogen power will be overtaken by batteries.

[@RealDaveTheFreak]

A co-existence of both hydrogen (green) and battery powered vehicles would be cool. Doesn't have to be one or the other. ;)

[@AoyagiAichou]

It's the only logical solution. Those rooting for elimination of everything but BEVs are ignorant zealots.

[@Mzwandile_Makhowane]

Thank you very much! 🤗

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@AoyagiAichou What's logical about wasting huge amounts of electricity on an inefficient process, to produce a fuel which still needs to be transported to all the points of storage or sale? And a hydrogen powered car is an electric car anyway, so why not skip the wasteful production process and the transportation, and just use the electricity to charge an electric car in the first instance? And hydrogen isn't ever going to be a cheap fuel. Nobody wants hydrogen. Just 30 hydrogen powered cars were sold in Britain last year. You can't "fuel" a hydrogen car up at home, or get hydrogen from solar panels. Toyota have abandoned any further development on hydrogen power systems, as have Hyundai/Kia. Electricity needs no transportation. Electricity is virtually everywhere.....

[@patrykrog8121]

@@Brian-om2hh well actually toyota is developing a hydrogen ice engine. The whole point of hydrogen for me is that it will be 100x more fun to drive than any electric. Also the battery in an electric car will last 10 years at most and then the car will be scrapped because of the cost of battery replacement. Edit: I now realise that hydrogen won't make the same power and that a battery can last over 10 years.

[@WildReefer]

Hey, if so, then 'Hybrid' may mean something very different in the future.

[@manofthehour6856]

WOW! As usual, Rory does a fantastic and thoroughly knowledgable presentation. The Toyota Mirai is for lease in California, but I understand that there are only about 48 hydrogen filling stations open to the public here in the US, with a couple in Hawaii, and the remaining ones in California. After watching this, I understand why. I supposed it could be a fuel revisited in the future if efficiencies were vastly improved through new production, transmission, and storage methods, but 22% is shockingly bad efficiency.

[@desmondmiles7471]

With the major breakthrough in nuclear fusion recently, it could be much more viable if infrastructure is invested in the same way as electric car investment

[@dzello]

Nope, no matter what energy source you use (hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, etc.), hydrogen is still a less efficient form of energy than direct electricity. Hydrogen is only a bit more energy dense, but it loses in every other department otherwise.

[@tonykelpie]

V2G and V2L make an EV attractive.

[@mossman2003]

I have been in the hydrogen camp since James May reviewed the Honda Clarity on Top Gear many years ago. It is let down by the refuelling infrastructure but I read that there is a push on this side of things. Big, heavy, expensive compromise battery EVs feel like a stopgap until that time. Just hope Hydrogen isn’t the Betamax to the battery EV’s VHS (showing my age!). Great that you did this piece Rory.

[@ADobbin1]

To be fair the battery ev infrastructure isn't much better and if tesla hadn't made the decision to build it so people could use their cars it wouldn't exist at all.

[@jakej1837]

@@ADobbin1That's the case for long range DC fast charging stations, but one difference people forget is that EVs can also charge at home or at much cheaper AC stations. That is a game changer for EVs and gave it a way to get a foot into the market even when the charging infrastructure was not mature. Hydrogen doesn't have that as an option, it must build the stations first. At this moment, it looks like it'll be for fleet use and won't work as a solution to cars.

[@ADobbin1]

@@jakej1837 this only works if you have a house in which to install charging. If you live in an apartment like many people you are shit out of luck. As for fast charging where I live it's only sparesly available in really large cities. Meaning there are 3 to 5 cities and they are hours away.

[@jakej1837]

@@ADobbin1 But point is the market that has a place to charge is huge compared to the market that can be satisfied by the hydrogen stations. And in other countries, like the US, the market that has a garage is larger than the one that doesn't. That gives EVs a lot of room to grow before charging infrastructure is mature. The fact that 190k EVs was able to sell in the UK despite what you describe is proof of that.

[@FFVoyager]

@@ADobbin1 where do you live? The 'fast' charger network is pretty comprehensive in the UK.

[@mcdevious2229]

Rory, you're a gentleman and a scholar. :) Thanks.

[@ryanmansfield7262]

A hydrogen-powered combustion engine would really get me interested

[@DanO-xy8wh]

Are you being hopeful or are you hinting at the Toyota - Yamaha hydrogen powered V8 that just got released lol?

[@redbaron6805]

BMW made the Hydrogen 5 car many years ago. It's efficiency was dismal and the cost per mile was astronomical.

[@DanO-xy8wh]

@@redbaron6805 I didn’t know that! Yeah unless there’s some crazy technological break through for storing hydrogen fuel, I don’t think it’s gonna work.

[@redbaron6805]

@@DanO-xy8wh Doesn't look promising. Running Hydrogen in combustion engine's is crazy expensive and the efficiency is terrible. The problem with fuel cell vehicles is the cost and lack of infrastructure which is prohibitively expensive.

[@robertnicholls9917]

@@redbaron6805 They're testing synthetic fuel, which uses Hydrogen and CO2. Porsches has invested in this tech.

[@drxym]

Most hydrogen is "blue", i.e. it comes from natural gas so it's little better than combustion engines since it is a fossil fuel. And even when it is "green" it takes 3-4x as much energy to turn water to hydrogen, to store & transport it, and then turn it back to energy as it does to just put the energy into a battery. And it's not cheap either, costing more money than regular petrol. Oh and there very few filling stations. And cars are ponderous with crap storage space because of the need to hold honking big carbon reinforced tanks to store the fuel. It's a failed technology that might find some use for energy sequestration, or niche applications, but not in passenger vehicles.

[@errolmacdonald3256]

If EVs are going to be cheaper than ICE vehicles by 2026, then FCVs are out of the question for the general public. Rory, you rule!

[@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263]

I mean there are tiny EVs which are cheaper than ICE vehicles but those are short range lol.

[@peterszczesiak6025]

Completely agree with you Rory, I get fed up explaining why hydrogen doesn't work but they don't understand as they are used to low efficiency from petrol cars already

[@sebastian.lauterbach]

Great video and explanation! I’m team battery now as I just got my Tesla Model Y, but I definitely see a future for hydrogen if they solve the equation with energy loss and logistics (fuel stations etc). The wild card is solid state battery. If they succeed with a working SSB, hydrogen loses its main argument; fast refuelling. I think BEV will overtake ICE eventually and be dominant, but ICE will still exist like a 100+ years in those places where charging infrastructure is impossible.

[@redbaron6805]

Hydrogen is simply losing on too many fronts. Cost being the primary one. For places where fast refueling is a must, like taxi fleets, battery swapping makes far more sense than Hydrogen ever will.

[@ArunShankartheRealOne]

Lately, I keep thinking instead of creating evs and other alternative energy. Why not create carbon neutral gasolene. As long as we don't put more CO2 into the atmosphere, we should be good.

[@mikefawdrey6113]

One of my friends had a 3 year old hybrid Mercedes and started having a lot of electrical faults. The Service team told him it was a fault on the electric battery pack and it would have to be changed at a cost of £15000. It was suggested he scrap the car and buy a replacement, that doesn’t sound very green to me. Surely it would be better to use Hydrogen to power internal combustion engines. Further it was government who persuaded many to go diesel, they got that wrong Why should we believe then on battery power, much of the material for batteries is extracted by teams of children who are sold into a form of slavery

[@mightyfinejonboy]

it seems HGV's (the lifeblood of any country) is where there needs to be a focus on their requirements. yes, they can go electric, but has anybody thought about the trailers they haul? why can they not have some battery capacity on therm rather than just the tractor unit? yes I know weight etc will always be the limit but perhaps the trailers need to be looked at in the grand scheme of things.

[@bobbralee1019]

Seems to make no sense to generate loads of electricity to produce hydrogen when you can just put that electricity straight into an EV. As the biggest thing in Tech at the moment is developing the next gen batteries which will go further and charge faster I suspect Hydrogen will be consigned to Niche usage where it will have its place.

[@stauffap]

Yeah, that would be like producing hydrogen to heat your home with, instead of just using a heat pumpe, which would only require about 1/6 of the electricity.

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

Commercial Vehicles. Long Haul Trucking & Mining Equipment. You don't spend millions on machinery to have it spend half its life charging its batteries.

[@Miggis1000]

Interesting how you find it troublesome and wasteful to produce energy/electricity for making Hydrogen, but at the same time it's (apparently) no problem to produce electricity to charge EVs. Remember, transporting electricity accross the country also wastes some of it, you don't get the same KWh from your charging station that the coal plant has produced. The grid has resistance. And as far as the precious metals go, EVs have a lot (more) of them too, with bigger batteries. btw: "renewable" energy isn't necessary as green as some might think. Sure, in the UK it can be more viable than in some other places, being essentially an island there's more wind, tidal forces etc. But in the big picture (world wide) solarfarms take a lot of realestate (wildlife suffer), and windfarms have big environmental effects too. And when one takes the total viability and impact of solar panels and wind turbines (effective lifespan is short), their "greenness" can be questionable. I do think that Hydrogen cars can be the future, mainly because they are very much the cars of today (what we've used to). Drive "x miles", refil in minutes and then drive some more. And yes, hydrogen can be challenging to produce, but drilling oil from under the sea is challenging too and we've managed to do that too. Also worth remembering, everyone doesn't live in constant 20°C, when the weather gets hot or cold, an EV can lose ~50% range and charging times get longer too. Too hot or cold battery doesnt' charge the same way as optimal temp battery does. Point being... in short term EVs may be one answer, but it is quite possible that Hydrogen is the future, specially if the politics get on board, it's the chicked/egg thing. There wouldn't be EVs if politicians hadn't supported charging stations, equally Hydrogen cars won't sell if there aren't filling stations and there won't be filling if cars don't sell. It was the same thing in the early days of EVs. Politicians need to be involved in the process and not put all eggs in one basket. Maybe some day in the future we'll have Battery EVs and HydrogenEV cars on the roads at the same time, in the same way as we have had Petrol and Diesel cars

[@Sunny-hc1bf]

Hydrogen is low in energy density meaning it takes more volume to store them than gasoline. Also the component for the fuel cell is rare and expensive, making it less economically feasible to purchase considering the current lack of related infrastructure. However it is not such a bad idea for container ships and cruise ships. These ships needs specially designed sections to allow the ship to float when the hull is breached. As hydrogen tanks are larger and it LH2 has a much lower density than water, the fuel tank can be used to substitute these sections, lowering the cost in creating water tight sections. Also these ships usually use the lowest quality fuel available to save cost, causing high amount of air pollution harming harbor workers and nearby residents, the 0 emission of LH2 is a great option. It would also eliminates the problem of oil leaks, either massive Leakes or the everyday leaks that coats the water near the harbour with a thin layer of oil films. In conclusion, 1. Low energy density. 2. Expensive fuel cell. 3. Not enough infrastructure. Makes it a bad car. But 1. Low energy density 2. Low emission 3. Low environmental impact. Makes it a great alternative fuel for ships.

[@BradderzTekkerz]

As an insider for a well known manufacturing company, there is currently a hybrid hydrogen van capable of 300 mile range and standard refill times, its already being built in fleet form in Germany…

[@Mireaze]

Hydrogen has its place, in specialized areas, but only if its truely green. And it never makes sense in personal transport.

[@carlkuss8300]

Everyone has their own views on which fuel source is best but nobody wants to address the massive issue. We are conditioned to all be part of a consumer society. Recycling has its benefits. Reuse has far more benefits. With fashion,snobbery and economics the downfall of any sustainable solutions.

[@carlkuss8300]

BTW this applies to EVERYTHING not just vehicles!

[@PurpKing4377]

Nice idea but Electric cars for the consumer will be the way for the next 20 years

[@tonyhawk123]

Rubbish. ICE cars are the future, as reported by every car reviewer (including this reviewer)… 15 years ago. Just because a technology sits on the shelves for many years, doesnt mean its not worth pursuing. Both electric cars and hydrogen cars existed over 100 years ago. It just means its difficult. All our energy (wind, solar, even oil) comes from hydrogen.

[@lahandri7275]

@@tonyhawk123 also ICE cars : can run on Hydrogen now LoL look what Toyota is doing

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@lahandri7275 You mean *did*. Toyota recently announced that they are ceasing any further development work on hydrogen systems in favour of EV's. As have Hyundai/Kia.....

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@tonyhawk123 ICE cars are the future? Even when most of Europe has already stated they will be banning the sale of new ICE cars and vans after 2030 or thereabouts? That being the case, where exactly will this "future" play out? Several car makers have already announced their intention to cease any further development work on ICE engines. The new Euro 7 regulations - due in 2025 - will make it very difficult for most ICE manufacturers to comply without engineering complex and costly solutions. The writing is on the wall for ICE.....

[@cadifan]

The only reason battery powered cars out sell hydrogen is because there's more of them. It's like if they painted 6,000,000 cars yellow and 500 blue they'll say that yellow cars out sell blue one's. Bad argument.

[@tahamht5756]

Since container ships pollute more than all of the cars in the world, wouldnt it be more smart to make them run on hydrogen than to make ice cars evil

[@Tom55data]

No, please look at the gobal data charts (I cannot provide link - it will be auto-deleted). Passenger cars = 40%, shipping 8%

[@pulie2330]

@@Tom55data wrong! 🤦‍♂️

[@tahamht5756]

@@Tom55data you are wrong pal, check your stats again.

[@Tom55data]

@@tahamht5756: trying again : CO2 car : 46% truck : 29% aviation 12% shipping 11% rail 1% rest 2% (note this does not quite add up, but I provided results to the nearest 1%)

[@rkkaranja1902]

Very well explained- Thank you Rory!

[@JustAutoChannel]

Great presentation Rory. I think that we can make hydrogen cars work but it will take time and the government need to support this effort.

[@Brian-om2hh]

Why bother? You are simply attempting to re-classify a dead horse as living, but impaired.... The way ahead is already clear, with major car manufacturers investing billions.....

[@holeshothunter5544]

What about the extreme storage tank pressures in the car? In an accident the tank say with the valve knocked off, will literally rocket away in an unknown direction, destroying everything in its path.

[@Dai_VR]

I'm not too sure what the point of hydrogen cars would be. From what it sounds like, it just seems like EVs with an extra step. Wouldn't it just make more sense to have an EV than have a car that is fueled with water which is then used to produce electricity inside of it to then make power to the wheels? It would probably be less wasteful as well since you could get electricity from electrical sources that are more efficient than the end result of 22% mentioned in this video for hydrogen cars. I think hydrogen cars probably flopped quite hard because electric vehicles just are better in every way apart from perhaps being quicker to refuel a hydrogen car but that would be probably it. Well, that's my thoughts about this. Keep making interesting videos like these Autotrader; I find them enjoyable and informative.👍

[@Its-Just-Gizmo]

If I remember correctly, Fully Charged once explained hydrogen cars as needing 4 times as much fuel to do the same output as an electric car. You're also still using an electric motor? And still using a battery regardless..... May as well charge the battery like a normal person, rather than trying to figure out yet another development to piggyback the battery.... I've just bought a mk7.5 golf GTE, and wow. It's absolutely incredible. Yes, it's limited to under 30 miles on ev mode but frankly, I rarely go further than that in one go. But the crucial thing I'm learning is, it works better than you could imagine in hybrid (or GTE mode!!) Because it's using the motor to supplement the engine, constantly. So you feel no turbo lag, and you have immediate torque... It's ridiculous actually lol. Unfortunately going full ev isn't gonna work with my current situation. But, maybe my next car is an ID3...... Or maybe it's a mk8 golf GTE..... 😎

[@pauln0371]

If you only get 22% efficiency for a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car then it's just a complete waste of time, effort and resources to bother. BEV is the only future for Cars.

[@stevescholey3479]

It’s true that hydrogen is challenging to produce, but this will improve. Car sales will improve when the infrastructure is their, it’s the same story as BEV’s. Then long-haul vehicles will go hydrogen, this will deliver the infrastructure (remember the introduction of diesel cars around 1995). Both BEV’s and Hydrogen will be prominent in the market, customer needs will direct the choice. We need to increase clean electricity production AND change our lifestyles to use less electricity/power if we want to protect our beautiful planet.

[@Brian-om2hh]

But nobody will invest in hydrogen infrastructure if hardly anyone is buying hydrogen cars....... Nobody spent a fortune building roads or railways before cars and trains were developed......

[@yes8032]

Hydrogen makes more sense to me than electric imo although I’d still prefer a combustion car

[@Brian-om2hh]

The costs wouldn't. Hydrogen cars have lousy efficiency, and the cost of refuelling is higher..... Which part makes more sense? I'm curios....

[@AhmedSallams]

It's a good point, but I know an engineer who use the water directly side to side with a gas engine to increase the performance and use less fuel. It's a kind of hypered car (gas and water)

[@shamuelshafin4250]

Whatever you said, I agreed. But still, East or West, Tesla is the best. ＼(°o°)／

[@esquire9445]

The appealing thing about electric is charging in your garage at home. Hydrogen needs to have an at home charging system

[@redbaron6805]

There is no way to have a at home charging system for Hydrogen. Residential zoning rules would never allow for a Hydrogen generator and storage to be located inside a home or a residential area. A couple of Hydrogen stations have exploded already, one in Norway, and one in CA. That is obviously not something you would want in the garage of your neighbor.

[@esquire9445]

@@redbaron6805 thank you for talking out your butt.

[@Wroe]

Thats a big market planes trains and HGV'S Too many problems with EV ..... hydrogen seems straight forward and a replacement for normal fossil fuels

[@darrylmusic7839]

it must be because of more money to make in electric cars? Not so much in Hydrogen cars, but once all the gas cars are gone buying a used electric car is going to be expensive ! because to buy a new battery for one of these electric cars is 15 to 20 grand WOW! So of course the big car making companies want them to keep them rich!

[@vailydragon]

Well structured and excellently presented🙂

[@Rosseboi]

Electric cars aren't much cleaner when you factor in battery manufacturing and lithium/cobalt mining. It's just early days tech which is why the hydrogen generation is so inefficient

[@crilako]

One added issue with hydrogen that is seldomly or never mentioned, is that when combusted it produces water vapor (not liquid water as some claim), and water vapor is a greenhouse gas (yes, the ones that contribute to the effect of the same name). It's actually a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

[@jonb5493]

Normal concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere hugely exceeds anything that hydrogen-burning mechanisms could add - so this is insignificant. There is only one issue, that passenger vehicles are not a suitable application for hydrogen power.

[@crilako]

@@jonb5493 I don't know man, usually, mass production has a way to scale the numbers to problematic levels. I took this issue from a study on the scale of comparable numbers to gasoline engine vehicles some years ago, and they concluded that it was an exchange from a greenhouse gas for another only that water vapor was a more potent greenhouse gas. I wish I could point you to the study but It has been some time.

[@PaulinhoThompson]

Hopefully we'll end up with some bright spark developing the Field Resonance Propolsion Concept Car :D another great video Rory.

[@megauploader]

Great video Rory. A small correction - Solid state batteries charge slower than Nickel-Cadmium but with longer range. Pls check a video Bjorn Nyland put up of the Mercedes benz solid state bus...

[@stauffap]

If you are serious about limiting global warming as much as possible you're just not going to be advertising for hydrogen fueled cars just like you're not going to be heating your home with a hydrogen burner. You'll advertise for electric cars and heat pumps because you'll get the same thing but you need far less energy for it. If you heated your house with hydrogen you'd need 6 times the amount of energy compared to heat pump. If you wanted to drive an hydrogen fuel cell car or even worse an ICE with e-fuels you'd need about 2-6 times the amount of renewable electricity. And we're already far behind schedule in regards to building renewable energy sources.

[@bewhee]

It looks to me like hydrogen is just another form of storing energy. Either you store it in a battery or a hydrogen tank, it doesn't really matter to me. I don't think one is a cleaner fuel than the other. It all depends how you make the energy in the first place. What matters most to me is that it's the right balance of price vs convenience. I don't want to spend 30 min charging a battery so I will only buy a BEV when that time drops to 10 min (including waiting in line).

[@PiefacePete46]

bewhee: A HUGE proportion of EV charging is done at home for most owners. Electricity can be sent down wires... Hydrogen, Petrol, and diesel cannot.

[@stevemason914]

Ok, as a motorcyclist I’m concerned that the only emission is water….is this stored or does it dribble out of the exhaust and will then leave a layer of ice on our winter roads??

[@arthurgriffin6270]

Could you include the hydrogen engines used buy JCB ? As to where they stand in the mix.

[@David_J_B]

I like both technologies. EV seems to be the way forward for cars at the moment, but H2 seems to be a good idea for big company vehicles. Maybe H2 will have a bigger role with variant fuel cells being developed that don't need the rare elements...then we might see H2 cars more, but that's likely a way off.

[@tumelo9680]

The chemistry lecture was awesome!

[@SolveEtCoagula93]

Totally agree with everything you've said Rory BUT don't forget that a petrol engine can only be around 25% efficient at best. So, using your analogy, for every 4 litres you put in the car you use 1 litre to power the car and might just as well throw the other 3 litres down the drain - only don't because that's silly, probably illegal and you'd be missing the point I'm trying to make.