Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Aren't The Dumbest Thing. But... | Answers With Joe

[@리주민]

I just use coal in my car. Shovelling as I drive.

[@32Rats]

I just use wood, my car destroys 6 entire trees every 100 miles

[@tttm99]

Mine burns grass, has shift eyes, whinnies, and can't be trusted... Edit: Is yours on rails by any chance? Sounds awesome! Those Brazilians have done heaps to improve efficiency too. Should take a look...

[@sunuk1915]

Send me once

[@리주민]

@Drew Peacock Ill save some of my coal for your stockings, you naughty person 😁🌰

[@harrymichaels3877]

That’s a steam train

[@mistakenintegrity]

Man. This is the only channel where I don’t skip or abandon any videos. You choose amazing topics, and break them down beautifully. And your dry sense of humor is really the cherry on top.

[@joescott]

Thanks man!

[@thinkabout288]

i had to back it up a few times but awesome info 👋👋👋 always

[@studygodsword5937]

@@joescott the problem with all these electric cars is that the electrical grid will not handle it ! California was already having several brownouts this summer !

[@studygodsword5937]

@@joescott your numbers are way off, turning fossil fuels into electricity loses about 60% of the energy, you did not include that !

[@davidrh74]

​@@studygodsword5937 You can install solar at home and be independent of the grid

[@Mike504]

Still smoother with the ladies than I am.

[@michaelm8973]

Oof

[@richnokes5127]

The more u ignore women... The more they r interested in u... No Joke

[@tomwilson2112]

This is true. And I am sad now. Also single. For a good reason.

[@samr.england613]

@@richnokes5127 There's truth in that.

[@matbat2909]

@@richnokes5127 can confirm. but gets awkward if you get several women interested in you and you can speak to none of them :c

[@StormsandSaugeye]

"Are you turned on right now?" "What?" "What?"

[@raaedbucksimiar8673]

😂

[@loinnirs1232]

Wait-wait-wait, Joe can actually leave the room? Mind = blown

[@MrGman590]

Holy crap, he has legs! He's not a chairtaur!

[@thisismacom3723]

This sounds more accurate now

[@warpdrive9229]

I thought someone or something stops him from leaving his home 😂

[@adrianroed2178]

6:35 but you have to multiply the percentages(well, the power efficiencies), not add them, so it would be 49.9% and 81.3% efficiency respectively. With the way you're doing the math, a system with 2 times 50% efficiency would result in literally no energy output, while in reality, it would have an energy output of 25% Aaaaand you make the same mistake in all other percentage calculations.

[@meat-hook]

It's cumulative not compound.

[@Joeleesander]

These comments are gold, cuz I just don't trust this dudes reporting

[@PhysicsManual]

It depends how he calculated these results. He does say this results in "another" X% loss of efficiency, so you could imagine he calculates them compound then shows the additive effect... although for the life of me i cannot understand why someone would do this because thats just confusing as hell....

[@kevinrudd9096]

Instead on every one guesing, Y dosn't he clear the air, by explaining his calculations to reach his Conclusion. Thats all.

[@dinoschachten]

Hahaha, realised that, too. But then I thought "no... he must have done the math to calculate what percentage it shaves of the total...". He probably just did it wrong. But the bottom line remains mostly untouched. Though I'm pretty sure he didn't subtract anything for the conversion of energy for battery-electric cars. Say your electric car was running on electricity from a coal power plant etc.

[@TownsGroup]

“I got a green on.” Joe you have made my day. 😂😂😂

[@IgabodDobagi]

lol at "Something went wrong there." best intro ever.

[@parkchau]

Joe that’s intro was comedy gold. I can’t wait for more skits from you. This will be a great year for you

[@thebetterjulien5354]

I was dieing laughing

[@SobeCrunkMonster]

Are you stroking his green on 8===D 0:

[@thebetterjulien5354]

@@SobeCrunkMonster y

[@craigstuckey319]

Loved it! More please!

[@rickdees251]

It was mostly lost on me because I thought is was a bit childish. Glad for those who like it though.

[@nellyfarnsworth7381]

I got such a huge green on. Talk dirt to me.

[@traianima]

you had the perfect oportunity to say "talk clean to me" :))

[@pbarrick03]

Talk dirty.. I drive a v8 baby lol

[@Legolo]

Trees

[@HermanWillems]

Not talk "clean" to me?

[@spc.callahan1462]

Green weenie

[@AnEnemyAnemone1]

6:00 when calculating the efficiencies, shouldn’t you be multiplying instead of adding/subtracting? For example, if I put energy through system A which is 60% efficient, then through system B which is 50% efficient, the entire process has an efficiency of (50% * 60% =) 30%. Either I’m missing something or a science channel has just screwed up high school math. Edit: looks like many others have pointed this out in the comments. I guess I shouldn’t have expected too much from a pop sci channel

[@QuantumShenna]

You're right. This doesn't make a huge difference, but the correct numbers, given the efficiencies listed in the video, are: 81% efficient for electric vehicles 50% efficient for hfc vehicles, discounting hydrogen generation losses 34% efficient for hfc vehicles with hydrogen generation losses. and he did the math for gas cars correctly

[@th3b0yg]

@The Truth of the Matter he is...but that doesn't fix the problem. With one big system you still multiply efficiencies, not add.

[@Kris_M]

The losses could be expressed against the initial 100% input. How much of our 100% input goes to what? 20% to loss A, 20% to loss B, and 60% effective use. You can add these losses up. But expressed as sequential efficiencies that would be A is 80%, B is 75%, and those you can't add up. The former also fits with displaying the losses on a pie chart.

[@urbancraft2372]

Thank you! Yes! Very suspect numbers

[@movax20h]

If you take a loss x, and loss y, for small values of x and y, x+y is very close to 1-(1-x)*(1-y), because: it is 1 - (1 - x - y - xy) = x+y+xy, for small values of x and y, the term x*y is extremally small and can be ignored. It can be ignored even if only one of them is small, and the other is kind of average. 3% and 30%. Simple way: 33% total loss. Actual loss: 32%.

[@larrywest42]

Coming to this almost 4 years late, I think it's held up pretty well - exceptionally well considering how active this area is. And also, I hope @Joe Scott revisits this topic in a year or so.

[@danielwackerman7749]

Joe, LOVE your channel and its content. 15 years ago as an advisor to local government I tried to implement Fuel cell vehicles for a small municipality in Alaska. The grid there is ran by small waterfall hydro-electric plants...near zero recurring cost and near zero emissions!! (outside of construction). Also of note; Alaska and the western part of our continent is lined with Volcanoes useful for geothermal energy production with near zero emission and recurring cost, GREAT for producing Hydrogen!. Our calculations showed enough geothermal energy (beyond development)to run the entire "hydrogen economy" without any burden on the current system. I and the committee were told behind closed doors that 'No part of this will be subsidized or funded by the government as it is competing directly with the interests of our campaign funders" ! It was a major lesson in the realities of adult life. Sadly, the government invested in 'Bio-fuel' burning wood chips and in Big-oil. Hard to compete with Big-oil when the government offers strong subsidies, tax breaks and incentives to 'big-oil' while excluding clean energy tech. We tried to work with Icelandic New Energy with their extensive fuel cell expertise. Not sure how to proceed without support, we were told to drop the projects.

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

Daniel Wackerman Damn that’s a depressing, yet unsurprising story... One of the biggest problems with the US right now is the fact that our tax payer dollars go to the multi-billion dollar oil companies for “research and development” 🙄 Why, oh why can’t we reroute all that money to green energy tech like you’ve explained here!? Anyways, keep up the good fight and get the local people involved! Educate them and tell them to call their representatives and demand change or they can kiss their cushiony DC offices goodbye!

[@Pining_for_the_fjords]

@@TheAmericanAmerican Time to move to Europe where we take renewable energy seriously (especially in Iceland).

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

Conway79 Hahahaha haha.... ha! Man... I already did!!! Seriously! 🤣

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

Conway79 Greetings from Deutschland! 😁

[@Pining_for_the_fjords]

@@TheAmericanAmerican Guten Tag from England!

[@alexbutragueno737]

Some of the comments are forgetting that not everyone lives in the US/UK. For example I live in Spain where getting an EV isn't an option because how we live. We live in apartments and the older ones haven't a parking lot. We are not able to charge an EV when we are at home or at work. And so a hydrogen car is a good solution for us. I think that Japan has the same problem, that's why their government is investing in fuel-cell cars. It's a good solution for people that doesn't live in an "American-like" suburb.

[@tommym1966]

Exactly this. The bulk of the worlds urban population doesn't live in houses with garages. They live in apartments or blocks with on street parking. For most of these fuel cells make more sense.

[@srikanna4597]

You still have to park somewhere. It's easy to add a charge point anywhere. yes. It may be not there currently. But we have electricity everywhere. It's not that hard or expensive to add charge points. And don't forget, building a hydrogen infrastructure is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive.

[@tommym1966]

@@srikanna4597 Petrol stations are everywhere and can be converted. Adding charge points to every street with multiple connections would be a massive investment. The obvious solution is a mix of hydrogen and EV options and no doubt Toyota sees that as the future.

[@TabulaRasa001]

I've seen some cities like Paris looking to add charging stations for street parking as well.

[@SmR8008]

We are starting to see charging points in some streets in the UK and many larger employers are installing the same. However I favour the hydrogen solution, specifically for the range/mileage. Having to charge an EV every 100 miles or so doesn't sit well with me. If I did a 400 mile journey, that could add an extra 3-4 hrs to my journey😕

[@chrismccormack8237]

The math was off on the percent efficiencies. For Hydrogen, it should have been .96 x .94 x .92 x .60 = .498 or about 50% efficient For EV, it should have been .96 x .94 x .92 x .98 = .814 or about 81% efficient It still comes out in favor of EVs, but bad math bothers me.

[@dtgs4502]

Same mistake for same topic by Real Engineering.

[@misium]

Errors like that live a bad taste.

[@myjizzureye]

@@misium O.o ...... live?

[@Traq]

The first percentages for hydrogen are losses and need to be converted to factors as you did. the operational efficiency has already been converted. Thus: .96 x .94 x .92 x .42 = ,348 -> 35% efficiency

[@Traq]

@Marc Jackson I was just going by the 42% given in the video

[@jeremyg9323]

"My car makes ozone" sir, that is a chemical hazard

[@리주민]

And it shoots it up into the stratosphere!

[@theundead1600]

The ozone is very fragile and wont fix the whole. But good try

[@tttm99]

Indeed! Yes! "Ehem... But... Actual science" 🤔🤣 Edit: Short version, STP comparison O2 density(0 °C, 101.325 kPa) 1.429 g/L vs O3 2.144 g/L (0 °C) Photo copiers also make the stuff. At 2.144 grams per litre at 0 degrees and standard pressure vs O2's 1.429, I don't know how anyone thinks a heavier molecule (edit: i should say more dense gas) 'shoots up to the stratosphere either'. Maybe on the back of the greenwash unicorn? (Edit: previous extraneous mention of mole was a revenant of older edit; elided to preserve fragile minds. Though 'what i meant' should still have been abundantly clear unless the reader's density was more an issue than the gases in question 😉) Also not sure how we'd be breathing if ozone did make its way up high too. (Edit: implying lighter O2 wouldn't stick around for us to breathe) Don't mention anything about the mining of rare earths, lithium, etc. You'll break hearts.

[@stephenfowler4115]

The danger of ozone is like many others. It depends on where its at. Ozone where we breathe is dangerous. Ozone in the upper atmosphere we can't live without.

[@stephenfowler4115]

Lol carbon fiber isn't made from carbon dioxide. Its made from graphite probably made from fossil fuels.

[@dantess2693]

That intro was just fantastic. Your intros and content are just getting better and better Joe!

[@eugeneputin1858]

Blatant copy from throttle house though

[@jeremyturner2873]

A parody is not a copy.

[@kaptu100]

Fiss the dog!

[@johndill7290]

I agree. I really like to see creativity and he continues innovate and provides entertainment and knowledge. I am very close to becoming a patreon.

[@tonyduncan9852]

I want just the intro. I want just the intro. I want just the intro. I want just the intro. I want just the intro. I want just the intro.

[@joscaca]

“I’ve got a green-on”. I like it.

[@Tom_Hensley]

What about a big pickle do for you? Pickle Rick

[@Tom_Hensley]

Joe wont even give mema like, I'm sad

[@ianmacfarlane1241]

@joscaca Some people have a green finger, some people have a green thumb, it would appear that Joe has a green....... ..........little Joe. (Kept it clean).

[@Tom_Hensley]

@@ianmacfarlane1241 I hear he keeps a glossy shine to it...

[@jorants]

Just as a note: you can not sum percentage losses, you have to multiply the efficiencies.

[@WhoIsTheEdman]

Sure you can! Take the example of someone trying to build a solar-powered go-kart with a shop vac motor: Solar panels are ~22% percent efficient, which represents an energy loss of 78 percent, and the universal motors that are used in shop vacuums are about 60% efficient, which represents a loss there of 40 percent. You take 78% + 40% to get a total efficiency of -118%, which means that energy from the sun is actually *destroyed* in order for the solar go-kart to do no work. Mathematically, we can prove that with enough solar panel + shop vac motors, we can reduce the power of the sun to prevent global warming. Hope that helps!

[@MattJDylan]

@@WhoIsTheEdman "old spice is so powerfull that it can turn off the sun! But then it gets too cold, so it makes another sun... DOUBLE SUN POWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

[@daxterminator599]

The only point you need to multiply is when you go from the production to the actual efficiency while driving. As long as you reference the same total fuel as 100%. So if you lose 2L of gas during transport, 5L during storage, 20L during drilling and refinement and so on, and you started out with an ideal 100L of gas you do end up with a 27% loss. Then again I don't know how he got his percentages so it might be either way.

[@williamneal9076]

@@WhoIsTheEdman I thought percentage goes only 100 or less.

[@inconspicuoususername]

@@williamneal9076 There are plenty of scenarios where it's acceptable to have a percentage of over 100, but his entire comment is meant to be a joke anyways.

[@WillTellU]

I remember hearing about this hydrogen plan and one more thing they mention as an advantage is those local hydrogen stations would also act as batteries for renewable energy. So every gas station would be a small power station too, evening out the grid power.

[@mikehink4062]

That intro was fantastic on so many levels 😂

[@martythemartian99]

Erm... no... no it wasn't ;)

[@AHustleIsLikeASideOfFries]

A "green on", love it!

[@unnamedchannel1237]

So much sexual tension

[@moflyboyblanquito541]

Was good. Lol

[@zachm4635]

That was the best intro yet

[@milkywegian]

Reeeeeeee

[@lilrabbit8203]

So true

[@opheliabawles9646]

That was better than when Gerald got a Toyota Pious in South Park.

[@metanumia]

Bork, bork, bork, BOOORRRK!!!

[@nyax129]

best intro yet man!!!!

[@mildlifeisatrisk5727]

Bork bork bork 😊

[@ryanmcfall1127]

I think your math was off, the percentages should be multiplicative not additive

[@Dogfurforever]

Twas loses

[@GeneralBlackNorway]

A small correction for you, you don't add/subtract percentages together, you multiply them to get the correct result. For example if you add (subtract) 50% and 50% you get 0 (0.5 - 0.5 = 0), but in reality it is 25% (0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25). So the corrected percentages would be *33.97%* efficiency for Hydrogen electric and *77.29%* efficiency for battery electric. For gas I calculated the efficiency at 14.69% (on this one we seem to be in agreement xD).

[@ThisRandomUsername]

Edit 2: I really should start watching until the end before correcting people. You're entirely correct with your calculations for the values Joe put in the video. The additional losses during production and transportation do give me *33.97%* efficiency and *77.29%* for batteries. Yes! A small correction on your correction: 100% (energy in hydrogen) * 96% (electric motor efficiency) * 94% (inverter efficiency) * 92% (charging efficiency) * 60% (fuel cell efficiency) is 49,8% for fuel cells, and 81,36% for batteries. Edit 1: loss -> efficiency

[@GeneralBlackNorway]

@@ThisRandomUsername You forgot the production of hydrogen, he mentioned that the best case scenario there was another 20% loss! Idk what you missed with the battery calculation, but watch through the whole video, not all are mentioned in the same place.

[@ThisRandomUsername]

@@GeneralBlackNorway Of course! Sorry, I had paused the video when I noticed his mistake, and went to comment about it, saw your comment, and noticed the discrepancy. My bad.

[@GeneralBlackNorway]

@@ThisRandomUsername No problem man :D Always nice to see other people pay attention and care to correct me, even though you got it wrong this time xD

[@andremoreiragraca]

you, sirs, are SUPER NERDS! (tchun run)

[@Shimon-ohayon]

Somewhere in America someone is now creating "EV's" porn category

[@1MarkKeller]

Oooooooo! I got a green-on!

[@BaronVonQuiply]

Rule 34, it's already out there. I'm serious... there's porn of dragons banging car tailpipes so I'm certain one of those will be EV.

[@PhilipTheThrill]

Electric Vaginas

[@fischX]

Charge me up with your plug!

[@hydrolifetech7911]

@@BaronVonQuiply wait, how exactly did you find this out?

[@eannamcnamara9338]

That intro was absolutely amazing!😂

[@theword7268]

ITA, great funny intro

[@PeterKnagge]

Even more hilarious is that virtually the same technocratic pissing contest is happening right here in the comment section. Every side equally dogmatic, nutty, AND WRONG! /popcorn

[@benfaust]

I was planning to comment on the intro too. Loved it!

[@dawnofapril3055]

When I made the choice between a Nissan Leaf and Toyota Mirai, the biggest concerns I had about the Mirai was how expensive the hydrogen is and how few stations outside of California there are. So I went with the Leaf. If they can get the cost down and the infrastructure built, it will definitely be a competitor.

[@LaunchPadAstronomy]

Agree 100 on the idea of HFCs vs. EVs. It's not a zero-sum game and I can see a market for both. Excellent job as usual Joe and that was a fantastic intro to boot!

[@1_2_die2]

More like HFC + EV vs. ICE

[@homomorphic]

Ok, you still seem to be absolutely 100% ignorant, since you use the incorrect acronyms FCV and EV rather than the actual acronyms which is FCEV (Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle) and BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle). I have both a Chevy Bolt and a Toyota Mirai (I have put 52,000 miles on the MIrai) and I can assure you that both vehicles are EVs.

[@LaunchPadAstronomy]

@@homomorphic thanks, there's quite a few acronyms out there so I wasn't sure if I was using the correct terms. And thank you for the kind words, and for driving electric!

[@tigertoo01]

Where do you park your car at the moment? Do you have a car? Why can't your parking spot have a charge point? It doesn't have to be connected directly to meter at home. There will be companies who will provide this service for countries such as yours

[@davidrosner6267]

Technologies developed for one type of EV may in some cases apply to the other... ...both the FCEV and BEV markets will continue to grow as they are currently until one starts to predominate and becomes the eventual successor to gasoline. BEVs are taking off faster but both are rapidly emerging technologies...

[@briankachelman]

That has to be one of the funniest intro's to a video i have seen in a while!!! "Green-on" lmao!!!

[@dupree314]

It was terrible. I wish I had not seen it, I will now have to think less of Joe for ever more, and I really don't want to.

[@vikranttyagiRN]

@@dupree314 lighten up

[@joshuakerger2897]

Especially seeings it’s a hard on no matter what the inspiration. It got a Li’l korny for a touch but I’m thinking he still pulled it off. No offence intended especially as I could be mistaken for being autistic at times and anxiety is a bitch but.. Even though it was clearly scripted and was even emphasising that a bit but I reckon he played the part of himself pretty well and that’s definitely how it could’ve gone down. The fuck do I feel the urge to comment on every second video, as if it matters in the slightest what I think?... Pretend I never said anything... Actually, pretend I said something extremely witty, insightful, borderline hilarious, slightly offensive to some, triggering-ly offensive to others but true. Maybe add something in the end there just raising some awareness for a charity or two. Then if it isn’t too much trouble, could you please just go door to door around your neighbourhood for like... only a month or three and collect some donations for said charities... by force if necessary... It’s for a great cause.. But you must never, ever, under any circumstance, assume someone’s gender. I just feel funny about this. One of the most sadistic things one could do to another..Absolutely horrific. Evidently now just dribbling and don’t know what we will spend all the money on at the end... maybe matching face tattoos .. Just something for yas to think about... it’s an open discussion so hit me up on my pager with ideas.. Cocaine?? Anyways, peace out

[@SDsc0rch]

typical feminist... she did him a favor

[@colleenforrest7936]

Green-on, game off ... ooops!

[@JMDinOKC]

The putative hydrogen economy that was promoted in the 60s and 70s was predicated on the assumption that the electric power for the hydrogen economy would be supplied by nuclear power, which was going to be too cheap to meter. Addendum: I really didn't expect that a historical remark that I posted almost as an afterthought would ignite a War of the Commenters. The exchange (which is the same kind of euphemism as "nuclear exchange", yes, sarcasm intended) is worth its own Joe video.

[@neutrino78x]

it would be, if people weren't afraid of it. instead you have groups like greenpeace which ironically try everything they can to make nuclear the most expensive form of power...even tough it does not pollute their air and water at all.

[@Fernweh4x4andadventure]

Is their potential to use salt or salty water as a catalyst to make hydrogen, I know you mentioned electrolysis takes a bit of power, but considering we already have de-salination plants producing clean water the by product is salty water that’s pumped back into the sea, couldn’t we use that (thought there was a car that ran in salt water? )

[@danielgloyd4529]

@Mr Cabot Show me on the doll where the nuclear power plant hurt you. There are multiple hundreds of nuclear power plants in operation around the world the vast majority with no incident ever in their lifespan. The technology has vastly improved from the 70s and 80s when we stopped building them in the USA. Yes it was because of lobbyists and fearmongering.

[@costakeith9048]

@Mr Cabot Though many of your points are just plain wrong, there are several nuclear power plants currently operating that use salt, not fresh, water, for example, the biggest problem is you offer no effective alternative. Solar simply isn't economically viable and will likely never be, it simply doesn't effectively scale like other forms of power production and it can't be reliably and consistently produced. Solar is a waste of money that would be better used for almost any other form of power generation (with the possible exception of wind, another horribly inefficient and unreliable power source). Solar also relies on rare earth metals, which are no more common in the earth's crust than uranium, but are needed in far greater quantities for solar energy production than uranium for fission energy production. So-called 'renewables' (with the exception of hydroelectric) are a fool's errand. If you want a real solution to energy production, deregulate nuclear and indemnify nuclear power producers from liability for damages that happen due to events outside their control, we'll see electricity prices fall by an order of magnitude, the economic benefit of which would more than make up for the occasional loss of containment; and, despite all the fear-mongering about radiation, it's not nearly as dangerous as people want to claim. The only real challenger to deregulated nuclear power would be natural gas, which being almost free and enjoying exceedingly low transportation costs due to the nation-wide pipeline network, will remain an attractive alternative for centuries to come.

[@costakeith9048]

​@Mr Cabot The weapons aspect is simply a beneficial side effect of the nuclear industry, regardless of what energy source we use it is imperative that we lead the world in thermonuclear warfare capabilities. As concerned as you are about global warming, nuclear war is a more pressing and immediate threat, something highly likely to have a significant impact on the world within a decade or two, and we need to ensure we are in a position to win that war. We have a slight edge over Russia today, but things would look a lot brighter if we had more reserves and if we had our missiles outfitted with their maximum number of warheads. But I think you made it clear where you're coming from, you're just afraid of nuclear war and are transferring this irrational fear into an even more irrational fear of nuclear power. Nuclear technology, including weaponry, is just part of the world today and we have to accept that it eventually will be employed again. Whether you're making a bomb or a power plant, nothing is as good as nuclear.

[@randomjoao]

Did you just add the efficiencies? It hurted my feelings.

[@ChayComas]

He uses "Alternative-maths" ... Lol

[@headerahelix]

Whoops

[@TOMiX1024]

I hate to be pedantic here, but the efficiencies multiply and don't sum up... So 50% loss at one stage and 50% loss at another stage does not give you 0%, but 25% = (100%-50%) * (100%-50%) So at 6:36 the total loss for hydrogen fuel cells is approx. 50.2% and the efficiency is approx. 49.8%. For the batteries the error is not that big: It's roughly 18.6% loss and 81.4% efficiency. But that does not make me not love your videos!

[@kolelokaram8541]

Correct I'm surprised that no one else pointed that out.

[@TOMiX1024]

@@kolelokaram8541 It's a very common mistake, though. And for small losses (in this context) the introduced error is very small.

[@MNSalbert]

I was about to say it too. Thanks for saving me the time to calculate the percentages 👍

[@firebush1343]

never mind the minor fact that water vapor is the worst greenhouse gas.....

[@AngelLestat2]

and many other errors with efficiencies and data: List of all the things he is wrong: 1-Fuel cells vehicles are also EV, to difference fuel cell from batteries you should use FCEV or BEV. 2-The extra range is not much about the weight (but it helps), is about cost! To double the range with batteries you need to double the amount of batteries which doubles the cost, with fuel cells you just need to increase the tank diameter by 25%. 3-The power from the fuel cell goes directly to the engine most of the time, the battery is very small and it is almost always at full, it is used to keep systems on or in standby. 4-Today the energy of compression is 12%, but now there are new methods that compress hydrogen by electrochemical compression which is more silent, it takes way less space, and more efficient 8% for 700 bar. 5-Is not about efficiency, is about cost! And here's the best benefit of hydrogen, because it could be used to balance the grid using just intermittent sources like solar and wind, with over production and splitting water with all the excess and injecting all that h2 to the natural gas grid, that h2 can be extracted pure in any point of the net with simple filters and be used in all the apps which batteries are not good like (trucks, ships, airplanes, or any utility vehicle), solving the co2 problem in those 2 energy sectors in which batteries and clean sources cant by their own. You can make hydrogen when the electricity cost is cheap, even negative. So some days you would be almost doing hydrogen for free, batteries can not take advantage of those times because they can only store energy over 4 hours in a cost efficient way, hydrogen can store power over months. 6- When hydrogen infrastructure and devices will start to cover more applications, it means anyone would be able to make hydrogen in their own houses, they would be even able to inject hydrogen into the natural gas grid and get paid by that, the same as we do with the power grid from solar panels. 7- Electrolysis efficiency today is at 83% (with 20 bar compression) or 90% without compression, and you can achieve up to 100% with the new reversible solid oxide fuel cells in development, because they use the waste heat from the fuel cell mode to reduce the amount of electricity needed for the electrolysis mode, no need for platinum. 8- Why a FCEV would have higher loss in the motor and in the inverter vs a BEV?? Have you lost your mind?? 9- It does not matter if the power source is clean or not, we have to start from somewhere and batteries and hydrogen helps to increase the share of solar and wind into the power grid. 10- The cost of gasoline is the same than hydrogen, it requires only 5 kg of hydrogen to match the range of a gasoline vehicle. In addition if hydrogen is used to balance the excess of power, then it would become much cheaper, because today there is no cheaper energy source than solar and wind. 11- What is the future for hydrogen?? you even bother to make a research?? Take a look to China, Japan, Australia, germany, england wants to start, and many other countries.. All are starting with small projects of hydrogen production and injecting the h2 into the natural gas grid. China has prepare millions of fuel cell buses and trucks for 2021. About cars.. for city cars, BEV are more reasonable, for vehicles that requires higher range or fast recharge, then FCEV are more reasonable. Is not a competence.. Both technologies help, both full fill different roles.

[@daveydwhite]

More intro sketches!!! 😅😂🤣

[@DriesduPreez]

Definitely more intro sketches!

[@WilcoVerhoef]

Yes! I really like Joe's acting.

[@DxBlack]

No.

[@daithimac5785]

@@DxBlack Yes

[@chrisd6736]

What if instead of semi trucks carrying hydrogen, they used zeppelins!?! Boom. Problem solved.

[@vonshroom2068]

Indeed...BOOM! XD Sorry had to...

[@neojack333]

just repurposing the oil pipelines would do

[@Sonex1542]

@@neojack333 that is ridiculous. H2 needs to be under pressure and cold, like really cold. Petroleum pipelines won't work. H2 is a dumb idea. It's completely inefficient, dangerous, bad for the environment, it should be killed as an idea.

[@MicrophonicFool]

You're on FIRE!

[@tiagotiagot]

Boom. Oh, the humanity!

[@Meatball2022]

“Green-on”. Lol. I admit. That was funny

[@ptolemyauletesxii8642]

Electricity is not nearly as ubiquitous and accessible as proponents of electic cars make out. I am a huge fan of electric cars, but a lot of videos like this one are made with North America in mind, where the majority of people have at least a driveway, if not a garage, where they park their car. In Europe most people park on the street, and often not anywhere close to where they live. I live in an apartment complex with parking out front just off the road, and further parking in behind the buildings. Even if I manage to get a spot out front of my flat, I would need to dangle an extension cord out the window, across the walkway to the entrance of the building, and over some bushes. If I have to park out back my car is 150 meters away from my flat, and surrounded by storage garages. In Europe creating the sort of infrastructure needed to charge electric cars 'at home' would require an enormous investment on the part of homeowners, local councils, landlords, etc. It's a real problem here for electric cars.

[@carlosbah4623]

And the electrical power increase at the garages, with hundreds of cars would require massive changes in electrical wiring, more powerststions and substation for each garage. Not feasible in most Europe where people lives in flats, piled with zero energy autonomy. No room for massive solar panels set up.

[@superwolf95]

yeah, in italy most old towns and big centers ban cars, i have to park mine 300m from my door basically in the middle of the country. The only possible solution to this is charging station for every parking spot, 4 millions of them in italy alone.

[@mattetjus]

Do you ever use your car to go grocery shopping? like most people? -> problem most likely solved..

[@jamesfarrell1116]

Greetings from Atlantic City New Jersey

[@matthewwriter9539]

Charge your car while you are at work.

[@picoallen]

A lot of people have on-street parking or live in flats where home charging isn't possible. Hydrogen may be the best solution in that case.

[@DjDolHaus86]

Unless we want a bunch of loose extension cables trailing dangerously across the pavement in 20yrs time we already need to start making amendments to the routing and scale of underground power networks. Major service installations like this takes years to do particularly when you're potentially talking about installing charging points on every residential street and city block, this of course isn't mentioning the cost for all those man hours and all that extra copper cable. I see a point in the future where EVs are a viable and affordable option for a lot of commuters but they simply can't get one because there is nowhere to plug the thing in overnight

[@cocoshort6528]

@@chauhannishith it may be easier than having hydrogean pumps around tho

[@bobh9492]

Cities already have meters sticking out of every sidewalk, the same can be done for chargers, stop pretending we have to fill every edge case for your convenience.

[@eirobotix3881]

Or there may be a Battery Truck type service that brings a large battery to your car & fast charges it on the spot. You may even allow them remote access to your charge port so you came to walk out to an adequately charged EV as you so desire

[@eirobotix3881]

@Allen Loser becuase batteries can deliver lots of power in a short time which is what you need to recharge an EV quicky. You can do it with a diesel generator but it would be very big & use a lot of diesel which defeats the purpose from a carbon emissions & cost point if view. A 250kW engine-generator would look like a Genset that powers a building in a blackout scnerio. It is essentially the engine out of a large truck or earth moving piece of equipment with a massive generator & all the associated peripheral systems. They are far more complex, expensive, polluting & many other negatives than a similar battery energy system.

[@besmart]

I learned a ton from this video, great job!

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

Some corrections that you should be aware of: HFCVs are not lighter than BEVs. The Model 3 weighs less than the Mirai, has more power and about the same amount of range. You can't produce hydrogen with solar panels right at the filling station, you'd need an absolutely ENORMOUS area of solar panels to keep up with demand and to cover the inefficiency of hydrogen production and use. HFCVs are TERRIBLE performers, the Mirai has less power than most economy cars and is so heavy that it ends up being much slower than most economy cars.

[@riloh58]

It's Okay To Be Smart - I always learn loads from Joe’s videos. An excellent channel indeed.

[@AA-Ashley]

Hey smart people.

[@recoilrob324]

Making hydrogen from natural gas is the cheapest and easiest way.....plus we have LOTS of natural gas and aren't going to run out any time soon. I sit now above the Marcellus deposit which has enough gas to power the entire USA for about 300 years...and that's if we converted all energy uses to natural gas. Yes...LOTS of it. Then...underneath the Marcellus is the Utica...which has multiples as much, so anyone worrying that we'll run out of natural gas is wrong. 'Lets destroy the economy so we won't run out of energy 1000 years from now!' GREAT idea! I'm in....where do I sign?

[@RedBatteryHead]

@@recoilrob324 not a matter of enough. We just wouldn't want to burn more when it can be done without, right!?

[@ChayComas]

Somehow, I don't trust this guy's math; energy loss ratios aren't accumulative.

[@MadScientist267]

What the hell is an "energy loss ratio"?

[@johndelong5574]

But a good aproximation.

[@alfreddupont1214]

@@MadScientist267 Basically, whenever you lose energy, it's a loss in proportion of what remains at that point, not a proportion of the grand total you started with. Example: Two times 20% loss in a row is not 20+20=40% loss but 20+80*20/100 so 36% loss.

[@hypehuman]

Totally agree. Joe's method makes the efficiency difference between Hydrogen and Battery look worse than it really is. His numbers of 42% and 80% make it look like Hydrogen is only about 52% as efficient as battery (42% ÷ 80%). But in fact, if you calculate it properly, you end up with about 50% for Hydrogen and about 81% for Battery, which means Hydrogen would be about 61% as efficient as Battery. If you have two processes one after another that each have a 90% energy loss, you don't end up with negative energy at the end (Joe would have calculated -80% total efficiency). Rather, you end up with 1% total efficiency, since the second process takes off 90% of the 10% remaining from the previous step, meaning the second step only subtracts 9% of the total efficiency. The more straightforward way to calculate this is not with the loss, but with the efficiency, in this case 10% efficiency for each step. Then you can just multiply them to get the total efficiency: 10% × 10% = 1%. So back to the cars. For example, the Electric Motor has a loss of 4%, meaning that it's 96% efficient (100% - 4% = 96%). So for Hydrogen it's 96% × 94% × 92% × 60% ≈ 50%, and for Battery it's 96% × 94% × 92% × 98% ≈ 81%. Also notice that you can get the relative efficiency of 61% more easily by ignoring the first three steps, since they're the same for both. So 60% ÷ 98% ≈ 61%.

[@catocall7323]

@@hypehuman also, he says electricity has a 5% loss on it's way to your battery. IIRC it's closer to 8% - 15%.

[@MobiusHorizons]

Three notes: 1. Steam reforming of methane does release CO2, but Methane is a terrible greenhouse gas, so if you already have it and can't store it, it's actually greener to burn it than to let it escape into the atmosphere. Methane is one of the byproducts of some forms of composting, so it would be entirely reasonable for industrial composting to collect the methane and either store it as fuel, burn it to produce electricity, or steam reform it to produce Hydrogen. 2. Hydrogen is incredibly hard to store, especially at high pressures. The atoms literally leak straight through thick steel tanks. This would be a significant factor in the efficiency of transportation and use of hydrogen as a fuel for cars. IMO this is the single biggest reason not to pursue HFC technology for mobile applications. 3. If you just want to improve on gasoline with a technology that has higher efficiency and lower emissions, Methane is a much better choice than hydrogen. Methane is the cleanest hydrocarbon because it has a 4:1 Hydrogen to Carbon ratio, so you are mostly burning hydrogen, with very little carbon being burned (Octane is 2.25:1 Hydrogen). Methane is much much easier to store than Hydrogen giving equivalent range at much lower pressures lowering the weight of the tanks, and the danger involved in fueling it up. Methane fuel cells do exist and could provide a similar convenient packaging for electric propulsion as HFCs can. But IMO the biggest benefit is that for roughly ~$1000 you can retrofit existing vehicles to run on methane, allowing people to go green without waiting for all the used cars on the market to be replaced. IMO if we want to pursue a stepping stone technology to be used in places where EVs currently fall short, Methane is the way to go.

[@mattyrs4]

Building on this is what we're beginning to see with the new EV models. ~100kW is great for a car. However, for a truck, SUV, or something that's larger/less efficient were seeing batteries that are significantly larger. The announcement of the Tesla Semi brought with it a 1,000kW battery and touted the ability to charge to 80% in 30 minutes. This places a massive load on the power grid. 1 truck would utilize a 600V 2000A 3-phase service. Charging multiple trucks? The grid wasn't designed around this. For cars EVs are pretty sweet. But when you're talking about charging rate of 1.6MW/h you're introducing several issues that are all interrelated. 1. Heat - 1.6MW is a lot of power. 2. Power management - getting it wrong on a little Tesla or even a phone isn't a good day, this is significantly larger. 3. Grid supply and availability - your fleets needs may not be Sympatico with the local infrastructure 4. Heat - management and mitigation will be very important 5. Logistics externally - they don't make 2000A cords 6. Logistics internally - since Superconductors aren't a thing your internal charging system needs to be sufficient for charging at 1.6MW of input. 7. Weight - see above 8. Heat

[@lontongstroong]

Steam methane reforming needs very high energy consumption due to very endothermic nature of the reaction. Not to mention the steam production which is also energy-intensive and requires boiler-grade water. So it would've failed in terms of life cycle assessment. And ever heard of hydrogen storage in form of ammonia? Ammonia is easier to store than hydrogen and methane and conversion process of hydrogen into it is also a mature process (the Haber-Bosch process). Moreover, the reaction is spontaneous (it has negative Gibbs energy), thus allowing robust storage of intermittent electricity from renewables as well.

[@GerbenWulff]

Yes, I think methane has a chance as well. We see many cars on CNG these days and LNG is also growing rapidly for long haul transport in Europe. We can expect these to hybridize, combining CNG/LNG with a battery. The next step is to add a fuel cell. This will allow the gas engine to be downsized or even eliminated. I think what we see is more of an evolution than a revolution. EVs right now are just a niche product. The major change we see now is that traditional gasoline cars are getting replaced by mild hybrids. The traditional car is gone and most people haven't even noticed. Hybridization is increasing rapidly and cars are gradually getting electrified. At one point EVs will have a major share in the car market, but not in the near future.

[@MobiusHorizons]

@@lontongstroong Interesting I thought it was supposed to be more efficient than electrolysis, but I will have to look into it.

[@lontongstroong]

@@MobiusHorizons The process itself is pretty efficient, but it's not particularly green. But improvements have been made, for example replacement of the bulky, inefficient furnace with direct electric induction-based heating science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6442/756.abstract, which is exciting prospect and possibly could make SMR attractive again.

[@Nazarje12]

Efficiencies arent summed, they are multiplied. Except if they are defined in some weird way. Just saying.

[@gobblenater]

matic pečovnik yeah kinda torpedoed his whole point with that basic misunderstanding of how things work. Not even that I disagree but I wouldnt try ti convince anybody with this video.

[@maxk4324]

Depends on how his sources defined it. I bet he found a report that converted all percentages into percent loss from the total energy potential of the initial energy mass. So in the case of gas it was percent loss from the total energy mass of the oil (at least the part of it that makes gasoline) as it comes right out of the ground. In that case it would be summed as it was all normalized off of a single bench mark mass of energy

[@mpoisot]

I wondered about that too. It would be great if Joe could weight in.

[@tahvohck]

He does appear to have multiplied for the Hydrogen efficiency later in the video (for the 27.3% efficiency value) so I suspect Max was correct about the way the sources were found.

[@michaeledwards2251]

He forgot the transmission losses for petrol vehicles giving an overall vehicle efficiency of only 10%. An opposed piston engine can double the fuel efficiency for petrol giving an overall efficiency of 20%. In the hydrogen fuel cell versus battery comparison he forgot the weight of fuel cells is determined by the power level you need but for batteries range determines the weight. It implies for longer ranges fuel cells win because they are lighter reducing losses.

[@StarGazer2001x]

My car runs on dinosaur tears...

[@ronm7114]

how exactly is this funny? Just curious.

[@Sorbe1]

@@ronm7114 My car runs on Liberal Tears LOL

[@radioanon4535]

@Bob Desombre Amobea

[@diymicha4905]

Plastic is made from oil, oil is made from dinosaurs, so plastic dinosaurs are made from real dinosaurs.

[@NihilistAlien]

@@diymicha4905 wow......

[@DerrickNedzelMtnBike]

My wife and I live in the Denver area. When we are driving around town, an EV works great, as far as Colorado Springs or Fort Collins for the day, no problem, we could recharge the car before heading back home. But we regularly drive to Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming camping and pulling a small trailer (17' long, 3300 lbs loaded), then the EV doesn't work at all. Heading west of Denver you have to go over multiple mountain passes, and pulling the trailer, and you need a lot of power, and you need to be able to refuel quickly to keep moving. I don't believe the coming EV pickup trucks will work either, because once I drain the batteries getting up the first mountain pass, I will have to recharge, to make it up the second mountain pass, then charge up again to drive out to where-ever I am going - I may have to stop 3-4 times to recharge, with a large battery pack that could add up to hours of extra travel time, maybe half a day for what normally takes 6 hours with the gas SUV pulling the trailer. Seems like this would be more of an issue for people in the western US where cities are further apart and distances driven might be bigger than in the eastern US and where people do a lot of outdoor activities in areas where there aren't necessarily hotels easily available. Or am I underestimating the capabilities of the coming EV trucks? Seems like a fuel cell truck could do the job though. Thanks for the video, I really enjoyed it!

[@abhirajsutar8260]

You know what, actually that's the reason fuel cell vehicles are first pursued for trucks, semis, and other cargo transport systems, battery powered vehicles won't really boom there that fast(multiple reasons like charging time, charging power, cost, etc). Infact Nikola almost announced a FCEV Truck. I think these technologies can coexist at the same time and they could reach a point where people will choose them the way people choose petrol or diesel nowadays.

[@scottiethegreat74]

Have to agree with you!! As someone from Western Australia, the distances we travel in the country are vast, and batteries just aren't there yet!! It could have worked if batteries had been standardized, so we could drop out a battery, and insert a new one in minutes, at places basically like the gas stations we have now!! That could have worked if companies had been willing to work together!! I don't know if batteries will become good enough for the requirements in places with vast distances to cover, but they are good in city areas.

[@Karl-Benny]

@@scottiethegreat74 you could have a small trailer battery that can easily be swapped

[@nathan43082]

My big problem is with the initial premise: that we must have personal transportation vehicles for everything. Automobiles and their kin have been around for so long that we now take them for granted, forgetting that there used to be a time before them not too long ago, when you had to walk, bicycle or take some form of animal or animal-drawn box from place to place. We’ve actually structured entire living situations around automobiles, especially here in the USA, like suburbia, shopping malls, and the like. There are many places in larger European cities where an automobile is unnecessary for most of the things you do because 1. They have very good public transportation infrastructures and 2. Their cities are more “walkable,” meaning you need not travel far for most of your needs. Perhaps the best, long-term solution is to move away from personal vehicles and our suburbia model, which is really nothing more than a caricature of “country living,” and instead build more walkable areas with public transportation, especially for long distances, so that automobiles are not as necessary.

[@Psycorde]

Personal transport is the ultimate freedom.

[@robsmith1a]

You are correct but I also think people like their own personal space and if they can afford it that is why in general they go for cars. My grandfather used to have a horse and cart, he would stop outside the pub, have a few drinks and then fall in the back of the cart and the horse knew the way home. Self driving cars still can't do that. Where I live life would be very inconvenient without a car but if I lived in central London I would walk / use public transport and not have a car.

[@mycount64]

We live in a capitalist consumer society. Our religion is worshipping stuff to buy working towards this raising progeny to continue this. We attach our value as a person how we contribute to this model. Technology is irrelevant. We are meant to be hunter gathers a d left that 10k years ago. We may or may not evolve through the transition...jury is still out.

[@thematicschematic]

This. The car has been responsible for the atomisation of the human living experience, the destruction of communities and the devastation of the environment. Living in the UK, I have never needed a car, though I still see the damage that particular technology has done to our countryside and cities every day.

[@kevinkent6351]

That’s not going to happen in the US any time soon so get used to it.

[@louisvisagie283]

LOL, BEST INTRO EVER.

[@cesiumion]

We can run every car on electricity if we bring back the THORIUM REACTORS

[@mdxggxek1909]

there is actually a technique to generate hydrogen from nuclear reactors without an electricity step. It's called the Sulfur-iodine cycle

[@Volvith]

@@mdxggxek1909 If i remember correctly the process requires a metric fuckton of heat. (800+ degrees celsius?) There might be some safety-problems with the implementation of this process, but an interesting idea nonetheless...

[@ImpetuouslyInsane]

@@Volvith Most nuclear plants run at that temperature on average anyway, just use the waste heat on way to the exchanger to do the process.

[@Patchuchan]

Thorium really needs to get more funding as it offers most of the advantages of fusion today as thorium reactors have been operated in the past. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

[@Veritas-invenitur]

Thorium Reactors will most likely never take off.

[@patmat.]

5:40 should read "Electrolysis". You need to factor in the weight difference between EV and HV, as well as the energy to make and dispose EV batteries vs H2 cells.

[@jamesthrbr]

In addition, something that is rarely mentioned is the increased road wear of battery vehicles, due to their greater weight compared to HV's. The incremental road repair incurs economic and environmental costs, as well as using additional energy.

[@KimDabelsteinPetersen]

I think one thing was missed here: Hydrogen can be produced in "off-periods" - by this i mean that windturbines produce energy when there is wind, no matter if there is demand or not.. (and yes i know that there are strategies and methods to handle these) - but one way of handling this is to store the extra energy generated in these periods as hydrogen, and then use it later. Basically making the hydrogen the battery in which we store the excess energy.

[@theelectricmonk3909]

Totally agree - and IMHO this is how wind farms (which are currently hooked directly to the grid & have to switch themselves out if demand is low, not to mention the relative complexity of synching them to the grid) SHOULD work. Sure, generate directly to the grid if the demand is there; but if not, any excess = produce & store H2, which can then be burnt (or put through a huge fuel cell) to generate power if there's more demand than there is wind.

[@alterthough]

@@Top_CheezeCan you provide source for your claims?

[@theelectricmonk3909]

@@Top_Cheeze I'm no fan of wind farms - and I do think Nuclear should be given much more of the base load to carry, replacing coal and oil. What would be really nice is if governments got serious about solving the problems associated with fusion power - either the US Polywell system, or the European Tokamak system - doesn't matter which one works first, so long as at least one of them works.

[@musaran2]

Problem is the electrolyzer is then under-utilized. And efficient ones seem to be expensive.

[@blackmesa232323]

@KOB Making hydrocarbons from CO2 is prohibitively expensive >$50 a kg. This would mean that you'd be better off economically making hydrogen than competing with gasoline or natural gas which are much cheaper. The problem with reservoirs is that many of the places that can be dammed are already. You need a large amount of water, a large pump station, and that's not taking into account many of the ecological problems hydroelectric power comes with. Large scale battery storage is a joke and an ecological nightmare (imagine replacing a cities worth of battery storage for peak hours every 5-10 years) . Electrolysis is fairly easy and relatively effecient with technologies that are available right now, anywhere in the country, doubles as transportation fuel, cheaper than hydrocarbons, and storage can be set up in permanent stations.

[@archygrey9093]

I've been following the progress of a few groups working on creating hydrogen on demand for vehicles, basically eliminating the need for high pressure storage tanks. one i found interesting uses cannisters of cobalt powder that heated carbonated water is pumped through at about 60 psi to create the hydrogen for the fuel cell or ic engine. Hydrogen is created during the process of converting cobalt into cobalt oxide and is only created when its needed. After the cannister is used up you end up with a can of cobalt oxide that can be taken out of the car and regenerated back into cobalt (with renewable power if you wanted) to be used again. You can carry multiple cannisters and swap them out instantly when you want and they are safe with very good energy density. It pretty much eliminates the need for hydrogen infrastructure like tankers and pipelines. Obviously its still in early stages but could make hydrogen cars far more viable if it works well. Would still have some disadvantages like regenerating the cobalt oxide (basically "Charging" it) would probably take more energy than charging a ev battery and it would be a little more complex.

[@Ilus-Mirror]

|> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> and lie without getting red ... the sign of evilscum ... oh yes ... electrolysis is soooo energysucking ... like in all that hundrets and tbousands of videos shown here ... and that some pseudobusting massmurder scum blah too ... evidence ... here a video which have nothing to do with hho ... a innoncent harbourguy clean steel from rust ... damed much hho for such a absolutly not efficient setup ... there will be new nuernberger trails ... but this time will be the worst nazis acused. killed x millions without open war ... sneaky they are murdered ... with lies and sabotaging its inventors ... and murder them m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2KVdnyIl6t-hs0 that is my design ... and that what is to see on my channel what massmurder do with inventors which designed factroryready stuff. m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3070516889662336&id=100001121648012 In that moment where such massmurderlackleys open the mouth and it have anything to do with hho they lie... and their lies rot each life on that planet ... but give a shit ... you live only one time ... righ? no ... wrong ... |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |> |>

[@ockamrazor477]

Isn't cobal the problem with lithium cells. Are we going to have a human rights support program forced them? Bad as blood diamonds it seems... but a propane tank swap style system I could get behind

[@parnikkapore]

What's the energy density per weight and volume? That's probably H2's biggest advantage so far.

[@archygrey9093]

@@parnikkapore Not too sure, but i think its pretty good energy density and it doesn't need to be stored under high pressure which is a bonus. The system works so its not just a theory but its still in more of an experimental phase to see if it would be practical

[@parnikkapore]

@@archygrey9093 And it is probably less likely to leak out or catch on fire, which is good

[@evaristegalois6282]

Joe: “Are you turned on right now?” Woman: “What?” Joe: “What?”

[@stephaniesummer2663]

_I have a green on_

[@quintespeed]

EV's don't "run", they're either off or turned on.

[@Master_Therion]

I'm also sexually aroused by environmentalism. For example, I love forests, they give me wood.

[@danijelandroid]

I bet that woman is his wife/girlfriend.

[@booobtooober]

There are a few more problems with hydrogen that few people ever bring up. First is that hydrogen is the smallest atom and as such very hard to contain. In other words it's extremely prone to leaks. It leaks at every fitting and it's so small it will in fact leak through the walls of a steel tank! OK OK the amount that seeps through the tank walls would be incredibly small, BUT, the problem is that it causes hydrogen embrittlement which affects pretty much everything and will eventually compromise the tank's structural integrity. So, now lets talk about high pressure tanks and structural integrity. 780-BAR (atmospheres) is over 11,000 psi. 780-bar is an incredible amount of pressure and introduces a lot of stress on a tank, and all corresponding equipment such as compressors, pipes,etc.. On top of that you have "hydrogen embrittlement". Now I'm no expert on hydrogen tanks but I can tell you about scuba tanks (200 bar - 3000 psi). At a quarter the pressure they can be and are, if not handled/used properly, extremely dangerous. Hydrostatic testing is required every five years. This test must be conducted by a certified technician and essentially determines whether the tank is structurally sound and will not burst under pressure. By DOT regulations they can only get re-certified two times for a 15 year total life span. I would surmise that with hydrogen tanks, the incredible pressures, and its embrittlement problem that the life span would be much less. Hydrogen embrittlement doesn't just affect the high pressure tank, (my primary concern) it affects everything it contacts. Second biggest concern here is the regulator. A 780 BAR regulator isn't cheap and it will be degraded over time, and even faster because of embrittlement. What problems will that create? Everything about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and its corresponding infrastructure is more complex and complexity makes things more expensive, prone to failures, and costly to repair. And for those reasons I'm out.

[@martinwinlow]

And then there's the problem that a parked H2-powered vehicle would lose 50% of it H2 in a week. Then it burns with an invisible flame. Then there's the fact that the range proportions of air to H2 that makes an explosive mixture is 10 times wider than that for any other common flammable gas (and petrol vapour) so a leak is much more likely to ignite. 98% of H2 is currently made from natural gas (yep... a fossil fuel). Making it from electrolysing water can be done but at woeful efficiency compared with just putting it in a battery... and you need pure water to electrolyse, hardly something that we have in abundance in much of the world. The list is endless - and the whole idea, daft.

[@martinwinlow]

@ShaunDoesMusic Shaun - I'd stick to music, mate! Sorry, but your argument holds no water (what would hospitals do with H2?!) The 'minor' alterations to use H2 instead of ... what?... are not small at all, you still have to install infrastructure (at vast expense), you still have to make the H2 by steam reforming natural gas (so its basically still a fossil-fuel) or electrolysis - and both processes use so much electricity it ends up being a hugely inefficient and wasteful process. On top of all that doing the same by using simple and cheap batteries is a vastly more practical, sensible, efficient and cost-effective route. And if you haven't read it yet, see "planetforlife.com/h2/index.html

[@martinwinlow]

@ShaunDoesMusic Sorry, but your comment was so rambling and silly that I just applied the same logic to what you *were* saying to what I *thought* you were saying. So, ultimately, you want to replace one stinking festering mess on the face of the planet (oil) with a nuclear one... and 'clean the place up' at the same time?

[@martinwinlow]

@S G What like Nicola's (non-existent) trucks you mean? Now under investigation for fraud for (amongst other things) implying that their H2-powered demonstration truck barreling along a road was actually just rolling downhill with the camera angle set to make it look level? I don't doubt that H2FC technology *might* be practical (eventually) or that the infrastructure *could* be built but at what cost and to what end? So that we can throw away 2/3 of the clean energy used to make the H2 (and then convert it back to electricity again) rather than just store it in batteries or pumped storage facilities (and other similar systems) using technology and products off the shelf *right now* at 1/5 - 1/10 the cost? ...And using an infrastructure that is 95% already in place (the national grid)?

[@martinwinlow]

@S G And it's like you are suggesting our governments have never got things cosmically wrong before (er... Dieselgate?... just for starters .. not to mention Covid-19!). And yes, they are spending billions and they will regret it because it will all come to nought compared to (principally) EVs and battery storage. And there are still only barely more than 100 H2 filling stations in all of Europe compared to 90 THOUSAND existing traditional filling stations and *hundreds of millions* of places to charge an EV (basically any standard power socket let alone the existing 150 thousand 'proper' ones). Seriously - H2FCs are the dumbest solution looking for a problem we have seen in a very long time.

[@Patchuchan]

Hydrogen could be a solution for storing excess off peak energy from solar and wind since batteries are just terrible for large scale storage. So hydrogen fuel can solve the biggest issue with alternative energy it's intermenant nature.

[@SkepticalCaveman]

No, there are better solutions. A flywheel for example.

[@allangibson8494]

@@SkepticalCaveman Flywheels are energy density limited. Hydrogen could be dumped into the existing fuel gas network and stored and transported the same way.

[@SkepticalCaveman]

@@allangibson8494 Energy density doesn't matter nearly as much when storing peak energy. Fly wheels are perfect for temporary storage and last much longer than batteries. If flywheels are good enough for NASA's energy storage then they are good enough for peak energy storage. Biogas (methane) is a much better option than hydrogen, since it's a "waste product" while recycling. In my country we have buses that runs on biogas. Farmers have also started to collect methane that the cows emit and use for their own energy needs and then they sell the surplus for profit. Biogas can also be used as a cooking gas in poor countries without reliable electricity. Hydrogen is, in other words, a terrible choice compared to the plentiful alternatives.

[@allangibson8494]

@@SkepticalCaveman NASA dont use flywheels for energy storage at all. (The torque plays havoc with satellites). They use gyroscopes for torque orientation of satellites (and periodically use thrusters to enable spin down). Gyro bearing failure has killed most of the space telescopes in service before anything else. Hydrogen has the advantage of using existing infrastructure (a gas turbine is relatively fuel agnostic, if you can get it into the combuster cans, it will run on it, every thing from coal to hydrogen has been tried). Hydrogen is also a critical feedstock for ammonia production and from there nitrate fertilizer, hydrogen made from natural gas accounts for about a third of global natural gas consumption and global carbon dioxide emissions (which in itself is an argument for putting electrochemical hydrogen into the natural gas lines). If you get 5 years out of a set of high speed bearings you are doing well (bearings are why wind turbines have a twenty year life (and need overhauling after ten)). Solar hot salt thermal would be a better long term choice (no storage required - it is integral with the power generation system).

[@samovarmaker9673]

Flywheels are great if you build them out of carbon fibre and put them on levitating magnetic bearings inside a sealed vacuum chamber. Sounds scary, yes, but they're already used in data centres and by NASA (Skeptical Caveman is correct about this; they're not used in space, but in an Earth-based research laboratory). Magnetic bearings require minimal maintenance because friction is basically non-existent. On the subject of maintenance, flywheels are FAR less prone to degradation than Li-ion batteries - batteries degrade over many recharge cycles, even more so in adverse weather conditionsl flywheels can reliably spin up and down for decades and are far less affected by the outside environment. We're not on an airplane here either so you can pretty much build the chambers as bulky as you want and increase the mass of the flywheel as much you wish to increase energy density, although the motor will have a tougher time spinning up a greater mass. Oh, and they can deliver many MegaWatts of power with ease. You get the power density of ultracapacitors at much higher energy densities.

[@geniumme2502]

waaiiiit thats the first time ever i cringe in one of you videos - did you just add up the efficiencies? thats supposed to be a multiplication with 1-loss or just the efficiency! if i pump water up a hill at 50% efficiency and then let it power a turbine at 50% efficiency have i then lost all my energy? no :D just 75% of it :) assuming all other numbers are correct thats 65% efficiency for electric and ~50% for hydrogen :) thats not as grim by far EDIT: This gets weirder o.o in the next step you do actually multiply but add up the other factors again >.> so by now the actual number is 34% efficiency if i didnt do any mistakes

[@DavidSmith-kd8mw]

Also, when comparing gasoline to EVs he starts one process with oil in the ground, but the other with electricity. Comparing EVs and hydrogen might be fair since they both start with electricity, but that isn't true with gas.

[@dexblack]

@@DavidSmith-kd8mw insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/ or you could just go look it up and check...

[@abioyenwankwo7308]

Well since we are also adding the extraction and transportation of resources to the inefficiency, wouldn't it make sense to then also take depreciation into account? Lithium batteries do not grow on trees (nor do they tend to be recycled), yet from the calculations it seems like lithium batteries do in fact grow on trees and then poof out of existance when empty (which you won't reach because the battery will be replaced long before it reaches zero charge). While for gas he takes drilling and refining into the efficiency calculation. And for hydrogen fuel cells, as far as I know they still haven't solved the matter of hydrogen embrittlement beyond saying "we're on it, I wouldn't worry too much". Which would cause parts to need to be replaced far more frequently because it is a pretty huge issue to have your fuel alter the mechanical properties of parts.

[@davidaustin6962]

The graphs seemed to indicate this, but when you multiplied the efficiencies (I tried this), you end up with his "total efficiency" number. In otherwords, blame the guy that created the graphics because they indicated he just added them up, but to get the total efficiency it's clear he multiplied them. It's hard to get good help.

[@erykczajkowski8226]

Do we really have to include transportation cost of hydrogen? Why not produce it directly in the gas (hydrogen) station? Or even at home? You just need to transport electricity then (and some water, but you already have infrastructure for that anyway). Yes that means some local investments, but also lack of rafinery plant, trucks etc.

[@robinknight4945]

Question: I agree entirely that the cost of energy production be it from production of hydrogen or charging a battery is irrelevant because all this is on the grid and the grid will slowly become renewable. What, however is the environmental cost of battery production on scale? From what I can see this is a highly intensive industry with extensive mining. Then consider the possibility that a petrol station could also produce hydrogen via electrolysis using electricity from the grid avoiding transportation entirely. How feasible is that?

[@nythpill]

lithium is fundamentally not clean in both human cost and extraction and we’ve now seen a coup in a country that had a massive amount of it and now tesla is working to get lithium there. realistically nothing is clean entirely and i feel like more concern should be placed upon the human toll in the production of these things.

[@TheJohnnyblazsus]

Yeah, this what I like about Hydrogen. If it's produced locally and uses excess renewable energy it's is effectively a battery but without the excessive mining, transportation, production and waste that will comes with battery production. Having said that, even taking all that into consideration batteries even as a storage unit are likely to be more efficient but......what if litium sky rockets in the future due to demand?

[@user-td3yi1mq7p]

@@TheJohnnyblazsus well there are other battery technologies than lithium. For static storage where the batteries can be big and heavy there are plenty of alternatives, like lead acid batteries (for which there is also a really good recycling system already in place). The main problem hydrogen has these days is cost. The fuel cells and electrolysers are just prohibitively expensive for many applications but as the technology gets more attention it seems that cost will go down, albeit slowly. I'm not well informed about the situation on the lithium market, but the price of lithium could potentially shift the balance towards hydrogen in terms of cost, which is what actually matters when it comes to implementing it.

[@BayushiTawa]

@Khaffit check the size of these batteries, quite diferentes magnitudes order.

[@robinknight4945]

@Khaffit Yes but a much smaller one than it is being constantly charged - hence far less environmental impact on development.

[@DavidBeeson85]

So your analysis at 5:45 is a bit off. You seem to begin the EV calculation of its efficiency with the battery full. The electricity needs to arrive in the battery for the EV in some fashion, and I would assume most people would be taking it off the grid ~ coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind... your choice but each of those have their own drawbacks. Then you must transmit that electricity to the EV and that has a lot of loss built into our antiquated transmission grid (most the numbers I remember average 16-32% loss from generator to end customer).

[@ThePrimalEarth]

Are you turned on right now? NO WHAT? LMAO CLASSIC JOE! Tho is why you’re so awsome!

[@mildlifeisatrisk5727]

"My car is biodegradable and will feed a thousand birds when I'm done with" -- dude 😂😂😂 Loved the idea though, I totally want one now...

[@JDSeg693]

I love that... Thanks I live near Boulder Colorado and there are a few guys that are.. let’s say similar .

[@fPonias1]

I'm sorry. I bet you have a hard time seeing through all the smug.

[@Mitch3D]

The millions of people that are in apartments for the most part can't charge their EV's, that's honestly what makes me hesitate buying one.

[@vanleeuwenhoek]

Live in the city, park on the street; hardly an optimal arrangement for stringing a fast-charger cable out from the house.

[@OneEyedMonkey9000]

Mitch 3D That’s ’easily’ fixed; changing building codes so apartments have to have charging stations in the car park.

[@californiaplant-basedeater2761]

@@OneEyedMonkey9000 There are still tons of people who live where there isn't even a parking lot at their complex. However, spending 1 hour a week at a supercharger doesn't seem particularly life changing. Maybe they get rolled out at popular destinations where people spend time anyway and reservations could be made as well.

[@diymicha4905]

doesn't matter at all. If we want to keep this form of personal mobility at least in parts, there's no way around EVs.

[@theelectricmonk3909]

"The millions of people that are in apartments for the most part can't charge their EV's" - Hmm, I bet you can't refuel your petrol(gas)/diesel car in your apartment either...

[@kotogray8335]

Soooooo.... Is that your wife? Regardless, you both are good actors and the skit was hilarious!

[@lostintime8651]

Truth be told that was a scene from TV show Frasier that happened between Frazier and a woman that did the financial news on the radio station. Then everybody had to attend a seminar about sexual harassment at the workplace. Watch Frasier. It's one of the best written TV sitcoms ever.

[@keaston44]

Frasier was only ever funny when its competition was Seinfeld, Friends, and Cheers. Now adays it barely registers as anything other that "two and a half men" if they were all geriatric and vaguely homosexual.

[@CMDRunematti]

if 27% that's left is better than gasoline then you have a car you can fill with sunshine. and doesn't use tons of lithium to make battery for. and while i write this you said exactly this. lol.

[@1_2_die2]

Hillarious... FUNNY... Intro =) almost ludicrous.

[@joachim2464]

A tiny correction. Apollo spacecraft did use a fuel cell, but the hydrogen and oxygen the spacecraft carried was only for use on the fuel cell and enviromental control. The apollo spacecraft used hypergolic fuel for propulsion.

[@kennethferland5579]

And I believe the Astronauts drank the water from the fuel cell in Apollo, because they would have needed a water supply ANYWAY this meant the mass of all the hydrogen and oxygen for the capsule was basically 'free', likewise the process is exothermic and heated the capsule.

[@uneaverageME]

fun-fact on those hypergol. engines used to launch off of the lander - they were never test-fired. The hypergolic fuel ruined it after one use due to its harshness, so there was no way to test-fire it first on earth and still have it usable on the moon. When they were launching all alone off the moon's surface, they had to rely on an engine never turned on until that point (an engine that had to survive a rocket launch and the trip to the moons surface). Talk about ballsy move.

[@Nehmo]

@@uneaverageME You could test an identical device. It could be put through more vibration than you would expect on a moon trip.

[@ianelliot1127]

@@Nehmo yeah but in 1969 they didn't test them. The lander only needed to refire the engine once and because of this the engine wasn't tested

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Joachim Voldseth The DID re-use the water the cell produced for drinking and flash evaporators in their suits!! Their suit time on surface was limited by the water they carried in the suits and in the LEM!! The three commodities supplied in the "staple" connector between the edge of the CM and the SM were electricity, water, and oxygen.

[@SgtStuka]

I like your video but I have a couple things to add. Shell, that major fuel company is actually doing what you said, and working with adding a lot of Hydrogen stations into their already existing Gas Stations (with partnership with Toyota). Thus producing on SITE and not having to truck it as your point against Hydrogen production. But this is being done not in the states, but the UK so I can see how you have missed it or didn't add it to your video. But it's a huge step forward and Shell is also working hard improving the production of Hydrogen to make it cheaper and less energy intensive as I will agree this is the major point holding back hydrogen production back from mass production. Onto another point, Hydrogen conversion for pre-existing vehicles. Hydrogen can actually run a traditional combustion engine, after improvements to the engine. Mainly tougher components for prevent the excess of wear and tear caused by the highly stress to the combustion chambers. This could be just a Luxury item for rare and older cars that collectors would want to keep running in the future. It's a nice thing that is possible and keeps a little history alive for Car lovers. Because I know from car shows there's some resentment that people will have to give up there beloved older vehicles in the future. Onto the infrastructure point. It's holding hydrogen back, but it's also how I could see it overtake electrical. As it's far easier and cheaper to convert pre-existing infrastructure over than to build whole new things or even removing large complexes. Pipelines, and storage facilities could easily be converted, and perhaps in the future come better technology be our power plants as in Fusion. Hydrogen for the most part can already be added into much of this Oil Empire we've built over the last century. And that's the big thing in my opinion here, The Oil Empire. We've spent over a 100yrs (200yrs if you don't just count the Gasoline era) building this empire and a lot of people want to see immediate change within 10yrs-20yrs. Honestly a bit much, but with smart easy but fair choices we could easily help remove the Oil Empire within 50yrs-75yrs. This is why I like hydrogen over electrics for vehicles, because cars are only a fraction of this empire. We'd need to replace, Trucks, Trains, Ships, Rockets, Planes and Cars to help remove the Petrol fuel as dependence. Cars are nice, but that's just down to an individual and there is a WHOLE system that needs to be reworked here. But I will admit Hydrogen isn't this wonder fuel that could solve all our problems, but it's a big step forward and be a huge help if it got the same public support pure electricals are getting. I do see pure electrical vehicles having their place, mostly I see it for Trains as some are already like this, and with improvements to batteries and electric motors maybe electrical freight trains could be viable. I hope for the most part everyone watches your whole video and not just to the halfway point as most have short attention spans and probably will only see your bashing of Hydrogen and not the defense part. And I doubt most will see my comment to but to anyone reading this rebuttal back to me if you like, or just leave with this thought, We can not run our entire world off of Wind, Solar and battery storage. There needs to be a lot of different things all working together here. And my main goal is more Public awareness and support for things like Hydrogen. Tesla and EVs are great if you're an American or live in a country with easy charging access, but as someone who lives with 7 months of winter on average with usually below -25c temps, They're crap, and solar is crap. I hope at least for you still reading I got you to think more beyond the Car when it comes to Hydrogen. Thank you for your time.

[@Mucknuggle]

and they are building test parks on their huge emptied oil deposits where they use solar energy to create hydrogen.

[@lukewarmwater6412]

the last part, where you mentioned the cold... buddy I will keep my infernal combustion engine, thank you much. I dont like to drive with frosted over windows and numb hands!! a friend of mine had a hybrid. it wouldnt idle to warm up and was a nightmare in the winter. I am positive he was doing something wrong, but that is still an issue that nobody seems to be concerned about... guess all of these cars are for los angeles.

[@fredpinczuk7352]

And you don't find it ironic that Shell (one of the largest, if not the biggest) contributor to CO2 emissions got the CA State contract to supply Hydrogen? What is the carbon emission on the entire life cycle of Methane extraction + Steam Gas Reforming to produce Hydrogen?

[@lukewarmwater6412]

@@fredpinczuk7352 it would seem ironic, but why would a fuel company no longer make fuel? sure they produce alot of co2, but that doesnt mean they should be shut out of trying for a solution. all of their solutions may be not so much solutions, but hey its california. they just jumped right in with the mtbe thing as a solution and that was a disaster too, was it not? I think you do make a good point though, california is flailing around grabbing at any straw in a panic. that does tend to ake things worse!

[@mpoisot]

@@lukewarmwater6412 What car did your friend have? I have a Prius and it definitely will engage the engine if the coolant is too cold. If you turn on the heater it will kick the engine on as needed to produce that heat even if you're parked for 10 hours. My guess is your friend's car had some kind of "energy saver mode" turned on that allowed the car to ignore the demands of climate control.

[@PizikSpaeth]

"Green-on" - Thank you so much for making my day XD

[@Robostomp]

Same here!!😂

[@JohnLumpp]

Joe makes me smarter with every episode! Thanks, Joe.

[@nigo1787]

"Clearly we don't care about efficiency" No, we don't. It's a "whole picture" thing. As a user, no-one really cares. Of course it means we have to produce more energy in the end, but it's only a part of the whole story. Maybe in a ideal world we could produce H2 without electricity, the same ideal world EV users think you can produce and recycle batteries cleanly and cheaply. A world that is yet to be seen

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

It doesn't exist in our universe, because the laws of thermodynamics prevent it.

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

@@StevieFQ HFCs can't win. It's not allowed by the laws of thermodynamics. The only way they will be a thing is if people are gullible enough to buy them despite this.

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

@@ArturoGarzaID That's completely irrelevant. Carbon is the element most easily obtained by humans, but we don't use it as fuel for cars because it's not a good fuel source for cars. Hydrogen isn't either.

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

@@ArturoGarzaID Or maybe it's because cars aren't rockets. The Apollo mission did not use hydrogen fuel cells like they are developing for use in cars, it used tanks of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen which are hypergolic together. LH/LOX is the most potent chemical rocket fuel you can get in terms of thrust to weight ratio. It's extremely dangerous, very expensive, and the liquid hydrogen is constantly escaping from its container. We have lost people due to malfunctions of this type of rocket. They exclusively use it on upper stages because it's too expensive and too dangerous to use in the enormous quantities needed for lower stages. There is exactly zero benefits to using hydrogen as fuel for cars. It doesn't decrease fossil fuel consumption (it increases it), it doesn't have significantly higher power than fossil fuels (it probably has lower power after safety measures are put in place), and you lose fuel over time so you can't just stock up on it. Elon Musk bashes hydrogen fuel cells because he isn't a moron and he doesn't lie to people.

[@TheReaverOfDarkness]

@@ArturoGarzaID In what way is it greenhouse friendly? Where do you think they get the hydrogen from? It doesn't reduce energy consumption and it doesn't reduce fossil fuel consumption because they USE fossil fuels to make it. It's merely switching the fossil fuel energy storage into a LESS portable form. Ignore electric cars. Hydrogen fuel cell cars cost more FOSSIL FUEL to run than fossil fuel cars.

[@ΒαγγέληςΣιγάλας-β7π]

Video maker : Hydrogen is not something you can do at home . Me : evill laugh starts to show up

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

I used to make it with my model train transformer and salt water. Makes chlorine on the other electrode and NaOH

[@Neojhun]

Good luck making enough even to match Model 3 SR capacity.

[@Xnukedbrain]

YES IT IS YOU FOOL. I EXTRACTED HYDROGEN FROM SALINE WATER VIA SIMPLE BATTERY POWERED ELECTROLYSIS WHEN I WAS 15 YEARS OLD IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SIENCE CLASS. IN ARIZONA, USA.

[@capnbilll2913]

@@Xnukedbrain How much electricity did you use per gram of hydrogen produced? What did you use for anode electrode? How much electrode oxidation occurred per gram of hydrogen?

[@gazza595]

@@Xnukedbrain But, ironically, didn't work out how caps lock works.

[@DraconaiMac]

Joe - I just really love your videos. They're fun, informative and (for the most part) light-hearted. Damned good job

[@nmbpjnwwbt7020]

How could you make such a trivial mistake like summing losses? Total effectiveness=product of effectivenesses. That would result in ~50.2% loss in hydrogen fuel and ~18.64% loss in battery EV.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

My local Shell station in Burnaby BC has Hydrogen pumps in place, one of two in the Greater Vancouver area. It's a start.

[@blacquejacqueshellaque6373]

Yes, and they get the hydrogen by cracking natural gas and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

[@justagiraffe2868]

Blacque Jacque Shellaque well probably, but there are green ways of making hydrogen fuel. I’m a Tesla fanboy myself, I like BEVs, but if the infrastructure for hydrogen builds out I can see it taking over the green long range commercial segment Edit: I mean Nikola’s plan to build out 400 Electrolysis based Hydrogen stations. It’ll be hard, but Tesla did something similar with their Superchargers in the early days

[@ValentinTosetchi]

More money invested in research of graphene production could be a better solution than creating this H infrastructure, which will just continue to create emissions.

[@dinoschachten]

Go Canada! :)

[@blacquejacqueshellaque6373]

@@justagiraffe2868 I am not an advocate for any form except those that make the most energy sense. Hydrogen from splitting water is very inefficient. First you have to make the electricity to get the hydrogen, probably by burning Natural gas (Solar requires glass made in India by burning coal and is not carbon neutral, the cells don't last long enough, wind generators only last about 10 to 15 years at best and are unreliable, so until we have more nuclear, natural gas is the cleanest solution). Then you need to transport the power on a grid, then convert it into hydrogen, then turn it back into electricity. By the end it is about 20% efficient and put more CO2 in the air than just burning gasoline. I wish people would examine the full life cycle of these systems and most are not even close to carbon neutral.

[@monessalabras]

forget about the video, lets just sit and appreciate the intro

[@scottthomas3792]

The first electric car I saw was a Citicar owned by the physics teacher when I was in high school back in 1977. It like both futuristic and cartoonish at the same time. Lead acid batteries under the seat powered it...I think the range was around 30 miles...she drove it around the school parking lot for the class.

[@amicloud_yt]

Oh my god that intro killed me. I love your skits

[@manojraghavendran5760]

Man, you are an amazing performer, glad you chose to create this channel. I'm glad I found it.

[@kylarstern7627]

'I got a Green on' oh Joe, you are Brilliant! If that was your wife then you need to include her in future vids, she was awesome! Well done mate :)

[@johndododoe1411]

Paid actor according to shout out at end of video.

[@seanswales1813]

Unless you can park in your own drive, (as over one third in the UK cannot), hydrogen makes a lot more sense

[@davidbeaulieu4815]

Hydrogen for distance trucking ev shorter range.

[@JamesTTierce]

It wouldnt be difficult to add in either modular battery systems for big rigs or a sort of relay system where the tractors are switched off with the load getting switched

[@AndyLeeSWE]

Pretty good intro, thumbs up :-)

[@yurimrt]

Just watched the beginning by now and I'm crying, seriously :,D

[@rileyt7006]

Basically it mimics the mitochondria organelle inside our cell, at least it’s a very similar process. Amazing.

[@MadScientist267]

Exactly the same, only completely and totally different

[@hermeticxhaote4723]

As above, so below. As within, so without.

[@lonestarr1490]

So, couldn't we just cultivate gazillions of mitochondria in labs and glue them together to build tiny power plants to put in cars, houses, planes, cardiac pacemaker, and what not?

[@MadScientist267]

@@lonestarr1490 We did. Only it's a *really* old invention. We pull the leftover soup out of the ground and put it in these metal things that have spinny parts to make things go vroom vroom

[@hermeticxhaote4723]

@@lonestarr1490 yes, thats called nanotechnology.

[@arowley97]

Joe reminds me so much of Charlie Day.

[@Smingleflorp]

If Charley Kelly had not devoted himself to brid law and learned to read instead.

[@Jimmygarn]

I'm glad that I'm not alone.

[@colinsmith1495]

I think the most amazing piece of this is that, even with all the losses gasoline experiences, it's still the most energy-dense option to power cars. Hydrogen, as impressive as it is, isn't quite as powerful, and batteries still struggle to get as much energy into as little space.

[@steverandall5814]

The NOx pollution for hydrogen burned as motor fuel is off the charts, along with a long list of other problems. kzbin.info/www/bejne/naaUp2qabJKKnpI

[@DrShaym]

It sounds like hydrogen is doomed to be the Batamax of alternative fuels.

[@BXJ-mi9mm]

No. It isn't. Betamax had some advantages. Fuels cell vehicles suck in every way.

[@flipadavis]

Gas cars are reel-to-reel video, hydrogen FCVs are VHS and EVs are DVDs.

[@BXJ-mi9mm]

@@flipadavis I'd say BEVs are more like the internet. It grow slowly at first and some people loved it right away and had vision, but it quickly became far more important and replaced all those dumb discs and magnetic tapes.

[@tribalypredisposed]

@@flipadavis HFCVs are player pianos, the ones with the punches in paper rolls. They are trying to introduce obsolete new technology and that does not happen. Technology that is both inferior and which requires a cost prohibitive infrastructure to be remotely viable never will be adopted. Even if HFCVs were "green," which of course they are not, buyers do not spend $58,000 on a car that sucks because it is "green." The entire story of Tesla is showing that buyers will purchase EVs if you make them awesome instead of making them crappy small slow compromise-mobiles. HFCVs need an advantage, something they do BETTER than an ICE car, hybrid, or EV. They have only disadvantages. EVs have better acceleration, convenience of charging, more interior and cargo space, better safety, quieter ride, better traction control...so buyers are there. HFCVs have... nothing.

[@andrzej2501]

Not really. The problem with battery-powered cars is that it could be troublesome to get all lithium and nickel to replace all ICE cars with electric cars. And remember - you have to replace those batteries about every 5 years. Yes, you can recycle them, but there always will be some loss. This could change is exploration of the asteroid belt becomes just another mining operation. Or if some new (carbon-based?) batteries could be constructed to be just as good or even better. Or if energy density of supercapacitors could be improved. Supercapacitors can be charged almost instantly and can survive millions of loading cycles so if you can get energy density comparable do modern batteries - you will have an ideal energy storage for vehicles.

[@graham1034]

Assuming energy density continues to improve on battery tech it seems like HFC cars don't have much of a future. A few things that could change this are: - battery tech hits a major road block and doesn't improve beyond current levels - affordable home hydrogen production, just hook up to the tap and grid - improvements in hydrogen production tech I can see a world where performance cars use HFCs and daily drivers use batteries. Even without those hypotheticals, I can see hydrogen tech and infrastructure being used for long haul trucking, aviation, or any other area where distance/weight are major concerns.

[@phnijman]

$80- to fill up? I pay that for my Skoda now in gasoline

[@wschnitzler]

In the US you wouldn’t (gas prices are ridiculously low there)

[@rafaelmarques5118]

@@wschnitzler in Portugal you pay almost 100 euros, ahahahah

[@summersky77]

@@rafaelmarques5118 cem euros?? porã!

[@witoldschwenke9492]

I regulary paid 100€ to fill up my car... its actually cheap for just 80$ considering there are no price benificial scale effects rn. imagine how cheap hydrogen will be in a large scale

[@gur262]

The electric zero motorcycle, according to the German magazine Motorrad, makes 60miles from the same amount of energy as you'd have in 1.4l of fuel. Too bad though it only stores like 1.7. But. ... I think electric should be really cheap given you use your regular electricity access

[@miked9126]

We might not share political views, but I have to agree with you about energy usage. If we expect to advance as a species, we're not going to do it using fossil fuels. In many ways, economic and infrastructure progress has been hampered by special interest groups that are continually lobbying for oil companies and investors. We've got to keep our attention firmly fixed on pulling ourselves out of the hole that we've been so happily digging in order to avert a planetary disaster. I want my children to have a positive outlook for their future, not resentment because they have to clean up the mess left for them by previous generations. Whatever the fix is, it's got to be comprehensive and large scale. Hydrogen fuel cells are just one step towards a much better outcome for our kids. Cool video Joe, keep up the good work!

[@amirabudubai2279]

My vote is for nuclear + hydrogen. Current nuclear has problems sure, but it is the only power source that can feed our consumption without destroying the environment. Solar and wind look nice on paper, but they suffer from a couple big problems. Hydroelectric is by far the best, but limited on where they can be placed.

[@EuriEuropa]

You don't have to share political views to care for the planet

@@EuriEuropa I dislike the generalization. The planet will be fine for the next 5 billion years. Some people care more about coastal real estate than the global ecosystem. They're the ones leading the fight against "climate change," which is a fight lost by default. You can't stop cycles.

[@EuriEuropa]

@ you're not a progressive if you actually believe what we are doing to the planet is normal.. I'm sorry but I'll listen to the countless amount of scientists.. Even Republicans are hopping on board with the green new deal.. That's it enough is enough, whether it's 100% true or even 1% true.. The mere possibility is enough of a motivating factor to move from oil.. Enough wars have been fought over it as well So at the end of the whatever the case may be.. Renewable energy needs to happen yesterday

@@EuriEuropa All energy is renewable. Some sources take longer to renew than others. The quickest reliable source of energy is hydro, but after that, wood. Geothermal is theoretically infinte, but hard to get even where it's available. Nuclear energy is renewable, but supernovas are tough to rely on. It's about as pointless ad relying on wind or solar.

[@juliuskingsley4434]

This dude reminds me of the Kiju scientist from Pacific rim.

[@jagadishgospat2548]

Yea sorta

[@raginglegends1]

In case you don’t know that guys name is Charlie Day he’s in one of the best shows of all time it’s always sunny in Philadelphia

[@Kay0Bot]

wait he is not?!

[@raginglegends1]

@@Kay0Bot no, that dudes name is Charlie Day this dudes name is Joe

[@mariehansler]

Wow...great job Joe...you always find a way to make science, fun...learnable(if that's a word) and sarcastically funny. Awesome content.

[@Anand-qb1wp]

"I got a green on." 😂👍🏾

[@Jer_Schmidt]

I have two problems with hydrogen (coming from an EV owner): 1) You can't charge at home. I can't stand the thought of having to go to a station to fill my car. 2) They take way more energy to run, so if everyone switches to FCVs we'll have to build out WAY more renewable electricity generation than we would if everyone switches to EVs.

[@amirabudubai2279]

You actually can refuel a hydrogen car from home. It would require a machine that would cost at least a couple hundred dollars. And yes, hydrogen as a whole will require more power than batteries, but that isn't the full picture. 150HP is equal to 110KW, or about 22 ovens. Every 100 hours of driving(about 50 days for me) would use the average American household's worth of energy; and that is assuming perfect efficiency(so like 20% better than EV and 50-60% better than HV). My point being that "HV is nonviable because of infrastructure cost" doesn't work because you can say the same about EV. As and EE, I can assure you that HV would actually be easier to work into our existing grid than EV. Hydrogen can be stock piled using power that is often wasted during low demand hours while EV would all be plugged in between 5-9pm when solar and wind are both weak. This means EV are mostly charged using nuclear and coal. Ignoring any problems with the grid(we need to revamp our grid for green energy in any case), my biggest problem with Li+ based cars is scale. In simple terms, a Li+ car might beat a HFC car, but we cannot produce enough Li+ batteries to power every truck and car in America let alone the world. Until we have a battery tech that is comparable to Li+ but doesn't require rare materials, EVs cannot replace fossil fuels. The closest we have now are NiCad batteries and you would be lucky to drive across town with that. There are people working on the problem; Tesla is trying to find a replacement to rare materials used in Li+ and there are a handful of carbon based batteries being researched. Personally, I don't like the blind hope required for EV. We can just hope that the problems with EV will be solved in the future, or we can start switching to HV now.

[@Thekilleroftanks]

Or build a few nuclear plants. Or one fusion reactor. One of those is gonna out pace a lot of renuable energy. Also doesnt take as much resources to build. Also less bird killings. And safer for humans... And cleaner.

[@naltlan7651]

@@Thekilleroftanks whe(humans) actually have a fusion reactor but it uses more energy to fuse than it generates

[@stale2665]

Do you have some blueprints for said fusion reactor in your back pocket, by any chance?

[@MaddJakd]

More energy than if everyone changed to EVs... The advent of wireless charging uprising for our phones has put more strain on the grid because it's less efficient compared to strait plugging in. If everyone had a tesla, or a few, that in itself would demand more energy, yet that has been ignored entirely beside the face that charging stations aren't quite as abundant as the ol' gas station. The grid needed expansion regardless but lets not even pretend that the car is doing some wonders all around.

[@Hobyarman]

I love Nikola's idea of having a small battery for your daily commute and a hydrogen tank for long trips....

[@JeanPierreWhite]

I love the idea of charging the battery. This is practical since electricity is everywhere there is a structure. Its easy to add charging stations. Hydrogen isn't widely available outside California, so you won't get very far. You can check out but you can never leave.

[@Hobyarman]

@@JeanPierreWhite charging isn't practical in my business

[@JeanPierreWhite]

@@Hobyarman Gotcha. I suggest you stick to fossil fuels then. Hydrogen won't help. A maximum of 36 cars can refuel in a 24 hour period at a Hydrogen fueling station. It would be a bummer if you were number 37 huh? www.greencarreports.com/news/1099548_gas-electricity-hydrogen-how-many-cars-can-fuel-and-what-will-it-cost

[@Hobyarman]

@@JeanPierreWhite I doubt long haul trucks in Australia will be able to run on battery except for re-gen breaking. Batteries also largely restrict the load carrying capacity. They are currently rolling out hydrogen stations along these roots which shouldn't be too numerous or difficult. Also taking about producing the hydrogen on site with solar and wind. I did think hydrogen for the average driver is silly bit to have the option to use is as a boost for long range driving makes a lot of sense.

[@Hobyarman]

The tech will get better

[@cccaaa9034]

Sorry to be late watching this but your intro skit had me laughing. Thank you for the fun start.

[@MadScientist267]

Actually that was really lame

[@ChrisHolzer]

Well, only someone from the US will call those Hydrogen prices expensive. ;-) Spending 80$ or ~70€ on filling up the tank of his car with ROZ95 gasoline is *normal* in Europe. You make many great points in this video, the only thing that I miss (which is what is bugging me about EV's) - the Lithium Batteries.... and how much energy is needed / CO2 is emitted during the creation of those huge batteries.

[@Maurazio]

sure but I make more than double the distance with 70€ of diesel, which is even more expensive than gasoline in my country

[@balasubrmaniam9205]

What about the cost of production and supply of electricity to charge the batteries. ( including the cost of materials, infrastructure ...... so on and so on..........

[@NuSpirit_]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 But aren't there 2 problems with Lithium? Limited supply and really dirty methods of mining it? (serious question)

[@cristinavekos5808]

TAXES+cost=WHAT?

[@cousineddie4846]

Since when is CO2 a problem? Plants depend on it.

[@BothHands1]

That intro was the best thing I've seen all MONTH 😂😂😂😂😂

[@dwighthouse]

I've always thought the green movement was the fetishizing the environment. Little did I know...

[@Kimoto504]

Not unlike fetishizing hatred of "the green movement." See, it works both ways, bud.

[@charlesball9522]

@@ForzaJersey Andree Maranda & Heidi Sjursen enter the chat.

[@ПавелСамойлов-с4б]

@@ForzaJersey you don't know what internet is

[@MateusMeurer]

It makes me think about how many alternatives and the developments they could have had along our history. Could we have taken a path in the past that had way more potential and we just didn't see it back in the day, meaning our technology could potentially by way ahead now?

[@SpecialEDy]

What about safety? Lithium ions can go boom, but we’ve all seen what happens LOX and LH when a rocket launch fails. A hydrogen fuel cell car is potentially a rolling bomb. Do you trust the average person to “pump” hydrogen fuel and drive around with it?

[@Angl0sax0nknight]

Special EDy it’s no more dangerous than gasoline. The hydrogen tanks are way stronger than your car’s gas tank.

[@troysimmons9025]

What do you think we are driving around now??? Gasoline is extremely flammable and explosive. So is compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas.

[@LoneStarr1979]

In contrast to a rocket, a HFC car does not carry LOx around but takes the O2 out of the air. Thus, the Boom potential is way lower than on a rocket. The filling process could also be considered safer than gasoline tanking, as you cannot pull the plug while it is under pressure (filling). In contrast, you can pull the gasoline nozzle out of the car and the gasoline will happily continue to flow. I do not want to say that HFC is perfectly safe, as EVs are neither. I just want to point out that gasoline cars inherit some serious safety issues, we are normally just getting along with ... or ignoring them.

[@SpecialEDy]

The big difference with liquid hydrogen is that it is under high pressure and will vaporize rapidly if released. It takes a lot more effort to vaporize gasoline. Getting in an accident could result in suddenly have a small zeppelin cloud of hydrogen that will explode rather than burn. Unlike gasoline it also presents more of an asphyxiation risk if all that hydrogen expands into the passenger compartment. And there's the danger of the cryogenic temperatures too, how do you even store hydrogen in a car without some of it slowly venting off?

[@Bryan-Hensley]

@@Angl0sax0nknight the pressure inside those tanks are higher than an explosion to start with. Just poke a hole in one and you are going for one hell of a ride.

[@trentondenne7643]

I literally laughed out loud the entire intro. That was hilarious, thanks for the intro joe!

[@poisonouspython1410]

The issue with hydrogen is definitely production and storage but EVs are going to also run into that issue of fuel supply too. The electric grid can support a small % of ppl charging their vehicles concurrently. But just think about how strained the US grid would be with even 25% of households plugging in a 7kW or more device every night. Many cities and municipalities would have to put billions into retrofitting higher capacity electrical supply systems. ICE is still more than viable

[@poisonouspython1410]

Sun doesn't shine at night when most ppl would be charging..... unfortunately.

[@poisonouspython1410]

look up the specs of the tesla home battery, then the tesla EV car battery specs and capacities. Then you will see why your comment is so baseless. People really underestimate how much energy it actually takes to move a car around on a daily basis. Solar panels on the average home won't even make enough juice on a good day to recharge an EV every night.... try again

[@poisonouspython1410]

You totally miss the point. We don't have the electrical energy distribution grid to support an electric vehicle mainstream currently. Your above suggestions of ways around that reality would be vastly insufficient. The cost to do the infrastructure retrofits to support that electrical consumption level would be astronomical. I think hydrogen is a terrible idea personally on many levels, but it's advantage in low infrastructure retrofit requirements from fossil fuel are one of it's only attractive characteristics. Electric vehicles look great on paper and on the road- it's the use of them en masse that will cause trouble. ICE is not about to die unless legislation removes it from lawful use which would be a grave mistake. And let's think about what happens in your example of hey just top it up when I get home every night.... so you and every other future human with an EV plugs in around the time they get home from work.... draw 7kW of power.... and kaboom there goes your insufficient supply grid. It doesn't matter if ppl only need to charge a little between commutes or once a week even. It's the multiple thousands of people potentially plugging in a huge current draw appliance at any given time.

[@artemaung5274]

Wind farm contracts gotten to below 4 cents/kWt*hour without subsidy. With subsidies there are existing contracts at 2 cents/kWt*hour in US signed just in 2018. (new coal/gas plant is 6cents/kWt*hour for 20-year contract) Winds typically blow stronger at mornings/evenings and somewhat at night and winter vs day and summer. Also right now at night electricity usage is lowest, so with current grid charging car at night is actually perfect - it utilized unused capacity. But in the long run we'll definitely need something better. My bet is on fusion reactors. I was rooting for nuclear energy but unfortunately it failed. Instead of shrinking the cost per kWt it was actually growing over decades. It failed to innovate and scale and with all these crowd scaring accidents it's just hard to implement politically.

[@poisonouspython1410]

Sorry Artem, yes usage is lowest at night but you didn't understand what I meant. In the US at least most larger towns and cities will have electrical substations and supply lines feeding different residential areas. Few home peaks at over 7kW continuous draw at any time of the the day (This is why brownouts occur already in hot conditions since air conditioners are the biggest current draw item most homes will all turn on during peak hours). It doesn't matter if other things are off at night if the grid can't handle the juice needed to charge a city with 30 or 40 percent electric vehicles on the road. Infrastructure costs to fix this would be massive. Just imagine half a city's worth people with 7 and 10 and 15kw charge units plugged in at night. Substation breakers would be popping damn quick The original comment I made was never intended to debate the various types of conventional and alternative power options for transportation. It was simply to point out that not many people realize how expensive infrastructure wise it would be to have everyone driving electric cars. There are still many problems to be worked out to safely transition away from primary use of fossil fuels.

[@m9078jk3]

I use a more energy efficient vehicle than a battery electric car. The problem with the battery electric car is that most of the energy is squandered (wasted) on moving the massive heavy vehicle as compared to whats desired to be transported (the driver,passengers and cargo). Often times it's a single occupancy vehicle with no passengers and a little cargo. I ride a battery electric bicycle (a RadRover) instead so most of the electrical energy is used to transport me to destinations rather than a big heavy box. Ideally the mass of the vehicle should be as low as possible. I have a Veltop attachment on it so that I can easily ride in the rain as well. I get around 900 MPGe and that's without peddling (which I usually do anyways and it extends range). Also by peddling I get daily aerobic exercise which is a requirement for human health. My range is limited to around 30 miles distance with all the other items that I usually carry. Granted that I can't use it for transporting heavy goods and that's what delivery is for.