Why Battery Electric Cars are Dominating Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

Support us on Patreon! / twobitdavinci
Today we're discussing two different approaches to the electric vehicle: Batteries, and the hydrogen fuel cell. It's no secret that batteries have been winning out, thanks largely to Tesla. But is there any future for the hydrogen fuel cell? And what might the the future for both technologies look like?
Sources:
1. www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells...
2. [www.wingas.com/fileadmin/Wing...
Link to Real Engineering's Video: • The Truth about Hydrogen

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/twobitdavinci Thinking Tesla? Use our Link: geni.us/TwoBitTesla Help us Grow! Share our Videos on Reddit (or your Favorite Social Media)

[@dmitribovski1292]

Hydrogen isn't emotion free it gives off Dihydrogen Monoxide admittedly this isn't a problem in most situations but in it's pure form it is highly corrosive. You also don't mention that fuel cells contain platinum that it uses up over time with a Density of 21.45 g/cm3 that is a heavier metal than Lead( 11.34 g/cm3) or Mercury(13.534 g/cm3)

[@fatalconceit9713]

Love your videos! You do amazing work! I did have one comment on this video. As you correctly stated, hydrogen is very energy dense in terms of mass, but its energy density by volume is very poor. This is why it needs to be pressurized (a process that takes additional energy), and contained in thick walled tanks (which adds mass) because of how pernicious and flammable a gas hydrogen is.

[@dlwatib]

Actually, you've made the case for why hydrogen is just as braindead as Elon says it is. Also, it turns out that the one major theoretical advantage of hydrogen over electricity, namely recharge/refueling time, disappears in practice. Those who have driven the Toyota Mirai report that it takes about 1/2 an hour to refill the tank, about the same time as it takes to fast charge a battery.

[@chrisobber5604]

Fuel needs energy to be produced too. Calculate that in as well.

[@earlpottinger671]

@Andrew Meyer And so why not mention the same applies for the materials used in Hydrogen cars. Do you think fuels grow on trees? Also fuel cells wear out from the off/on cycles, so if you drive you car just each day, you are looking at 400-700 cycles per year, the fuel cell will not last many years. Note for ship and trains where the system does not have to turn as often fuel cells do make sense.

[@shnazshin]

Gasoline cars use almost as much electricity just to refine the gasoline as EVs use to drive the car. The electricity consumed to refine gasoline for a 25 MPG car is 70% the amount a Model 3 consumes to drive per mile. (It takes about 4.5 kWh of electricity to refine 1 gallon of gasoline). When the refining of gasoline is taken into account the hybrid in West Virginia (50 MPG) generates about 150% more CO2 than a Model 3 in West Virginia. (Assuming the refining of gasoline for use in West Virginia uses the same electricity mix as the grid in West Virginia). And we still haven't accounted for transportation and mining CO2 cost.

[@leftover7766]

@Two Bit da Vinci You should reshoot and reissue your video to reflect this. This is an old issue which you should already know about. I have to give 2BitDaVinci a total thumbs down from now on. You just don't do your homework.

[@Richard-ie1if]

nobody cares, its about performance, durability and cost. if they wanted to save co2 save the money, drive a hummer and throw 30k of panels on your roof and you'll be co2 negative.... for the money evs are horrible co2 savers

[@shnazshin]

CO2 reduction is not the only reason to get an EV. Getting off oil, which enriches terrorist sponsoring regimes is a good reason to get an EV. Cleaner air. Shen EVs first came out in the 90s it was before CO2 was a topic of conversation. At that time the issues were air pollution (Los Angeles had terrible air pollution problems) and oil funding Middle Eastern regimes. @@Richard-ie1if

[@Richard-ie1if]

​@@shnazshin i dont know why tesla is being so picky about making a simple powered chassis garbage trucks busses straight trucks delivery vans etc let somebody else take care of the build outs as ford does etc these are all vehicles that will become profitable long before passenger cars which use relatively tiny amounts of energy and in a rather sporadic pattern are worth it to replace with batteries those people talking about making electric pickup f150 trucks are clueless

[@Richard-ie1if]

tired of hearing about co2 however. dont even think burning gasoline causes much in the way of other pollutants vs coal/diesel need to wrap it up with the stupid 3 and get onto y/semi/refresh s/x sooner and make more commercial vehicles that will actually displace co2/pollutants from diesel

[@hoffmantnt]

You forgot to mention the energy cost to refine gasoline.

[@jessejones1102]

Tom Hoffman And transport cost from oil field to refinery, and then from refinery to gas stations.

[@PhilbertDeZwart]

To be fair, this was a comparison between batteries and hydrogen. For the vast majority of viewers of this channel, the superiority of electric over gasoline is a given.

[@therealctoo4183]

@@PhilbertDeZwart You're specifically not being fair. Gasoline is part of the conversation, and will be until we stop using it. Any discussion about energy sources needs to include *all* of the costs associated with consuming gasoline. So if we want to be fair, another thing that needs to be added to the discussion is the health costs (cancer, asthma, etc.) that gasoline production and consumption cause.

[@capn2289]

This was a pretty damn good video. To be fair, no youtube video is perfect. If you can do better, knock yourself out. I'll watch, you know, just to be fair. @@therealctoo4183

[@zolikoff]

@@jessejones1102 Transport is like 1% extra carbon cost, it's not zero but it barely changes the bottom line.

[@789icetee]

One thing I noticed missing was cold climates. Batteries won't hold the same charge when cold and you will loose range running your heater.

[@nicktohzyu]

It's wrong to add inefficiencies like that! They should be multiplied instead, so for hydrogen you would get (0.8)*(1-0.15)*(1-0.2)*(1-0.25) = 0.41, NOT 20% ! This is the EXACT SAME MISTAKE real engineering made in his video, and he already admitted it when people pointed it out in the comments. Now you come along and repeat the same nonsense. Very disappointed in your channel

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Can’t believe we missed that you’re right. We’ll add a disclaimer to the video

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Thank you!

[@leftover7766]

@@TwoBitDaVinci Crack a book, bitches!

[@rogerheuckeroth7456]

Wait. Make sure the math is right on this. FCEV: 0.8 (PEM Hydrogen generation efficiency ) x 0.85 (compression) x 0.80 (transportation) x 0.75 (fuel cell conversion to DC) x 0.9 (DC-AC conversion for motor) = .37 (37% energy efficiency) BEV: .98 (charging efficiency) x .9 DC-AC conversion for motor = .88 (88% efficiency) You can't add transmission losses on the front end for BEV without adding it on the front end for FCEV. So, they would cancel each other out in the comparison

[@rogerheuckeroth7456]

@sweinberger - That is true of most commonly available fuel cells. I believe that 75% was achieved in the lab, and may be possible, but that is splitting hairs. Its still remarkably inefficient.

[@tsebomoloi3410]

Hydrogen could work within the near future as extraction methods improve. They'd be ideal for the aviation and shipping industries. Because hydrogen is a gas and is light in density it wont cause as much energy loss as batteries. Batteries are also good as they allow for more efficiency, however extraction methods are quite expensive due to increased production of lithium ion batteries.

[@rrrggg4334]

> Hydrogen could work within the near future as extraction methods improve. You mean we engineer a pipe to the Sun? Because you can't "extract" hydrogen on Earth. You have to produce it. From water that is hydrogen's ASH. You will never get your wood stick back from the ashes without putting a lot more of energy you got in the first place by burning it. Batteries have one more good thing about them for the future - we are hardly getting maximum theoretically/practically energy density per kilogram right now.

[@lip124]

or have it work on large vehicles transport

[@JustAnotherPersonHere]

Fantastic video! I learned so much. Thank you for putting in so much time and effort into this!

[@Zobeid]

Good production, but I have a few little quibbles. You mentioned batteries losing energy while they sit idle, but lithium-ion cells don't really self-discharge the way other rechargeable chemistries do. At the same time, hydrogen is notorious for gradually leaking out of any storage container. Furthermore, all electric cars, whether BEV or HFCV, will have some small amount of "vampire energy drain" through their electronics when sitting idle, just like a computer in sleep mode. When you talk about the huge energy density of hydrogen, it's very misleading, because the physical density is so low, volume rather than weight becomes a limiting factor. Compressing the hydrogen to high pressure helps with the volume problem, but then you need a much stronger, and heavier, tank to store it. Then the energy density of your complete storage system plummets. Rather than individual li-ion cells versus hydrogen gas, you need to compare the filled hydrogen tank against the complete battery pack. And then it seems fair to acknowledge that those bulky hydrogen tanks present a real packaging problem for car designers, too. By comparison, BEV designers are almost all going to a "skateboard" design with batteries in the floor, which seems to be pretty versatile and efficient.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Great points! Yeah the volume problem and need for spherical tanks to cope with high pressures Is a packaging challenge.

[@Markle2k]

You make a good point about volumetric energy density with hydrogen, especially since the cylinder has to fit in a box's volume and you can't fill up the wasted space with ancillary equipment like happens with batteries based on cylindrical cells. Safe, bullet-proof, lightweight, high-pressure tanks are a solved problem, though. One point he missed that offsets a disadvantage of hydrogen is that electrolysis can happen at pressure. Put the water under 700 atm, and you get 700 atm wet hydrogen out. You just need a water pump that can supply distilled water at 700 atm. Another thing to consider is what happens when you run out of "fuel" on the road. A modern direct injection diesel may need to have the fuel system bled at a cost of hundreds of dollars. The gasoline car is familiar. A $5 gas can will get you within range of a gas station, most places. An electric car can be towed to the nearest friendly electrical outlet or charged from a suitably equipped tow/emergency vehicle. These exist in China already. A hydrogen car like the Honda Clarity needs a flatbed to get it to a refueling station. It only uses the battery for regen, it won't run on battery electricity alone.

[@Markle2k]

@James Sempy I'm not kidding. But I did round up a bit. A full tank in a Honda Clarity/Toyota Mirai is at 70 Mpa (10,153 psig) at 15 C which is 690.846 atmospheres. Honda Clarity Owner's Manual page 506, Specifications: techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/pubs/OM/AH/ATRT1717OM/enu/ATRT1717OM.pdf The table of contents on page 4 has clickable links that will scroll you down.

[@richardpetek712]

@James Sempy No, he is not. We use 200 - 250 atm (or bar) for diving bottles, but you need such high pressures, otherwise you would run out 3 times sooner.

[@bjorn1583]

@@Markle2k pressurizing water to 700 atm (10287 psi) is bloody stupid, how thick are the walls going to be on the container? a steam boiler with 2.5cm thick walls can handle about 500psi of steam pressure before it explodes. but you want to up the pressure by 20 times and for it to be a liquid not a gas lol. pressurizing a liquid is a whole different ball game compared to compressing a gas. you cant compress a liquid but you can put it under pressure

[@Bangy]

Blaming hydrogen for not having enough fuelling stations is like blaming your 2 year old manourished brother for not being a billionaire.

[@rzee4331]

Good start. Commenters bring up valid points. Another: Hydrogen is winner by weight but loser by volume, which is important in automobiles. You can see it in the component view of the fuel cell car you show; a large portion of trunk is taken up by the primary hydrogen tank and with secondary tank and extra electronics, cargo space is further reduced.

[@GwenRoelants]

And the tank completely negates the weight benefit. Looks like storing 5kg of hydrogen requires a tank of 50kg at best with current technologies, and no huge improvements in sight: www.ch.ic.ac.uk/mimi/JM/AAmieirohandout2007.pdf

[@knuteilertsen1583]

Dude! You had to go back to 2007 to dig up obsolete equipment! I'm impressed!

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@knuteilertsen1583 Toyota Marai, current model. 2 x 60 L Hydrogen tanks. Nuff said.

[@markplott4820]

FCV need to have Batteries just like an Hybrid or BEV car.

[@GwenRoelants]

@@knuteilertsen1583 I did use the best case numbers from that paper though. The press release from the Toyota Mirai is a bit more recent (2014) and shows even worse numbers. 87.5kg of tanks to store 5kg of hydrogen! Furthermore, apparently the Fuel Cell Stack to convert this hydrogen to electricity adds another 56kg. It still requires a buffer battery as well, which is also said to weigh another 41kg. insideevs.com/toyota-mirai-fuel-cell-sedan-priced-at-57500-specs-videos/

[@subbuilder3563]

Excellent analysis. Though I am only a everyday driver, I now understand the difference between the two and their pros and cons. Thanks.

[@symmetry08]

So, the answer is heavier vehicles ( commercial ) favor hydrogen and personal transportation is electric.

[@bjair]

Battery energy density is increasing over time but hydrogen fuel density will not change.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Actually hydrogen density is a function of compression. So yah it absolutely can change ;)

[@Markle2k]

Adsorption tanks can store more hydrogen than pressurized tanks. But they aren't ready for prime time yet.

[@retardrobo9427]

Hydrogen cars are Electric cars , so increase in battery performance is and increase in hydrogen cars also

[@phalanx3803]

tho energy density in battery's may increase the laws of physics and all that other stuff have a limit. people keep trying to run in to the future not realizing there's always a brick wall some where that can not be passed usless we find a way to bend the universe its self to our will.

[@curtisjudd]

Really useful analysis, thanks guys!

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Thanks Curtis! Always good hearing from you! Learned a ton about audio from you, and we now use shure SMB mics if you were curious ;)

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

I’d love to pick your brain about compressor settings!

[@curtisjudd]

@@TwoBitDaVinci By all means, would love to talk. You can reach me directly via email (on my channel's about tab)

[@simoncorporation3]

Like the quantification of your ideas, very good video keep uploading, and thanks for sharing.

[@mr88cet]

Great video! If you don’t stop making so many awesome videos, I’m going to have to join your Patreon! 🤪 Time index 11:30: We all have to also remember the efficiencies in miles driven per KWh, as you described earlier. The BEV will convert about 80% of that into motion, whereas the gasoline car will only only get 20%, and only about 50ish% for the fuel cell. Minor nitpick (pet peeve): “Energy density” is energy per unit *volume* ! Energy per unit mass is called “Specific Energy.” Not super-important, but just to be technically correct...

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

nitpicks but very good points! sorry I sometime write scripts, sometimes other help, and things slip through. thank you sir, and thank you for your kind words! just sharing our stuff on your social medias would be a great help :) thanks again Gary!

[@shnazshin]

Its takes a very large amount of electricity to refine gasoline. That needs to be in the equation when comparing an EV driving in West Virginia to gasoline or hybrid cars. The amount of electricity to refine gasoline to drive a mile is almost as much as an efficient EV uses to drive a mile. This fact alone changes the calculus substantially. It takes about 4.5 kWh of electricity to refine 1 gallon of gasoline from oil. If you do the calculation, a 25 MPG gasoline car consumes 70% as much electricity as a Model 3 EV, just in the refining process. We still havn't factored the amount of energy needed to mine the oil, and transport the gasoline. When comparing an EV to a gasoline car or a hydrogen car we need a full life-cycle analysis, that includes mining, refining, and transport of the gasoline (or hydrogen) to be a fair comparison.

[@shnazshin]

watch?v=BQpX-9OyEr4

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

That’s a great point!

[@shnazshin]

It takes about 4.5 kWh of electricity to refine 1 gallon of gasoline from oil. If you do the calculation, a 25 MPG gasoline car consumes 70% as much electricity as a Model 3 EV, just in the refining process. We still haven't factored the amount of energy needed to mine the oil, and transport the gasoline. When comparing an EV to a gasoline car or a hydrogen car we need a full life-cycle analysis, that includes mining, refining, and transport of the gasoline (or hydrogen) to be a fair comparison. For some reason most EV VS gasoline analysis often focus on the life-cycle of electricity generation, but forget to factor in the life-cycle of gasoline production; mining, refining and distribution energy cost. When gasoline production and distribution is taken into consideration EV efficiency becomes pronounced, even in a state like West Virginia. @@TwoBitDaVinci

[@ssu7653]

What new car, the size of a Model 3 have 25mpg? should be around 50-60mpg if not even more. Keep in mind that USA have around 25mpg as avg and there are alot of larger cars included in that...

[@shnazshin]

Even a car with 50 mpg produces 150% more CO2 than a model 3 in West Virginia. Many analyst say you need a full life-cycle analysis of electric cars (where does the electricity come from and how much CO2 does it produce) but fail to make the same analysis for gasoline cars (failing to account for mining and refining and transportation of the gasoline, its CO2 emissions). @@ssu7653

[@knuteilertsen1583]

Interesting video. There are a few mistakes regarding Nikola in here: 1. The electrolyzers intended for use are NEL A485 which are not PEM but atmospheric, alkaline electrolyzers. These are cheaper than PEM at purchase. 2. The intention is to produce on site, which invalidates your transportation cost calculation. A few more facts: Nikola thinks big regarding their infrastructure. The A485 are capable of 1 ton H2 production per day. In addition, they are intended to be set up in a cluster configuration of up to 32 per site. Which makes calculations more interesting. $5 per kilogram is the target price. So far, Nikola has ordered 448 units of this kind for the initial network rollout in addition to other fueling equipment. Nel is also working on pressurized electrolyzers which might replace the A485s down the line, but so far not much is known about this. Hope you find this information useful.

[@zodiacfml]

Comment on the video: Nice drone shots! I'm jealous! I like the video. I love EVs and lithium batteries but this gives hydrogen the proper coverage it needs! Hydrogen is only bad for small vehicles! For bus/trucks and anything bigger than that, hydrogen makes sense! You mentioned energy density but this advantage what makes hydrogen more scalable! I could imagine tankers, ships, planes, military vehicles utilizing hydrogen

[@mondotv4216]

@Autistic Boy I'm not sure it'll ever happen. Hydrogen is the smallest atom on the scale - it's almost impossible to contain completely without leaking in fuel delivery systems. Aircraft are subject to large changes in temperature which cause expansion and contraction of materials further exacerbating the problem. It's hard to see how you could make a hydrogen powered aircraft as safe as aviation fuel. Mind you I think the potential is great.

[@knut8613]

It has already been done. But not on a larger scale. kzbin.info/www/bejne/poqmoGCdlM2lis0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft@@mondotv4216

[@mondotv4216]

@Autistic Boy Point me to that research please. And how they arrived at that conclusion with such a miniscule sample size. I doubt it was referring to aircraft as they don't use gasoline.

[@mrspeigle1]

Speaking as a truck driver who has watched the Nikolai launch and done a paper comparison between the two vehicles I can tell you that the Nikolai is actually viable as a true over-the-road vehicle while the Tesla would only be useful for terminal to terminal type jobs. It also stands to reason that it be heavy Trucking industry went to hydrogen hydrogen cars would become much more viable if they were allowed to use the same infrastructure. Moreover the author is absolutely correct when he talks about the storage value of hydrogen, the solar panel is going to continue producing energy whether you have a place to store it or not, being able to dump Surplus production into hydrogen would go a long way towards increasing the profitability of Renewables like wind and solar.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

really great point, yeah if big semis made that switch, that would spur the infrastructure and make passenger cars more viable. great comment!

[@sagarmeena2596]

you make very quality video...love your work.

[@bhatkrishnakishor]

It fills my heart with joy that people are rooting for electric battery cars as opposed to hydrogen fuel cell cars, after all EV will truly bring an end to energy companies hegemony over fuel for personal transport.

[@bhatkrishnakishor]

I have a feeling, funds will never be directed toward eletrolysis research for making it viable for masses. After all energy companies don't want people cheaply producing hydrogen. I rather believe hydrogen production in homes/garages will be outlawed as public safety hazard.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@bhatkrishnakishor There's a fundamental problem. It does, and always will, take a given amount of energy to split Hydrogen from a compound. That energy 1) Costs money 2) Immediately makes the process inefficient. These factors cannot be bypassed.

[@rrrggg4334]

@@bhatkrishnakishor > funds will never be directed toward eletrolysis research for making it viable for masses. Water is hydrogen's ASH. Making hydrogen is like producing wood from the campfire ashes. No one will ever be able to cheaply produce hydrogen. Cheap charging BEVs on the other hand will be available to almost anyone in time.

[@Apjooz]

Hydrogen is already cheaper than gasoline.

[@rrrggg4334]

@@Apjooz > Hydrogen is already cheaper than gasoline. ROTFL, LOL x100. Only you mean the one "free" in the Sun. Bring me a bucket or three if you could?

[@shnazshin]

Its takes a very large amount of electricity to refine gasoline. That needs to be in the equation when comparing an EV driving in West Virginia to gasoline or hybrid cars. The amount of electricity to refine gasoline to drive a mile is almost as much as an efficient EV uses to drive a mile. This fact alone changes the calculus substantially.

[@donaldwright2426]

I love this video! It would be nice to have a video on methanol/ethanol fuel cells. I think that they are worth talking since it is in a liquid state at room temperature as you know and easy to use.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Great idea!

[@taddawesome]

Hydrogen is the smallest existing molecule and a gas. It is in fact very hard to contain it which usually involves multiple layers of thick metal. To say there would be no leakage or drain over time is pretty bold

[@tigerdust542]

SHIPS ARE ALREADY REPLACING FUEL SHIPS IN NORWAY AND ICELAND

[@brandoYT]

BATTERY POWERED SHIPS - also in Sweden-Denmark ferry

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

I have seen batteries running ships. Are you talking Hydrogen as well?

[@lylestavast7652]

it'll be batteries over fuel cells - more ubiquitous refuelling option locations and it doesn't matter what the source fuel behind the electricity is. they won't be lithium ion cobalt - they'll find less expensive and better storage density ...

[@GG-si7fw]

So, despite record oil production in the USA today , the EROI now means we technically have less net oil for consumption than we did in 1970.

[@PanicAttackRecovery]

Great and informative video hitting some good points on hydrogen and battery forms of energy. Thank you.

[@Bright2Shine]

Hey, love the video. Honestly so much good information! I think Hydrogen and BEVs dont need to smash each other. I think about it like Diesel and Gasoline. Both have their pros and cons. BEVs might be the sporty consumers favourite as well as commuters who rarely need to go above 100km a day. If they want to, there will be fast charging available! Buisinesses could even rent out some of their BEV fleets battery capacity to the grid companys to use for energy storage if they dont need it. Trucking companys and commuters that need to travel long distances might prefer they way faster refueling and higher range! (As well as obviously flight and shipping companys prefer the high energy density. For planes especially so, due to Hydrogen being used making the plane lighter, where as discharged batteries become dead mass.) Also I think it is likely that grid companys will have to put steep prices on fast charging at peak times when BEVs are commonplace because it can really destabilze a grid if too many charge at once during peak power consumption. Maybe this even leads to new natural gas power plants being build to compensate. This is obviously the opposite of what "emmisson free vehicle" is supposed to mean. While Hydrogen could be made with PEM during nighttime between 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM where the power consumtion is really low. This would stabilize the grid and could lead to fossil power plants closing down. So to be frank a COMBINATION of the two really could make zero emission transport for goods and people possible! Also I dont like some of the fierce "I'm right, you are wrong", here in the comments. Relax stay neutral and think about whats best for the planet! It is our future and we need calm minds to prevail, not some hotheads blowing steam. If anyone ever reads this and thinks about it, thank you so much. And if you can support Two Bit da Vinci, do it, because I'm a student and I really can't. Have a nice day! Ludwig

[@VictorGallagherCarvings]

I suspect that at some point locomotive manufacturers are going to switch over to hydrogen fuel cells.

[@guringai]

Or batteries and rooftop as solar

[@josiahbomford7612]

Very Very Interesting! Thx for the breakdown :)

[@AndreAndFriends]

Great video. You realy explained & clarified lots of details very well. .... I'm sure u could included more details. But this is great, the way it is.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Thanks so much! Hope you’ll subscribe we have tons more planned ;)

[@AndreAndFriends]

@@TwoBitDaVinci thank you for remaining me. I subbed now. ..... commented, liked, shared & subbed.

[@AndreAndFriends]

@@TwoBitDaVinci and smashed that bell👍

[@Parkproductions1991]

The question about how much the dead weight of the Tesla Semi sounds like it will be significant at first with the weight of the batteries around 13,000 lbs potentially. But when you dive deeper, you find how the Tesla Semi cuts down weight where regular semis still have large amounts of weight. 1. a semi engine weighs abour 3,000 lbs. The Tesla Semi uses 4 Model 3 motors which weigh about 75 lbs each. 2. at fully fueled semi weighs 2720 lbs at 400 gallons with 6.7 lbs per gallon. Batteries weigh the same no matter how charged they are. 3. A semi transmission weighs around 950 lbs. Electric vehicles do not have transmissions. Adding this all up around 6,700 lbs that is in a typical semi that an electric semi like Tesla's will not need. Add the weight of the battery and the motors to roughly 13,300 lbs and subtract 6,700 lbs you get 6,600 lbs heavier for the Tesla Semi compared to a typical truck. Much better than 13,000 lbs.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Great point

[@mrclarky]

Why do Americans still use lbs?

[@Parkproductions1991]

@Vamsi Krishna this is probably the main reason for the delay in the semis. I will be very curious to see the difference in weight with these new cells will be.

[@bjair]

How many hydrogen fueling stations are there and how much does it cost to build one? Important details!

[@markplott4820]

very FEW in America , mostly in California. and they are OLD ones built in the 1990's when GM/Shell had a Deal to Experiment with FCV along side its NG cars and the EV1 .

[@SuperJohn12354]

In Dec 2016 the Australian CSIRO, invented a way to store Hydrogen, all these videos think that hydrogen is still using the old tech, I ask you this, given that there will not be a shell, BP or Exon Mobile, if electric cars are the only cars used , how long do you think it would take for them to roll out , the thing is , not only can you store the hydrogen at a petrol station, but that petrol station can then become a mini electric generator as well for surrounding houses, also you can use the solar of surrounding houses to generate more hydrogen, it’s not just green, it’s green in how it’s made, as compared to batteries that have a 12 year life cycle and produce a lot of carbon to make.

[@elgad82]

This car dont need hydrogen fuel station.,you only need a tap water.,just put tap water to power cell and the power cell will create hydrogen to power youre car.,

[@lip124]

Thank you, this right here

[@rogerheuckeroth7456]

One thing to add is that almost all transportation based FCEV technology platforms include a sizable battery to handle the power requirements. FCs are good at outputting a constant amount of energy. Batteries are good at handling power spikes needed for acceleration / regenerative braking and hill climbing. Also, the charge/discharge inefficiency for this battery pack needs to be figured into the overall efficiency calculation. For potential aircraft applications, there would need to be a battery on board that can supply most of the power required for take off and climbing to cruising altitude.

[@Bryan46162]

Exactly, regenerative breaking is huge and a battery is great at absorbing all that recovered energy. Fuel cells don't run backwards in cars. At the end of the day a FCV is really just a BEV with an exotic range extender designed to burn expensive fuel bolted on.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@Bryan46162 (Shhhhh...Actually batteries aren't as good as capacitors for high energy absorption and release). Search fullycharged Estonia, interesting piece on battery / capacitor hybrids. Could be the way to go.

[@mikedittsche]

Great video. If you should review this topic at another time, note that there is LOHC technology available now. LOHC stands for Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier which is a fluid substance that can chemically bond hydrogen and be transported in regular tanks (or even pipelines) at ambient pressure and temperature. It is non flammable and not toxic. This completely removes the efficiency losses through high pressure condensation. German and Dutch companies already started building transport ships fueled with LOHC.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

We will definitely look into this in the future. Thank you!

[@antonnym214]

I would much rather fuel my car from any available electrical outlet than being stuck going to a hydrogen station just like I do now with gasoline. With electricity, it's just everywhere and competition keeps the prices down. With one company controlling hydrogen, it would be a consumer's worst nightmare.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Agreed

[@fireblazer6661]

I was going to insult electric based on high electric bills but had to delete my previous comment. Here are the facts as I know them in Canadian dollars and kilometers: I drive a Toyota Matrix, 1.8 liter 5 speed. Costs me about $60 Canadian dollars to drive about 700 kilometers at highway speeds mostly (I live in a rural area that's 20-30km from anything... work... stores... etc) Now for $60, at $0.16 per Kilowatt Hour (That's what I pay... yes it's a lot, power isn't cheap here...), would amount to about 375 KW/Hrs at $60/0.16. Now google "says" 1 kilowatt hour per 3 miles (4.83 km/KW) for Tesla's generally speaking. This translates to 4.83 kilometers driven per 1000 watt hours, equalling to around 1811 kilometers of driving for the same fuel cost, a figure roughly 2.5 times what I pay for gas. Not what I expected. BUT you have to consider range and charge time. I drive 32 kilometers each way, or more, to work. That's 64 kilometers minimum. My last job was 80 kilometers. The Tesla Model S goes 482 kilometers (300 miles) per charge (with a new battery... charge capacity decreases over time, with use, and depending on abuse of battery etc). This takes 9.5 hours to charge, according to Google, on 240 volt power. My house only has 110v, 100 amp power, so if I wanted to charge at home I'd need to pay 10,000 to update my electrical to code, plus the cost of electric charge system for the car. It's shy of 50 km driving, PER HOUR OF CHARGING. This is fine if I pay 10,000 and update my electrical and can just charge over night, mind you. If you already have up to date electrical, it may not be a bad deal. Your fuel bill would be tacked onto your electric bill. But for someone like myself, it'd be a hassle. Now from what I've read, lithium ion batteries shouldn't be run dead, or charged to 100% (at least not the ones in phones etc). Capacity loss increases over time a lot if you let batteries die or charge fully. They say to charge anywhere from 80-90% depending on where you read it, and not let it go below 20-30%... mind you this is cellphone lithium ion batteries. The technology may be different in cars so that's not as much an issue. But these are things to think about. One last thing to consider is, where does your electricity come from? AND consider that, many electrical grids are already pushed to their limit. To go electric would require vastly expanding the energy output of electrical grids. Look what happens in the summer in some places that use air conditioning, resulting in intermittent power loss due to heavy load. My place loses power pretty regularly because I'm on a long straight stretch of 20 kilometers on one power line, with a whole lot of trees, and a whole lot of wind and bad winter weather. This results in a lot of 2 hour power losses. Not the end of the world. But something to bear in mind.

[@johnbeaulieu2404]

One concern I have is that the electrolysis process like assumes pure clean water, something that is hard to find in large quantities even in the USA. How will the process work when the feedstock is contaminated with chemicals. For example what do the costs look like if they have to distill the water before they begin the process.

[@markplott4820]

USN is experimenting with Filtered SEA water for Hydrogen.

[@milanswoboda5457]

Generally water is first filtered, run through reverse osmosis and a de-ionizer before electrolysis is done to avoid fouling up the electrolysis cells. However this also means that the discharge water from the RO unit is highly concentrated with minerals and contaminants plus creating additional costs for filters, Ion-exchange substrates, extra energy to operate filtration, ...etc.

[@RonaldBrown59]

Interesting information.

[@membender]

Two more knocks against H2 that I don't believe you mentioned: 1.) The cost of building a "dispensing station" is what, 50 or 100X, compared to the cost of building a Super or Fast-charging electric station (480VDC) 2.) Owner/drivers would have to drive to these stations (an inconvenience) EVERY TIME they want to refill. And there are other smaller issues with H2 which make it a loser, but those are two big ones.

[@rodrigojds]

RIP combustion cars

[@Ekitchi0]

you compared the energy density of batteries amd hydrogen but that was without taking into account the weight of the reenforeced hydrogen tank right? Also, it's a comparison in weight, what about the volume? I guess the volume is much less of an issue for trucks and boats but it is an issue for regular cars.

[@harishkumaar9085]

I think most hydrogen cars use carbon fiber tanks which are lightweight, so may not make a huge difference. Moreover it is not like solid battery cells needed to increase the total energy stored. 5 kg hydrogen tanks in Mirai seems pretty small.

[@SuperJohn12354]

The same size hydrogen tank as a petrol tank will go more than twice the distance, the difference being hydrogen is a lot lighter than petrol, also weight saving occurs in other area’s, like the frame of the car, and the number of bolts used, a engineer pulled apart the Tesla to see exactly how advanced it was, they said the frame was not only heavy, but lacked basic engineering, the wheel well was 3 weld parts instead of 1, they had bolts in areas for no reason, this extra work also increases the carbon footprint in the manufacturing process, when people look at an electric car, they look at the carbon foot print after its made instead of factoring in the amount of carbon it takes to get the finished product, a lot of Tesla’s are struggling to stay on the road after 5-6 years, that mean they still need to drive for another 3-4 years to become carbon neutral, also most Tesla drivers charge there cars at night, on coal produced electricity.

[@macmcleod1188]

@@SuperJohn12354 that figure seems off given that Tesla leasing companies are reporting 300,000 miles on their Tesla's with very low battery degradation and low maintenance cost compared to internal combustion engine cars. I've owned my ice car for 8 years and I'm just now getting to a hundred and fifteen thousand miles.

[@phalanx3803]

@Allen Loser yet a Tesla battery pack is well over 400 kg for roughly the same amount of energy.

[@phalanx3803]

@Allen Loser true but it still lighter than a Tesla battery seriously Tesla's are in SUV weight range pushing 4 x 4 weight range.

[@genemiller51]

Great clip. You missed one big point - Platinum! Current fuel cells require platinum as a catalyst that gets slowly consumed. Platinum is very expensive and quantities are finite. A lot of research is going on to find an alternative,. While this is promising, nothing is operational yet.

[@tamogotzi]

Love your work 👍

[@Voltaic]

I have a feeling that you need to put even more care in your Videos when adressing such a controversal topic! I think that is still on of the few differences betwheen you and channels like ColdFusion and Kurzgesagt! I'm quite into the topic of EVs and often had the feeling during that Video, that some facts were missing or put into wrong connection and that some calculations were wrong and looking through the comments I saw that I was not the only one. I hope I can help you improve even more with what you are doing!

[@Aerostealth]

You lost me at the profit margin problem for a Tesla Semi Truck that can travel three times as far on a unit of energy but carry a little less cargo?

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Fair point Jon. But 1000 kWh of batteries is a lot of batteries... the next ten years should be interesting! Thanks for always taking the time to write us!

[@Aerostealth]

@@TwoBitDaVinci 19.67 mpg e versus 7 mpg for diesel sounds pretty good to me even if you do end up hauling 20% less load. Sounds cost effective too. There seems to be a few trucking companies out there that think so too or are they missing something along with me?

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

No absolutely you're right, its going to be a big move, but for large scale transport companies, hydrogen might also make sense. But honestly Tesla is DOING it, there's no one really pushing hydrogen forward in any meaningful way, so yeah, I think you're right

[@Aerostealth]

@@TwoBitDaVinci I get that hydrogen might work in larger scale applications just because of the platinum issue for miniaturizing PEM cells for cars. Airplanes and ships possibly might benefit. For trains line power can replace diesel. Trains even did regen braking on the Milwaukee Line in the 1920's with one train putting power back into the grid while going down grade in the Rockies feeding a second train climbing the opposite slopes.

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

@@AerostealthHydrogen tanks probably too heavy for air transport. You still have batteries and electric motors in a hydrogen vehicle so you are making an electric plane but then adding complexity and many potential problems.

[@garywiseman5080]

A thought on the hybrid in WV: you walked us through the emissions of electricity and hydrogen. The gasoline wasn’t born in the hybrid gas tank. Do you have emission estimates for oil exploration, well location, drilling, production, burning of uneconomical substances (flaring), transportation, refining, transportation, and storage for the oil/gas? Thanks for the video!

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Yes we are planning a video on this before the end of the year! Subscribe and stay tuned. Great question btw

[@tonydeveyra4611]

Cargo ships are really the only places where fuel cells make sense, IMO. The extra power density allows them to carry more cargo and the places where ships can refuel (port) have access to unlimited amounts of water (the ocean) for making hydrogen by electrolysis. Additionally, two of the hottest new up and coming sources of renewable energy (offshore wind and wave energy) are right next to port, minimizing the need for extra infrastructure or the loss of transmission to get the electricity to the hydrolysis station.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

great point, yeah that definitely makes sense. and actually, ships could have solar panels and wind turbines on board and generate their own hydrogen on the fly even.

[@heltok]

11:48 never is a very long time... I have a feeling this video will not age well.

[@butspan7618]

sir if the Ev weights 2 time more than a hydrogen car than hydrogen is better option and battery are not going to surpass hydrogen energy density as its the most energy dense molecule

[@heltok]

Energy density is one factor. But in the end it is usually a trade off between many factors such as cost, performance, efficiency, pollution, noise etc. The video says never electric for boats and airplanes, which is strange given that today we already see some electrical boats(line traffic in Norway etc) and airplanes(educational). And given that battery densities and cost keep improving rapidly the number of applications for battery electric vehicles should keep increasing. So saying _never_ when we already have some examples today and seeing rapid improvements is clearly very pessimistic.

[@retoblubber]

@@heltok obviously you're absolutely right. 11:48 note the weasel-clause _"as they currently stand"_

[@incognitotorpedo42]

heltok, Cheerleading for a problem-ridden technology rarely ages well. This was not 2bitD's best work.

[@tigerdust542]

why did you say you are only counting industry solar and not home solar home solar is huge ... NOT FAIR the energy to make hydrogen would cost more than gas at the pump my model 3 gets 125 mile to the gallon ( equivalent ) ... only 27 hydrogen stations in the US 1550,000 gas stations and 55 trillion electrical wall sockets in just the US alone .

[@perseperseenreika2192]

There is already battery powered electric planes. They cost the same as the ice planes, but the operating costs are only something like 1/10. One seat in jet costs to build something like 600 000$, you can get an electric plane for 200 000$. Current large cattle van jets exist because of the limitations of the fuel. Future air travel will be personal autonomous planes. Like flying cars.

[@markplott4820]

they Already have a 2-Seater Trainer aircraft and All Electric Planes in the Consumer Plane market. ' ELON MUSK is working on a VTOL All Electric plane that flies at High Altitutes .

[@markplott4820]

@@SandraWantsCoke - all Pilots have to Learn on Fixed Wing prop planes first , then the graduate to Bigger/better AC. the TESLA Electric VTOL jet will revlotionize AIR travel. until then we can use BFR for International Travel , just 30 Minutes to Anywhere on the Planet.

[@ccooperev]

A small quibble. Washington State far outstrips California in clean energy electricity production with more than 80% electrical production from renewables.

[@timallen1619]

Some of the statements are spot on and both accounts, batteries and hydrogen cars are the answer to the future ! Batteries are getting better for cars and i think that hydrogen can be produced ( on demand ), no fuel cell needed! We need to get off fossil fuel! As far as carbon foot print... you'll never get away from this! Unless you just stopped breathing! LOL!

[@ajykumar2]

What about energy used to produce, transport and storage of gasoline.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Absolutely we have a future video planned

[@artemaung5274]

Quality of your videos is incredible! Is it a greatly improved bitrate, or the fact that I view it in 4k downscaled to my native 1080p?

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Thank you sir. We render in 4K 60fps so yah it’s pretty top notch at least in that regard ;)

[@markiangooley]

One big advantage of hydrogen is the use of wind power and photovoltaic. The electric power doesn’t always show up when it’s needed, and storing it is problematic - so using it to make hydrogen is (sort of) a solution. But hydrogen leaks easily, can be a nuisance to store and transport, and so on. Germany has an excess of wind power in the north. They’re experimenting with producing hydrogen from it and powering trains with it.

[@NotABadGuy.]

Great video! I agree there is a place for hydrogen; for example in Orkney Islands in Scotland where they produce too much electricity from renewables. In such a place they can use excess electricity to make hydrogen and use it to power ships etc.

[@woof059]

You make the mistake of thinking that the kind of car is the solution, and that it is through its choice that you make all judgements of how much you can lower the impact. In the move to a sustainable, zero carbon emission future, you must have a car that uses power sources that generate no carbon emissions during operation. A Model 3 in WV hooked up to your solar panel array is cleaner than anything.

[@dungc6479]

How about all that lithium mining? Hydrogen can be burned in a combustion engine with the emission being water. Lithium batteries are not clean for the environment do to the pollutants released into ground water and local ponds.

[@deweshkumarmahur7821]

amazing...very informative video.

[@dreamburn1]

Thank you for researching and vocalizing an argument that seems intuitive to me, but is so hard to convey without the numbers crunched, and the logic completely explored. I love the part about the Tesla Semi vs. Nikola Semi... what a great balanced point-and an excellent application for the struggling, yet potentially useful hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Oil companies need to re-tool to survive the future; and supplying passenger jet travel, semi tractor and rail train transport is an excellent incentive. Batteries will improve. Hydrogen extraction (and even portable storage) will improve. And when humans get their ass in gear (hello W. Virginia?) and start scaling up renewable production, it will be obvious that free energy (sun, wind, hydro, etc) beats costly destructive energy, and we just might have a chance of mitigating the suffering of our posterity.

[@AlexandreLollini]

Just one correction : Your natural gas figures do not include neither leaks at extraction, nor leaks in networks. Those are proven to mostly equalise gas with coal. And as you explain it Hydrogen is just a new way to market oil and gas. Hydrogen is most relevant for airplanes. Batteries make more sense ground vehicles. Hydrogen is one of the best rocket fuels too. (but there methane could make more sense for other reasons, like Mars colonisation)

[@TwileD]

I understand the rationale behind a lighter hydrogen drive train allowing more cargo to be carried, increasing profit per mile, but I wonder how that will measure up against the higher cost of hydrogen, which also scales per mile. If we assume that the Tesla Semi takes ~2 kWh/mile (Tesla says it will take less, but didn't cite a more specific number, so we'll err on the side of caution) and the Model 3 and S take 1/4 to 1/3 kWh per mile, we can expect a hydrogen semi to similarly take 6-8x as much as a more conventional passenger vehicle (currently $.22/mile). Multiply that out and we've got $1.32 to $1.76 per mile for a hydrogen semi. A bit of Googling suggests that diesel can cost $0.54/mile for a typical semi (out of a total average cost of $1.38/mile for all expenses, including wages and maintenance). And a semi can drive 2000-3000 miles a week, which we'll average to 130,000 miles per year. If we crunch the numbers and are optimistic for hydrogen, the extra 78 cents per mile adds up to $101,400 per year compared to a diesel truck. Maybe improvements to aerodynamics and hydrogen refining will help bring that down, but on the surface it doesn't look promising compared to the status quo. In comparison, Tesla hopes to match or beat the cost of diesel semis (though to be fair, this assumes Tesla providing the power at a very low price, which I'd say is a bit optimistic for the near future).

[@Cerberus984]

Why not just do overhead power rails for semis that is off-patent and perfected in trains? He is also being intellectually dishonest not including a plug in prius ($28K) which is only 12% more emissions than a Model 3 ($35K) according to green car enthusiast sites.

[@TwileD]

​@@Cerberus984 Even if it's not an engineering or maintenance challenge, I imagine it would be rather expensive to build power rails over all roads that a semi might need to drive on. I'm also skeptical that there would be enough public and political support for it any time soon. In the long term, sure, there are more ways than one to make transport more efficient. But changing to alternate fuel vehicles which inhabit familiar roles allows the transition to begin sooner. In theory, a company could install some high-power chargers between their major warehouses and logistics hubs and buy an electric semi tomorrow. I can't really speak to the Prius vs. Model 3 thing.

[@Cerberus984]

@@TwileD Siemens has an E-Highway overhead charging in Sweden and it's the same as train use. The regenerative capacity of slowing down isn't limited to battery temps as it's fed back into the grid. If a SEMI uses 2KW per mile x 65 mph = 130KWH vs stationary chargers spiking 1MW - 1.5MW that is more of a complicated feat for grid stability. As a electric provider if I know X amount of semi-trucks travel my roadway it's a predictable steady draw on what I must supply. In a spikey demand nature I have to spin up a fast acting natural gas turbine as needed to prevent brownouts and equipment damage. To clarify, I'm not advocating for full EV semis and proposing hybrids (technically tribrid) semis that use 1/10th the battery a full EV semi.

[@sleivkjaeft]

The truck drivers has it in their lease plan. And everyone else can buy it for a target price of $5

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Consider that once the (solar/wind?) Infrastructure for the Tesla system is installed, it is to all intents and purposes free being self contained and requiring very little maintenance. The Nikola system requires a lot more infrastructure on top of what will be essentially the same system. This *will* require more maintenance.

[@Apjooz]

The value of a transport fuel isn't as much in how much energy it returns but how much energy it carries.

[@glenngoodale1709]

Thank you so much ! I am a vet and you have made my day

[@louicoleman2910]

Hydrogen is the fuel type of choice... for the OIL industry. 90% of hydrogen is just another form of fossil fuel. They will still need to stop at gas stations, and would be far better for oil companies. As for the consumer, EVs are easier, safer, simpler and better performing. It’s obvious who’s winning this race!

[@bjorn1583]

you are so spot on with that one plus if you have to go to the pump the gov can still put huge taxes on it, where l live over 50% of the pump price is taxes

[@nameunko]

Like electricity is totally free LMAO, wait until the government charge your for solar energy.

[@nigergalactic6380]

@Andrew Meyer well, children will work for food in the lithium mine....

[@RobertJBarnes]

Japan is going all in on hydrogen power. Your hydrogen car takes only 5 minutes to fill whereas it takes hours to power EV.

[@louicoleman2910]

R J those hours are 95% of the time going to be when you’re at home, often when you’re asleep doing nothing. When you are out and about there are fast chargers that can give your car the energy it needs in about half an hour, roughly the time it takes for a normal stop at a service station on a road trip. As long as you have your own place to plug in, there will be cost-competitive EVs that will suit your needs. This is not true of Hydrogen as there are very few filling stations and you can’t really leave California or London or whatever the nearest place with H2 is. This is unlike EVs which can charge anywhere with a plug if necessary. An EV went from South Africa all the way to the top of Europe, you can’t do that with hydrogen any time soon.

[@nickmurphy7177]

Please include the CO2 for gasoline refineries or its not a true calculation

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Great point we have a future video planned to cover this

[@soa5p]

I'm making my whole project about this so it really helps

[@00crashtest]

Besides environmental aspects, for most people, most importantly, hydrogen fuel cells are just too damn expensive. The BASE 2018 Toyota Mirai has a sticker price of $58,365 ($48,365 after all incentives in California, excluding local ones) whereas the base model 2018 Nissan LEAF has a sticker price of $29,990 ($19,990 after all incentives in California, excluding local ones). The Mirai is true luxury, Benz E-Class and BMW 5-Series priced, whereas the LEAF is *CIVIC PRICED*!!!!!

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Even if they were cheaper the extraction> reconversion process uses *energy*. It's inefficient!

[@YR2050]

So how much cleaner is hydrogen than to gas? I'm asking about the whole process and not just when its driven.

[@butspan7618]

hydrogen is basically water just add oxygen which is everywere

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@butspan7618 No. It has a strong bond to the oxygen molecule which requires *energy* to break it. It then requires *energy* to produce electricity from the Hydrogen. Of the original grid *energy* you have, you'll only get 50% at the vehicle motor (via batteries btw!). It just doesn't make sense.

[@butspan7618]

@@rogerstarkey5390 hydrogen stores more energy and weights less than any battery. meaning as the weight of the vehicle increases Ev efficiency decreases as the Ev has to add more battery for it to maintain its range. meaning they will coexist doing other jobs planes and ships are going to be hydrogen as weight savings increases efficiency by a lot more than in a traditional car while trucks are most likely going to battle out with which one is better thou for long range trucking its probably going to by hydrogen as they don't have time to sit around and charge.

[@crafty_geek]

what's the theoretical/thermodynamic limit for hydrogen production efficiency with electrolysis?

[@knuteilertsen1583]

There is no limit. They produced tons of it every day for fertilizer production as early as 1927.

[@PhilbertDeZwart]

@@knuteilertsen1583 I think the answer intended efficiency in terms of energy produced in the form of hydrogen divided by energy input. (I don't know the answer)

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@knuteilertsen1583 Not "limit".... "Efficiency"

[@markplott4820]

FACT: Military in America produced Hydrogen with Electrolysis at DAMS for the Mahattan Project.

[@knuteilertsen1583]

Efficiency is keeping your fleet moving. A producing fleet is good economy. Taxis, buses, fork lifts, trucks, trains, ships and eventually airplanes. They need a efficient fleet. And this fleet is best powered by hydrogen. YOUR needs might not be that demanding. Just wait and see when Nikola rolls out 700 hydrogen stations capable of TONS of hydrogen. First demo stations are being built as we speak. 2020, the US of A will have the most efficient network ever built established.

[@billtruttschel]

At 10:33, it would cost 22 cents per mile, not .22 cents per mile. Big difference.

[@gursewak1511]

good work

[@raviteza8]

H2 is the leakiest element in the Periodic Table! Its hard to store it for long periods of time, just like electricity in a battery!

[@craigslist04]

Nikola, when pigs fly... Has anyone seen a Nikola move from a dead stop? Vaporware.

[@markplott4820]

and NIKOLA will have to Transport all that Hydrogen at Cryogenic Temps than turn it back to a GAS at Point of Use stations......LOL.

[@mitchellhagerty4303]

Premo video guys well done!

[@melodiejones7100]

The biggest problem with BEVs is that a lot of people don't have a garage where you can let a car sit and charge for hours on end. Look at Japan, China, New York, etc. etc. And all of the people who live in apartments or townhouses with no garage. If there were the same number of hydrogen fuel stations as there are electric charging stations then hydrogen would be the way to go. Not to mention we are already running into issues getting the minerals needed for lithium ion batteries.

[@ramblerandy2397]

Hydrogen isn't even close. In fact, hydrogen is actually to be resisted. Because people cannot generate hydrogen at home, whereas electricity can easily be. Hydrogen keeps the citizen in slavery to fuel providers. So, you cannot go completely 'off-grid' with hydrogen. Battery/electric allows you that, through home produced solar/wind power, with battery storage. Besides, for the forseeable future, lithium batterries only competition is from other battery types. That would be a realistic comparison. Perhaps, even for longer than than the forseeable future. BTW, another couple of contingencies not mentioned, hydrogen etches away at any material that contains it, producing tiny cracks. And, through containing precious metals, hydrogen fuel cell converters cost a phenomenal amount of money, and regularly need servicing, at the moment. Also remember, while research and development into hydrogen carries on, battery technology carries on too. In my opinion, Japan are so brave they are almost being foolhardy. This isn't another emerging Japanese motorcycle era, when everyone laughed, but they stuck to it. But Honda and Toyota have a sackful of money and will, so it's entirely upto them what they do.

[@bhatkrishnakishor]

Yeah, Japan betting on hydrogen fuel cells drew my attention too. Frankly though, I wish they fail to make Hydrogen fuel cell true alternative for gasoline because as you said only way to democratize the fuel will be through electric battery cars 🙂

[@PhilbertDeZwart]

I think the video is not contradicting you. As I understand the conclusions of this video, batteries have an enormous and fundamental edge on hydrogen for personal transportation. But there is a use case in mass transport, trucks and ships, where hydrogen may work better.

[@ramblerandy2397]

@@PhilbertDeZwart The main thrust of my comment was meant to convey my concern that hydrogen would end up being another fuel in which to enslave the vehicle owner. Yes, it could work with massive transport like ships, where the scale may make it economical enough.

[@ramblerandy2397]

@@bhatkrishnakishor Indeed. Besides which, the energy density of straight lithium-ion batteries improves year on year, and the costs of those are plummeting. The first is research, the second is just scale. I also believe that significant step-up improvements in battery technology are on their way. And whilst Govt and Big Business may not like the average citizen to be free from the tie to fuel providers [easy price setting and tax revenue] it is a highly desirable state for the average citizen to be in.

[@ramblerandy2397]

@Autistic Boy Of course, the enthusiast or resourceful can do many things from home. However, there are commercially available systems that allow almost any home owner to provide themselves with self generated electricity. Providing they can cough up the necessary cash for the gear. 😎 PS. Motorcycles are indeed awesome. 👍

[@deadpoolfanboy3012]

We know hydrogen is dead when Nikola sued Tesla

[@mandernachluca3774]

No, that was when we knew that Nikola was dead. Hydrogen has future ;D.

[@leonesperanza3672]

Hydrogen have a future especially in weight sensitive trasportation industry. Like cargo shipping, Cargo Trucks and Airplanes. The lighter the power source the more it can carry. 1 kilogram of hydrogen produce the same energy as 1 gallon of gas.

[@erichstocker4173]

A very nice and balanced review of the issue. I was a bit disappointed that you shifted all your analysis to hydrogen through electrolysis as it isn't being produced that way now. It would also have been useful to discuss the larger amount of energy used by this approach rather than breaking up hydrocarbons. All that aside, a good summary.

[@robertlisenko2962]

Great video, really appreciated the visuals on E-ROI. Would like to see more detail on cargo shipping and planes (Nikola is on their 3rd variation with 0 deliveries, they’re little more than serial inventors) I’d just quibble with your statement at the end; Hydrogen isn’t going to improve with time like batteries because there are not the massive market forces pushing for greater density. Phones/tablets/laptops, data centers/grids, cars all seek greater capacity and/or smaller sizes. Demand comes for denser batteries from a dozen sides, nothing like that for Hydrogen Fool cells, the fuel of the future since 1980. A good case could be supported that the sole reason we talked about it came from Exxon/Shell stealth efforts in CA and later Japan to “green” their Nat Gas, which as you demonstrate, was not green at all. Unless Hydrogen is viable for planes and ships, it seems like a massive sunk cost we should all forget about

[@justinpnelson90]

Washington State’s grid > California

[@markplott4820]

California is 70% renewable Today and will be 100% in Less than a Decade.

[@Richard-ie1if]

electricity will never be more expensive than it is today. solar will only get cheaper eventually power during sunlight hours will be near free night power will cost battery storage noon will become off peaks hours in a few years

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Electricity has gotten 8% more expensive here in California every year since I graduated college

[@Richard-ie1if]

@@TwoBitDaVincipossible....but theres an absolute limit....batteries can already be had at 200$/kwh and solar panels are cheap enough at 8% a year power doubles in 9 years time. it will be laughably economical to go off grid if that continues for another 5/6 years and batteries are falling like a rock at present tesla is just selling them all in cars for now

[@Richard-ie1if]

@Autistic Boy hydrogen sucks....if it worked the best case scenario would be a massive storage plant with huge million gallon tanks....it doesnt and even economy of scale cant make it viable nobody is making hydrogen at home dude....

[@Richard-ie1if]

@Autistic Boy lol dude...yeah you can make hydrogen at home with a stupid 20$ dc power supply....except it takes more power than it can store let alone realize after converting it back to power this is why hydrogen is stupid at best putting a million gallon tank next to powerplant will reduce all losses to minimums its not worth it, and batteries are plummeting in cost this is betamax vs vhs except batteries already won years ago

[@lylestavast7652]

@@TwoBitDaVinci "Electricity has gotten 8% more expensive here in California every year since I graduated college" That's easily explained - dramatic compelled change without alternatives already in place.

[@h2opower]

Two Bit da Vinci, there is a new way to break the bonds of the water molecules but each time this new method of breaking the bonds of the water molecules has tried to come out in the past it was quickly stamped out by World Bank, IMF, and Big Oil. The problem with the new method is both gases come off at the same place and have to be separated after the decomposition of water by some means as unlike standard electrolysis the hydrogen and oxygen are not produces at the negative and positive electrodes but right in the smack middle of the two electrodes. But this new process breaks the bonds of the water molecules at about 1700% efficient over standard electrolysis. Now before you go saying this is a joke I am one of the few that understands how the new technology works and can tell you it doesn't even look like standard electrolysis as the water appears as if it is boiling and remains cool to the touch. I think this would really change things as stand alone units could be fitted right to the car that now only requires some water to be added from time to time and correct me if I am wrong but isn't the byproduct of a fuel cell water? This mean the water produced by the fuel cell can be put right back into the tank for reuse. Anyway I am working on trying to bring the technology out and with a little luck might add something totally new to the game.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Well then please reach out to us if you ever do. We’ll cover that and give you a platform!

[@h2opower]

@@TwoBitDaVinci I will try and remember you when the time is right for me to attempt to bring this technology out to our world and my only hope is I do not end up like the past few guys whom gave it a try before me. The earliest know version of this this technology came out in 1968 but like I said the IMF and World Bank put a stop to it.

[@Markle2k]

The powertrain components of a diesel class-8 tractor that are unique to the diesel add up to about 9500 lbs. That means the weight penalty of a Tesla electric semi is about 10%. That is more than offset in fuel savings alone. Add on maintenance savings. And then, as well, most trucks aren't hauling their full legal weight so the freight weight limit is moot.

[@tigerdust542]

You make it sound like hydrogen stations could be every ware in the future but it takes more energy to make THAN BATTERY POWERED CARS CAN CHARGE even on a large scale like power plants why do you think jet plains don't burn hydrogen it obviously has more energy ???? so why BECAUSE IT'S JUST TO EXPENSIVE .

[@markplott4820]

also, no one wants a Hydrogen station in their Backyard .

[@markplott4820]

@@SandraWantsCoke - NOPE, more Energy efficient and lower Pollution than Hydrogen plants, Home battery can be charged with SOLAR (at Parity with Grid cost) and Wind - more expensive but more energy intensive, also Makes energy at Night. FACT : when you factor in Fossil Fuel production of Hydrogen, compression, storage, transport , turning BACK to a gas, HYDROGEN is ONLY 30% efficient , just like a COMBUSTION CAR.

[@garn5341]

“But batteries, as they "currently stand", can never replace gasoline applications like boats or airplanes”. Really? But you were willing to give hydrogen generation the benefit, that as the technology improves it might become cheaper to produce. So are you saying battery tech is just standing still? I would say that if you went back 30 years and looked at both Hydrogen and battery tech, that in those years battery tech has advanced way more than hydrogen. It just seems a little misleading to hear you say battery tech, in its current stance, could "never" work for boats and airplanes (There are already some battery powered plans, and boats/tankers.). Battery tech is advancing quicker than hydrogen tech by far. So cost wise I would say it's more accurate to say, as it "currently stands", hydrogen will never replace gasoline applications like boats or airplanes (Cost wise). And that is not even taking into consideration all the down falls of hydrogen in comparison to batteries. Hydrogen is difficult to store, it's extremely "leaky", and extremely explosive, more so than batteries. Otherwise, great video! Keep up the great work. I should add, either way, either one, I'm glad you are supporting alternative energy solutions. Thank you for that!

[@Cerberus984]

Wanna know something wiser and cheaper than hydrogen or massive batteries? Overhead power rails that we've been using on trains for around 100 or so years. FFS this is why favoring the new flavor of the month makes you guys hard to take serious.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@Cerberus984 1) required infrastructure, Huge. 2) Maintenance, similarly huge. 3) Vunerable to weather, sabotage, etc. 4) Power loss.

[@Cerberus984]

@@rogerstarkey5390 Siemens has an operating E Highway using overhead power rails in Sweden. As an electricity provider it's cheaper and simplified to have consistent steady draw instead of spikey demand charging stations. As I must either spin up fast acting gas turbines as needed or run slow acting power generation even when I don't need it as the response time is slow. On an E highway if each Semi used 2KW per mile x 65 mph x 100 trucks = 13MW steady draw On stationary semi truck charging the proposed rates I've read are 1MW to 1.5MW if 100 of these trucks all charged at the same time we're talking about 100MW - 150MW.

[@markplott4820]

that's FALSE , A single GWh class Renewable Energy + Battery storage can Permamently shutdown 2 Fossil Fuel powerplants. And ELON MUSK is working on solving the issues of All Electric Flight. he wants to build a VTOL jet that just uses Batteries.

[@Cerberus984]

@@markplott4820 If we are diverting battery production for grid storage what do you think the inevitable will become for batteries costs in electric cars or even semis? The price of solar / wind will not be going down much anymore as competition is sufficient enough driving the prices down as much as possible. Where it's more of a material, labor, and fabrication costs setting the price. If your focus was to shut down as many fossil fuel plants nuclear would be the most ideal route which must mirror how South Korea has a thriving nuclear industry costing half to produce vs western society.

[@flipperbear9]

Strange, the Tesla stock footage showing a homeowner charging at home was at 120V and 12A. For a modern home like that, they would have a 240V 48A setup.

[@davidg4975]

I viewed some of the informative videos on a new revolutionary method by an energy company called H2IL Very interesting & a must see. We need something like this to boost the hydrogen fuelled stuff into the future

[@dtgs4502]

Sure hydrogen has a higher specific energy on its own, but the extremely low energy density is what makes it just as bad if not worse than batteries. Pressure tanks aren't exactly light. I don't picture them being competitive in any way unless there's suddenly cheap, mass-producible carbon nanotubes to make the tanks. Even then, you'd be spending so much energy pressurizing it that you'd need a turbine to recover some of that.

[@garn5341]

So you point is what, stick with gasoline?

[@dtgs4502]

@@garn5341 Batteries

[@Bryan46162]

True. The tanks also have to be replaced regularly as they can only be certified for a few years at a time.

[@schalkloots6988]

Not even comparable. Have you seen the prices of Hydrogen per litre? We want to get rid of the continuous price rice of oil and it's going to be Hydrogen price rises. You must be joking.

[@robertbowman390]

Where is that disclaimer concerning the error in efficiencies that was pointed out 10 months ago?

[@johanliebert1027]

You cannot have a battery passenger plane, but you can have a fuel cell passenger plane.

[@dgillies5420]

Teslas easily lose 3mpg overnight. My model 3 does.

[@dtgs4502]

I think you mean miles. The motors aren't what's degrading.

[@TomHarrisonJr]

Mine too, however it's important to note that the car is doing stuff at times, even if only in standby. There is also loss from lithium battery inefficiencies described in the video, but it's significantly less.

[@brandoYT]

as your car is plugged in and charging at night, not sure how you even noticed 1% loss. 310mile -3 miles night loss = 1% loss overnight - you get your free SW updates overnight - takes energy to do that.

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

You lost efficiency overnight? I call shenanigans.

[@JasonPrice1]

You missed a key element on the batteries side. Total energy to recharge. The average observed efficiency of actual Tesla owners is only around the 80% mark. Batteries are more efficient on discharge than they are on charge. This 20% loss is a big cut on batteries compared to hydrogen. Now, on the hydrogen side, the one aspect that is missing is the peak loading design of electrical grids and the lost opportunity to use that excess power to generate hydrogen with electrolysis. Let me break this out for you some. Earth hour is quite possibly the most enraging eco-worship thing out there. People turning their lights off for 60 minutes in the winter does NOTHING. The generators are still pumping out all that energy but now it is just simply lost. Even with hydrogen extraction being a net loss on paper, it is still no worse than charging batteries (Which is why I mentioned the issue above). If power companies switch to seeing themselves as simply energy companies, then they would more likely see the opportunities to generate hydrogen as a way of "storing nuts for the winter". A friend of mine who lives completely off grid asked me once about if I were to just have a lot more batteries for bulk storage. This is not a good idea but it is a good question. If you have a large solar installation on your house, why push the power back to the grid? Why not use the excess power to make hydrogen and store it. That way you have all of the extra power from the late spring to early fall and all the quiet time in the high noon of the winter days to store a fuel that never loses potency when sitting. Now, comically, because my house is ALL electric, I can't have solar and afford it as a total replacement (net zero). My house is insanely efficient per square foot and uses no fossil fuels directly. I have a geothermal HP that also supplements my hot water by about 90%. My friend with the off grid house? He has to heat with wood, run his hot water from propane and maintain a backup gas generator for when there is not enough solar as he can't afford the size of battery infrastructure or panels that would be needed. He has a MUCH smaller house but actually uses several times more energy than I do and is directly emitting pollution (and CO2 if you fall in that focus category). Shorter: We can make WAY more electricity WAY easier than it is to use or store it. Use and storage is where ALL the focus should go right now. This is why I will always harp about Graphene super/ultra capacitors. Insanely efficient and extremely durable. We just can't make them in quantity yet.

[@brandoYT]

battery or hydrogen storage? battery is obviously much less expensive. How would you even store hydrogen? how would you compress it? Hydrogen leaks out of most every container as the molecule is so tiny.

[@0ooTheMAXXoo0]

Source for 20% loss when charging for Tesla owners, I have not seen that anywhere even though I have seen so many detailed cost analysis from various owners. Lots of methane gets released with hydrogen extraction which makes the end product not a clean fuel to use at all. With electrolysis you loose a lot of energy as it is highly inefficient.

[@Bright2Shine]

I dont know about your numbers, but great point! Also I think some guys in the comments do not understand that going off grid isnt the best option. Now they should at least have heard it.

[@moatplay]

Lot of good info in your video. I had no idea hydrogen had such a high energy density. However, Nikola MOtors is an American truck company. Right now they are planning a semi for American and European markets. The Nikola One is definitely intended for the American market with 1200 miles of range. They have another truck for the European market that fits the European truck profile with a squat nose. Granted they haven’t actually built any of these trucks yet so we don’t know what will actually happen until it does. But, that’s the plan anyway. I do agree that the semi-tractor trailer will be a market segment to look at when it comes to hydrogen vs battery electric.

[@scotyfilms]

Trucks, buses, Aviation and Marine are all areas where hydrogen Power has a big advantage.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@scotyfilms Trucks? no. Aviation? Very doubtful. Marine? *IF* a closed loop system can (non nuclear!) be developed to collect sea water, electrolyse it on board and supply sufficient power, it *could* work.

[@FutureSystem738]

I believe there are still far too many technical reasons why hydrogen is “bullshit”, including round trip efficiency and storage. There may be breakthroughs in the future which change the situation, but right now, not a chance!

[@scotyfilms]

​@@FutureSystem738 Well if you researched todays breakthroughs, you won't have to "believe any longer. Irregardless the comparative cost to produce hydrogen we have little choice. There are many ways to make electricity beyond oil, especially developing Thorium nuclear. this and many other sources offer a very small pollution quotient compared any fossil fuel system we have today. Clean energy production + fuel cell energy solutions = a new much cleaner low Co2 environment. That's the bottom line. Fuel cell transportation has already become cost competitive. If anything is foolish, it's Heavy battery power for trucks and buses. Marine and Aviation has been confirmed to be a shoe in.

[@scotyfilms]

@@rogerstarkey5390---- Marine and Aviation can easily store enough hydrogen on board. also, we have to think of the weight. To fill an airplane with hydrogen is 70% lighter than fuel. The size of a battery for marine or flight is ridiculous.

[@pfwag]

Current H2 prices way off (3-4X) but then the video was done in 2018. That said, H2 probably makes more sense for trucking applications in suburban areas where only a few H2 refueling stations, if any, would be needed.

[@ZephyrCorsa]

Most likely batteries I think for large scale production, but a fleet of Hydrogen fuel cell trucks that drive around and purify the air would be great.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

yeah that would be interesting! There will be some breakthrough process to extract hydrogen that will be a game changer... time will tell!

[@ZephyrCorsa]

@@TwoBitDaVinci Most likely a mix of both, BEVs for consumer's and a mix of battery systems like in Australia and Hydrogen. Their way, it's good that the use of fossil fuels is finally coming to an end.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

How do trucks purify the air while driving around? The tires and brakes will emit particulates. At best electric trucks will pollute *less,* (probably near zero) whether battery or FC.

[@ZephyrCorsa]

@@incognitotorpedo42 The intake air coming into the fuel cell comes out as purified water vapor and some oxygen, any other particles in the air before are removed, as far as brakes go, increased regen would enable one pedal driving capability and friction brakes would be used to hold or bring the vehicle to a complete stop. Therefore reducing any pollutants from braking. At some point, regen may be able to replace friction brakes completely as far as driving goes.

[@milanswoboda5457]

@@ZephyrCorsa Fuel cells do not ¨purify¨ the air, they breath in ambient air, filter it over a normal particle filter (similar to an ICE intake filter) it then removes Oxygen from that ambient air passing through the fuel cell and all the other contaminants in the ambient air that had been coming in will be coming out again.

[@00crashtest]

0:18 ...and zero emission. False. Hydrogen fuel cells emit water.

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Fair point

[@miguellopez3392]

Well water vapor is technically a greenhouse gas.

[@PhilbertDeZwart]

@@miguellopez3392 sure but human emissions of water vapor are negligible compared to the water vapor already in the atmosphere. That is where it differs from CO2 and methane.

[@markplott4820]

Hydrogen production uses Fossil Fuels more so than the ICE powerplants.

[@KetzerkaterContent]

@@miguellopez3392 If it were only vapor. Some/most is actually fluid. High adoption in cold regions results in spotwise iced roads.

[@macberry4048]

Something I have been thinking about is that emergency vehicles should be electric or hybrid and not be dependent on being close to a gas station. With so many natural disasters it would make since for emergency facilities and vehicles to have the best technologies to continue helping people after disaster strikes

[@Liksmaskaren]

For some of us the efficiency is not as important as how far you can go on one tank/charge and how long it takes to fill up/charge. It is winter here right now and I don't want to be stuck in a queue behind people who needs to charge their cars for 40 minutes before it is my own turn to stand there for 40 minutes when I'm driving somewhere.

[@arx117]

American always ignore that, they assume people wiling to wait in winter