The Truth about Hydrogen

The Truth about Hydrogen

This episode of Real Engineering is brought
to you by Skillshare, home to over twenty thousand classes that could teach you a new
life skill. As the world grapples to eliminate fossil
fuels from our energy diet, electric cars have seen an incredible boom over the past
few years. Last year, over one million electric cars
were sold around the world. The number of Nissan Leafs, Teslas, and other
electric vehicles in circulation worldwide is now more than three million. And while there are many brands of electric
car to choose from, there are only two choices when it comes to powering electric vehicles:
fuel cells or batteries. Both produce electricity to drive electric
motors, eliminating the pollution and inefficiencies of the fossil fuel powered internal combustion
engine. Both hydrogen and electricity for batteries
can be produced from low­ or zero ­carbon sources, including renewable energy like solar
and wind, and therefore both are being pursued by car manufacturers and researchers as the
possible future of electric vehicles. However, a great debate is being waged by
supporters of each technology. Elon Musk has called hydrogen fuel cell technology
“incredibly dumb,” claiming they’re more of a marketing ploy for automakers than
a long-term solution. In contrast, Japan has announced its intention
to become the world’s first hydrogen society, with the Japanese government and the auto
industry working together to introduce 160 hydrogen stations and 40,000 fuel-cell vehicles
by March 2021. So which is actually better? At first glance, hydrogen seems like an extremely
clever way to power a car. Compressed hydrogen has a specific energy
(aka energy per unit mass) of neary 40,000 watt hours per kilogram. Lithium ion batteries at best have a specific
energy of just 278 wh/kg, but most fall around 167 wh / kg. That’s 236 times as much energy per kg for
hydrogen. And because of its energy density and lightweight
nature, compressed hydrogen and fuel cells can power cars for extended ranges without
adding much weight, which as we saw in our last video is a gigantic road block for incorporating
the technology into the aviation industry. The designers of electric vehicles are caught
in a catch 22 with energy density and range. Each extra kilogram of battery weight to increase
range requires extra structural weight, heavier brakes, a higher torque motor, and in turn
more batteries to carry around this extra mass, This weight compounding limits how far
a battery powered vehicle can travel, until new technology can help reduce the weight
of the batteries. For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, this weight
compounding is not an issue. Additionally, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle
can be refueled in under 5 minutes, where a battery powered electric vehicle, like the
Tesla model S, takes over 3 hours to fully recharge. When looking at the range and refuel times
hydrogen can offer, you can see why some car manufacturers are investing in this technology. On the face of it. Hydrogen is a clear winner, but it falls behind
when we start considering the end-to-end production process. While both batteries and hydrogen fuel cells
are both forms of electricity storage, the cost differ drastically. Fully charging a Tesla Model 3 with a 75 kiloWatt
hour battery, costs between 10-12 dollars depending where you live. With a rated range of 500 kilometers, that’s
between 2 and 2.4 cent per kilometer. A great price. In a previous video, I visited a petrol station
that introduced a hydrogen pump, fed by its own on-site production facility. which used off-peak electricity to produce
hydrogen. The hydrogen from this station cost $85 dollars
to fill the 5 kg tank of the Toyota Mirais on site, which had a range of 480 kms. That’s 17.7 cent per kilometer, 8 times
the price. And here lies the problem, Hydrogen simply
requires more energy to produce. To understand the economic viability of hydrogen
let’s dig deeper into the production process. Before any hydrogen vehicle can hit the road,
you first need to produce the hydrogen, but hydrogen is not a readily available energy
source. Even though hydrogen is the most abundant
element in the universe, it is usually stored in water, hydrocarbons, such as methane, and
other organic matter. One of the challenges of using hydrogen as
an energy storage mechanism comes from being able to efficiently extract it from these
compounds. In the US, the majority of hydrogen is produced
through a process called steam reforming. Steam reforming is the process of combining
high-temperature steam with natural gas to extract hydrogen. While steam reforming is the most common method
of industrial hydrogen production, it requires a good deal of heat and is wildly inefficient. Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually
has less energy than the natural gas that the steam reforming began with. And while hydrogen fuel cells themselves don’t
produce pollution, this process does. So if we want to assume a future scenario
with as little carbon emission as possible, this method won’t cut it. Another method to produce hydrogen is electrolysis
– separating the hydrogen out of water using an electric current. While the electricity needed for this process
can be provided from renewable sources, it requires even more energy input than steam
reforming. You end up losing 30% of the energy from the
original energy put in from the renewables when you carry out electrolysis. So we are sitting at 70% energy efficiency
from hydrogen fuel cells if traditional electrolysis is used, before the car even starts its engine. A slightly more efficient method of producing
hydrogen is polymer exchange membrane electrolysis. Using this method, energy efficiencies can
reach up to 80%, with the added benefit of being produced on site, which we will get
to in a moment. But this is still a 20% loss of energy from
the original electricity from the renewables. Some experts say the efficiency of PEM electrolysis
is expected to reach 82-86% before 2030, which is a great improvement, but still well short
of batteries charging efficiency at 99%. [1] A 19% difference in production costs doesn’t
explain the difference in costs yet, so where else are we losing energy. The next hurdle in getting hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles on the road is the transport and storage of the pure hydrogen. If we assume the hydrogen is produced on site,
like it was for this petrol station, then we eliminate one energy sink, but the cost
of storage is just as problematic. Hydrogen is extremely low density as a gas
and liquid, and so in order to achieve adequate energy density, we have to increase its actual
density. We can do this in two ways. We can compress the hydrogen to 790 times
atmospheric pressure, but that takes energy, about 13% of the total energy content of the
hydrogen itself. Alternatively we can turn hydrogen into liquid,
cryogenically. The advantage of hydrogen liquefaction is
that a cryogenic hydrogen tank is much lighter than a tank that can hold pressurized hydrogen. But again, hydrogen’s physical properties
means hydrogen is harder to liquefy than any other gas except helium. Hydrogen is liquified by reducing its temperature
to -253°C, with an efficiency loss of 40%, once you factor in the added weight of the
refrigerators and the refrigeration itself. So pressurisation is a better option at a
13% energy loss. Once the hydrogen is produced and compressed
to a liquid or gas, a viable hydrogen infrastructure requires that hydrogen be able to be delivered
from where it’s produced to the point of end-use, such as a vehicle refueling station. Where the hydrogen is produced can have a
big impact on the cost and best method of delivery. For example, a large, centrally located hydrogen
production facility can produce hydrogen at a lower cost because it is producing more,
but it costs more to deliver the hydrogen because the point of use is farther away. In comparison, distributed production facilities
produce hydrogen on site so delivery costs are relatively low, but the cost to produce
the hydrogen is likely to be higher because production volumes are less. While there are some small-scale, on-site
hydrogen production facilities being installed at refuelling pumps, such as the station mentioned
in the last hydrogen video. until this infrastructure is widespread, we
have to assume that the majority of hydrogen is being transported by truck or pipeline,
where we know that energy losses can range from 10% up to 40%. In comparison, assuming that the electricity
that we use for charging the batteries comes completely from renewable resources (like
solar or wind), we just have to consider the transmission losses in the grid. Using the United States grid as a reference
for typical grid losses, the average loss is only 5%. So in the best case scenario for hydrogen,
using the most efficient means of production and transport, we lose 20% of energy during
PEM electrolysis, and around 13% for compression and storage, amounting to a 33% loss. In other systems, this could be as much as
56%. For battery power, up to this point, we have
lost just 6% to the grid and recharging. Bringing our best case efficiency difference
to 27% and our worst case to 50%. The next stage of powering electric vehicles
is what is called the tank to wheel conversion efficiency. For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, once the
hydrogen is in the tank, it must be re-converted into electric power. This is done via a fuel cell, which essentially
works like a PEM electrolyser, but in reverse. In a PEM fuel cell, hydrogen gas flows through
channels to the anode, where a catalyst causes the hydrogen molecules to separate into protons
and electrons. Once again the membrane only allows protons
to pass through it, while electrons flow through an external circuit to the cathode.This flow
of electrons is the electricity that is used to power the vehicles electric motors. If the fuel cell is powered with pure hydrogen,
it has the potential to be up to around 60% efficient, with most of the wasted energy
lost to heat. Like hydrogen fuel cells, batteries also come
with inefficiencies and energy losses. The grid provides AC current while the batteries
store the charge in DC. So to convert AC to DC, we need a charger. Using the Tesla Model S as an example, its
peak charger efficiency is around 92%. The Tesla model S runs on AC motors; therefore,
to convert the DC current supplied by the batteries into AC current, an inverter has
to be used with an efficiency of roughly 90%. Additionally, lithium ion batteries can lose
energy due to leakage. A good estimate for the charging efficiency
of a lithium ion battery is 90%. All of these factors combined lead to a total
efficiency of around 75%. However, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also
have some of these same inefficiencies. Any kind of electrolysis requires DC current,
and therefore, a rectifier will be required to convert the AC current from the grid to
DC. The conversion efficiency here is 92%. We also need to convert the DC current produced
by the fuel cell to AC to power the motor through an inverter with an efficiency of
90%. Finally, the efficiency of the motor must
be considered for both fuel cell and battery powered vehicles. Currently, this is around 90-95% for both
of them, which is amazing when you consider that internal combustion engines running on
petrol have an efficiency of only around 20-30%. If we add up all these inefficiencies and
compare current generation batteries, to the best and worst case scenario of current gen
hydrogen. We can see how they measure up. Even with the BEST case scenario. Not taking into account any transport due
to onsite production, and assuming very high electrolysis efficiency of 80%, and assuming
a HIGH fuel cell efficiency of 80%, hydrogen still comes out at less than half the efficiency. The worst case scenario is even worse off. So while you may be able to go further on
one fill-up of hydrogen in your fuel cell vehicle over a battery powered electric vehicle,
the cost that is needed to deliver that one fill up would be astronomically higher compared
to charging batteries due to these energy losses and efficiencies. Based on our worst case scenario, we would
expect the cost per kilometre to be about 3.5 times greater for hydrogen, but as we
saw earlier it’s actual 8 times the price. So additional costs of production unrelated
to efficiencies are obviously at play. The cost of construction of the facility is
one and the profit the station will take from sale is another. For now, these inefficiencies and costs are
driving the market, where most investment and research is going into battery powered
electric vehicles. So which wins? Both are equally more green than internal
combustion engines, assuming equal renewable resources are used to power them. Fuel cells allow for fast fill up times and
long ranges; a big advantage. But battery powered vehicles might catch up
in range by the time there are enough hydrogen stations to ever make fuel cell vehicles viable. While fuel cells are efficient relative to
combustion engines, they are not as efficient as batteries. They may make more sense for operation disconnected
from the grid or as we saw in our last video using hydrogen for planes actually could make
a lot of sense, but once again that’s a topic for another video. For now, battery powered electric vehicles
seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport. As battery-powered cars become more common,
we’re also starting to see self-driving cars become the norm. If the job of driver is slowly automated away
and consumers have a bunch of free time to read or watch online video, it may be wise
to use that opportunity to start learning new skills and Skillshare is great place to
do it. You could take this course on Photoshop for
beginners and learn a skill that has helped this channel immensely. You may have noticed that we introduced a
new thumbnail design the channel. This done in part because the channels views
we trending downwards for past 2 months, despite putting extra effort into production quality. We needed to rethink our strategy for branding,
and I felt the blueprints strength was that it was easily recognisable as mine, but they
all also look so similar it’s difficult to tell when there is a new video. So we got to work in photoshop to use the
strengths of blueprint design and build on its weaknesses and we can up with this transitioning
effect. Taking designs to reality, which I think fits
the theme channel perfectly. We saw immediate effects with the views on
our last video jumping 80% compared on our 2 month average. This is the power of illustration and you
can learn how to use software like Photoshop and Illustrator on Skillshare These days you can teach yourself pretty much
any skill online and Skillshare is a fantastic place to do it. With over 20,000 classes ranging from animation,
electronics, programming and much more. The classes follow a clear learning curve,
so you just click and watch without having to curate your own learning experience. A Premium Membership begins around $10 a month
for unlimited access to all courses, but the first 1000 people to sign up with this link
will get their first 2 months for free. So ask yourself right now. What skill have you been putting off learning. What project have you been dreaming of completing,
but you aren’t sure if you have the skills to do it. Why not start right now and sign up to Skillshare
using the link below to get your first 2 months free. You have nothing to lose and a valuable life
skill to gain. As usual thanks for watching and thank you
to all my Patreon supporters. If you would like to see more from me, the
links to my twitter, facebook, discord server, subreddit and instagram pages are below. I’m about to do a Q&A on the subject matter
of this video on my instagram stories, so if you are interested in having some questions
answered the link for that is belo

100 thoughts on “The Truth about Hydrogen

  1. Hi I just drove a friends Tesla about 275 mile back from
    A trip. He was staying. With the supercharging stations we fill up one once from about 10% full to 90% full and it only took about 15 minutes ,not the 3hours you said in video . ( correction 3hrs home charging time vs hydrogen refuel at home …eh ever?). With lots of charging stations it’s like only using one brand of gasoline , not a big deal. Good analysis otherwise .
    The high cost to produce hydrogen is crazy as a fuel source, much better to simply use the propane or lpg or other natural gas you are converting to hydrogen directly in normal combustion engine. We already know how to do this right now , in fact we have been doing it for over 40yrs for regular cars.simple cheap and clean as burning propane type products produced 90% water and is so clean up can run it in a forklift inside a building safely!
    Why not do a comparison of thIs to electric power?
    Cheers Warren

  2. Nothing can replace gasoline and diesel engines, NOTHING. all these ideas are Bullshit, electric cars are the biggest fraud of the century.

  3. the best solution to the higher cost of gasoline is to get a good paying job, get a V8 car fill it up. drive as much as you want and don't bother with this shit. has anybody ever seen a well off rich person care about gas prices or what comes out of their cars exhaust pipe? if they do then they are lying to you :), or they are going to make more money through that ,the solution is easy , work hard ,make more money and spend it.

  4. I listen to this video and there are a lot of assumptions being made and statements that just aren't true at the moment 95% of our energy for electricity comes from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas and only 5% of the United States energy comes from renewable sources uch as wind and solar so subtract the idea that charging cars by renewable sources out of the equation and only compare hydrogen to fossil fuel powered electricity. What are the comparisons between the two not between hydrogen and the loss of energy and renewable sources and the loss of energy because renewable sources are not what's recharging a car's battery it's coal and natural gas.

  5. Tiny problem here … lithium batteries are really really expensive, very bad for environment and hazardous when on fire …

  6. Battery power is a scam and incredibly bad for the environment, hydrogen and nuclear is the future and are clean!!! 👌👈

  7. It never ceases to amaze me how the very same people who remained SILENT during the manufacture of 7 billion laptops and 10 billion smartphones… SUDDENLY come out out of the woodwork as lithium mining expert environmentalists (expressing their opinion on an iPhone)… as soon as Tesla make 500,000 cars. Does it not strike you as STRANGE?!?

  8. So you are telling me that charging batteries more often due to their low range, doesnt add to their inefficiency? Also batteries dont always remain constantly efficient in their capacity, over time.
    Additionally, where do you think the power for charging car batteries comes from? 🤔

  9. Maybe investigate the 240 patents by the late Stanley Myers method to split water with resonance and other technologies.

    Does burning H2 create CO2?

  10. The energy required to mine the rare earth metals in the batteries, the manufacture and later disposal of the batteries? A very poor presentation by using half-truths and misinformation. Manufacture of solar panels and wind farms? Get real. Terrible and irrelevant dribble.

  11. Making and explaining the videos about engineering and technology and at the same time showing supercharging station and saying the charging time at home it contradicting and seems biased.

  12. In 1890 1/3 of all cars were electric with the other third being steam powered so beat that. Think about it why no steam car using electric power source.
    Nuclear and urine batteries are better than lithium in yield.

  13. Most eco-muppets choose to ignore or just through sheer ignorance is the colossial enviromental damage. To get lithiumn batteries, huge opencast salt water evaportion mines in Chile and Australia are produced at the great expense of local water supplies and local indiginious people are displaced because there is no water for daily life. Cobalt is also required in huge amounts which is found in large opencast mines in Congo where child exploitation takes place as of a result. The country is being ravaged and Tesla has bought one of these mines. Oh the hypocrisy. Lets not forget the intensive refining process using corrosive materials to make batteries that is produced and shipped around the globe to be put in some dull Toyota.
    Hydrogen has to be the way forward despite its problems but what they dont tell you about batteries is that you loose 30% of power after five years and you cannot recycle those batteries. Enviromental – my arse!!!

  14. The solution is simple. Develop an emissions neutral synthetic fuel. We already use synthetic oils… Both ethanol and LPG are cleaner than mineral oil fuels.

  15. What about the possibility of fuel cells which use a mix of fuels, i.e., methane, propane, octane (gasoline), and hydrogen? This would be a good transition from gasoline combustion engines.

  16. Mile for mile distance travelled energy output, divided by energy input. The bicycle is the worlds most efficient form of transport

  17. Why do you hear a crackling boom when lightning charges through the water of a rainstorm? The water is igniting from the high voltage of the lightning bolt which brings me to instant electrolysis. The World's steam engines, equipped with lightning bolt spark plugs would take over from the pure pressure of the expanding steam once it warms up. Capeesh?

  18. This video is Government propaganda
    Where will all this lithium come from?? The salt flats in Bulgaria?? they don't want it dug up as it will destroy the landscape….. So where is the lithium going to come from? and how many poor little fishies have to die to get the stuff??

    BS video!

  19. This video erroneously assumes the batteries are charged via solar or wind, when in reality 80%+ of electric vehicles are charged with electricity that originates from coal or natural gas fueled plants. The percent is even higher in the US. Hydrogen is likely the better choice when a realistic assessment of where the electricity actually comes from instead of where it would ideally come from. Also keep in mind that Elon Musk may have called hydrogen "stupid" because in addition to Tesla, he also owns the largest solar panel company in the US.

  20. Why convert back to electricity? Hydrogen is a gas. Internal combustion engines run a gas/air mixture. Why re-event the wheel? Convert present gas burning engines to hydrogen gas. Exchange present petrol tanks with pressurized fuel tanks and run engines on straight hydrogen. Easy peasy! Right!

  21. Stopped at 6-mins.. for starters Toyota leads HEV, by far, the evolution from Gas/Electric will shift to Electric/H2, the cost benefit compare from single (US) station is laughable.. but, for fun, early FAX Machines and Microwave Ovens were expensive too. Notes efficiency transfer loss, and pollution, of H2 but no mention of same for Electric? Did not bother to wait and see if any comment related decay.. batteries lose stored power over time.. H2 doesn't.. and crucially; not about legacy commercial power distribution but fully self-contained residential capture and charge.. "Real Engineering".. ._.

  22. Today the best choice is plugin-hybrid internal combustion engines! They are efficent and you are not limited to range. You are flexible and if you have solar panel you can charge them at home. Smaller battery means also less saftey problem compare to fully electric cars. All in all the best choice is now plug in Hybrid like Hyundai Ioniq! It consume 1.2 liter in 100 km, basically it has 60 km electric range when it is fully charged and you can still go to anyplace with 900 km range!

  23. Yes and add oxygen boys and girls and you get water…wow add water to soft soil and you get mud. Gee what can't Hydrogen do …ahh well sing I'd guess…

  24. What is ignored here is the opportunity to distribute other manufactured renewable fuels such as Butanol and the use of hybrid vehicle designs. Although people will immediately point out that Butanol is a hydrocarbon, if produced from renewable sources the right way to consider this is that the carbon is ‘borrowed’ for the fuel structure. The same could be said for Methanol, and others, but Butanol has properties similar to petrol (gasoline) which make a transition to high proportions of Butanol more acceptable and gives an easier pathway towards renewable transport.

    If a fuel like Butanol is used in hybrid vehicles, you have all the advantages of electric vehicles in terms of performance, recovering braking energy and the ability to go electric for short journeys in cities, but far less weight and embedded carbon from manufacturing. The conundrum of added range in electric only vehicles where range adds weight which in turn adds weight and cost to the drive, braking, etc., is avoided in a hybrid vehicle. Of course you may be able to plug in a hybrid to charge the limited range batteries, but generally refuelling is the same as it is for a conventional vehicle using existing infrastructure with refuelling times that even the wildest claims for electric charging cannot meet; current hybrids achieve at least 4.7 L/100km (50 MPG-US) and a small 20L tank is filled in far less than 1 minute giving 425km+ range – many hybrids achieve better efficiency than this.

    With a Butanol/Gasoline mixture having an energy density of ~30 MJ/L, the specific energy consumption at 4.7 L/100km equates to ~0.390 kWh/km, which is approximately twice that of good electric only vehicles, although the waste heat may be partially useful for cabin heating in cold climates. The debate should be around the conversion efficiency from renewable sources to the vehicle, combined with the manufacturing embedded carbon and the embedded carbon involved in developing new infrastructure (charging points, network reinforcement, etc.). The carbon released from the butanol is part of a short carbon cycle when produced from renewable sources.

  25. Hydrogen Fuel is a great idea… but do NOT be so naive! The amount of oxygen used to create the chemical reaction with hydrogen would be catastrophic to earths ozone.

    Hydrogen Fuel is OLD technology and idiots are still trying to develop it thinking that it's still a 'GREAT' idea which it is not!

    Do your research

    there are thousands of more articles researching this

    If you want clean energy without catastrophic penalties then start looking at harnessing the power of the thing that comes up every morning..

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

  27. I’m sure these inefficiencies will decrease over time, with constant innovation. Everything is clunky early on.

  28. this would be a good solution for Planes, Ships, and other forms of transportations that are not feasible for battery, they emit huge amounts of emission. Powerplants too, replace coal&natural gas

  29. I thought you were gonna say one obvious factor to minimize battery charging time and prices, but you didn't make the connection: while you are in a hotel, work, meeting etc, tell your self driving car to find a spot to refuel, and please come back in time for lunch. Compared to the fast fcv refueling, this is even faster = no time waiting at all.

  30. Liked the video, Look a only one part total equations of skews the results. 1.The cost of production of lithium batteries to fuel cells. 2. What is the life expectancy of each lithium batteries and fuel cells. 3. What is the impact to the environment in disposal of lithium batteries and fuel cells. Observation. I enjoyed the fact of how it would take three hours to recharge a lithium battery with no impact to cost or efficiency.

  31. I have a feeling that by the time we figured out whether Hydrogen or electric cars are better, we will have a new technology that will kill them both 😀

  32. Hydrogen gas can be produced , by burning natural carbon growth producing natural carbon dioxide ,wile having the best energy production plant known to mankind, that converts carbon dioxide to Oxygen better ,than any energy production plant known to mankind.
    The hemp plant seed oil ,can be used the same way as all crude oil with three changes.
    It produces natural carbon dioxide not monoxide poison, it can be used to produce environmentally friendly plastics ,that fish, and animals can eat. It also can be used as oil ,wile transported by seed with no environmentally dangerous spills.

    First you start with desalination floating platforms , that use oceans energy to produce electromagnetic desalination,and pumping clean water thousands of miles. With round dome covered,platforms, with grated walkways ,that channel waves to pinwheel generators under the walkways. With more pinwheel generators under the platforms that capture oceans energy of ebb ,and flow of the oceans tides. Wile are anchored through the center ,with the clean water pumped up through the center of the dome ,to detachable firehose on swivel,that carry’s water to hardline on land. My name is Kendon Erland Curtis. This is my God given concept, I received in A God given Dream.

    I would like to Quote the Great Albert Einstein ,Quote “ Raise new Questions, explore new possibilities, Regard old problems from a new angle “.

    The clean water can be pumped to in ground desert homes ,cooled by conducting cooling systems , with no ozone damage.

    The irrigation water systems are to grow hemp seed oil. The carbines harvest the seed oil wile defoliated ,the plant,with the foliage followed by herd animals. Trapping the carbon in the soil. The stalk can be bailed ,for building materials, clothing, and burned to produce electricity wile capturing the hydrogen gas for compressed gas. Thereby solving the age old problem ,of creating hydrogen gas when it takes x amount of energy to produce x amount of energy . With the best solar panels known to mankind the hemp plant. With 90% better carbon dioxide conversion rate ,than any energy production plant known to mankind.
    My father was A geologist.
    Think deforestation ,as A huge part of the equation. We deforested most of the world, before the Americas where a glimmer in the eye of a pilgrim.

    Old growth forests burned continuously throughout our evolution . However even though beetle, blight, disease, and droughts often caused by solar flares burned continuously, and created huge amounts of carbon dioxide. It was not monoxide poison. The same old growth forests that burned also converted carbon dioxide to Oxygen.
    I believe this is what my God given Dream is capable of.

    1- energy from oceans in the best use to create water desalination.with the electromagnetic process.

    2- clean water, in fact with the electromagnetic process cleaner than water has been for thousands of years.

    3-in ground desert homes, cooled by conducting cooling systems ,with no ozone damage useing pre irrigation water.

    4-electricity from burning the stalk left over from building materials, clothing, and other fiber products. In the location with the hemp plant, the best carbon dioxide conversion rate plant ,known to mankind.

    5- Capturing the hydrogen gas wile burning the stalk for electricity, scrubbing the smoke ,capturing the hydrogen gas ,for compressed gas thereby solving the age old problem ,of producing hydrogen ,when it takes x amount of energy ,to produce x amount of energy. With the best solar panels known to mankind the hemp plant.

    6- seed oil that can be used exactly like crude oil ,with three major differences. One it produces natural carbon dioxide when burned. Two the seed can be transported worldwide without environmentally dangerous spills. Three all fish , and animals can eat it, and become healthier.

    7- environmentally friendly plastics can be produced ,with the hemp seed oil. With 30 million tons of plastic dumped into the oceans each year .all can be eaten by fish, and the microorganisms, that are the bottom of the oceans food chain.
    Our recycling facilities can separate the plastic ,for winter fodder for animals in the desert farms.

    My name is Kendon Erland Curtis I am not A Democrat ,nor am I a republican. I am A conservative Constitutionalist. I realize how naive this sounds ,however I was instructed to share the information ,with the world. It is my wish,and belief ,that the energy companies are best suited to produce the God given Dream. I respectfully ask ,that you seek out my family in Conyers Georgia America to give them ,A small percentage ,of the gross profits of the concept produced. Thank you , and God bless.

  33. Big claims about Hydrogen from Oil Sands that both, leave the CO2 in the ground AND costs 20% of the current method of producing Hydrogen from NatGas, are being made as a real company gets to near industrial scale production. I would be very interested on seeing two things: 1: you educated opinion on whether this is a real technology and 2: to see you re-run your numbers for this break through see: Thanks

  34. I love how he spends all this time talking about the manufacturing, storing and distribution of hydrogen, but says nothing about the mining, shipping and manufacturing of lithium batteries. Add that into the mix and they both suck!

  35. If you're comparing re-fueling a Hydrogen car from a hydrogen station, then you should compare it to refueling a Tesla from a supercharger i.e. Takes 15 mins to get to 80-90% from zero% which is all you need, not "3 hours". I've had a Tesla for a whole year and done 54,000km on it, and never needed to charger over 50 mins. The convenience of charging at home makes this a no brainer versus having to go to a station.

  36. Hello team. Thank you for your nice video.
    I don't think that this comparison you've just did was accurate regarding the real and bigger issues than efficiency.
    There is a big difference in CO2 consumption and destruction of land producing fuel cells compared to batteries. Therefore I would be very happy that you make an evaluation there too. Compare it between the mayor cars (fossil/batterie/hydrogen).
    You will find out that the cars using fossil fuels are "better" for the environment until 100 k Km.
    Continue your good work!

  37. Got ya. How much NOx is produced in comparison to present petrol burning engines. The other thing that brothers me is that there is no problem burning propane and CGN instead of petrol. I mean these must produce much higher levels of hydrocarbons then hydrogen would ever do.

  38. If you use renewable energy sources such as solar panels to aid the electrolysis process, do you really care all that much about energy losses? Its energy that would otherwise be lost anyway to the ground. Essentially you would have fusion powered electrolysis… just that the nuclear reaction is taking place ~8 light minutes away and the collection is done here instead of at the source. Maybe I am missing something though.

  39. Why not just use gasoline? The infrastructure and delivery system already exists. The fuel is relatively cheap and abundant. Ill stick with my gas vehicle.

  40. This is the most incorrect and backwards process of how to properly use hydrogen. Imagine for a moment if propaganda such as this wasn't being forced and the truth about proper uses for substances such as hydrogen were spread petroleum companies would be bankrupt in less than a decade.

  41. This channel is nothing more than a propaganda spreading source most likely working in hand with petroleum corporation's.

  42. You missed a couple of things. Lithium is not as abundant as hydrogen, thus not renewable. The mining of the materials uses a lot of diesel. Batteries are toxic to deal with…

  43. As has already been said, the environmental and energy cost of battery production and disposal has not been factored.

  44. You skipped a very important factor here. The environmental cost of producing and disposing of batteries.
    As well as the insane cost of said batteries, which need replacing after some 1000 to 1,500 charge cycles.

  45. Flywheel Energy Storage (FES) is a better alternative to batteries, albeit with a lower specific energies than even batteries. And higher "leak current".
    Still, they charge in as little as 15 minutes and offer way more impulse power than that of conventional batteries.
    They are also more environment friendly AND more efficient.

    They are in active development and we will probably see conventional batteries being replaced with FES in the future as they become even more efficient and have higher specific energies.
    Regenerative braking is also much more efficient with FES.

  46. This has become inaccurate just recently as five days ago. They figured out a way to extract hydrogen economically from oil here is the article.

  47. How about all of the mining for lithium?
    And the coal plants that produce the electricity to produce electricity to charge the lithium.

    Also lithium is much more of a finite source

  48. then, we need placing baterry pack as oxygen tube. then charging station is where we can swap run out baterrypack to fully charged one, then the charging time decreased and driving times and miles increased

  49. And in both cars 99% of the power goes to moving the car, and 1% of the power goes to moving the person in the car.

  50. Dangerously biased analysis. The weight of batteries and the need to accelerate and slow down the car make electric cars with batteries seriously inefficient – where are the numbers for this? And the damage to road infrastrucure by heavier vehicles. If you've made up your mind what the answer is before doing the maths, it's called "bad science"

  51. Because of Cost efficient products we made the world today. Not only searching for methods to stop pollution but also stop thinking about most cost effective ways. We have to invest long term and stop pollution.

  52. Water can also be split by reacting it to a gallium-aluminum alloy. I was watching a video by TheLockPickLawer where he exposed a titalium lock to some gallium. As a side note in the video at 5:30, he took some gallium-aluminum and added it to water. He then explained what the reaction did and that the products were gallium, aluminum oxide (I think that is the name), and hydrogen gas.

  53. Ah, but that isn’t the whole story now is it? This analysis includes all the production costs of fuel cells, but ignores entirely the energy issues surrounding the mining, refining and manufacture of lithium, cobalt, the lanthanides and all the other nasty bits that go into those “green” batteries – they are not at all green. It ignores the ton of coal that goes into every turbine blade.

    Ridding ourselves of the personal vehicle and reducing our per capita consumption of energy is our only meaningful couse of action and while the EV is a marginal improvement over the ICE, touting it as a solution is ridiculous.

  54. Nothing beats the cost, convenience, efficiency, and environmental cleanliness of an EV that's powered off batteries charged from solar energy sources. I recharge my Tesla Model 3 at home overnight from electric power that is generated from my rooftop PV solar array during the day. My daily driving introduces not an ounce of CO2 (or other noxious gases) into the air we all breath.

    But doesn't the pollution generated making the car's Li-ion battery (and those solar panels) exceed the savings from driving an EV?

    No. Far from it. Manufacturing a Tesla Model 3 with its 80 kwh Li-ion battery produces about 11 tons of CO2 more than manufacturing a comparable ICE car, but that difference is negated after driving the Tesla for 2 years at 15,000 mi/yr when charging from solar electricity sources. The carbon footprint for manufacturing the solar panels is also offset in 1 to 4 years. Even the pollution from manufacturing cars will be reduced with the accelerating transition to renewable energy sources.

    When the battery needs to be replaced, it will either be repurposed, or recycled for the valuable lithium, copper, nickel, aluminum, and cobalt it contains.

  55. Why can't the car produce hydrogen on the go say you will fill the tank with water wait say five minutes before you start your journey then from there the care will start to produce it's own hydrogen as you are on the move why is this not possible??

  56. I'm with Elon on this one – it's a dumb idea because it would elevate water into a valuable fuel source. Gasoline was cheap until it became a fuel source, and if the same happens to water, the water shortage will be catastrophic to humans.

    Electric vehicles could be "recharged" in seconds if all (automotive) batteries complied to an agreed size and connector, and were simply swapped out for fully charged ones at fully automated service stations. Simple.

  57. Two things about electric cars,

    1. The production and shipping not cleaner than regular cars, and unless you hook it up to a windmill or solarpanel, it uses energy from fossil fuel facilities.

    2. Modern diesel cars are as clean, if not cleaner than E-cars (source: Consumenten Bond (English: Consumers Association)).

    We can partly fix the first problem by building more nuclear facilities, as they are both cleaner and have less of an environmental impact than solar panels and windmills, and if the parts for the E-cars aren't shipped on container ships, we cut off a lot of polution.

  58. Without nuclear power, the cost of electricity and industrial process heat is always too high. When we are willing to share our nuclear weapons, we will have all the cheap nuclear power we want. Why not share them? When every nation has nuclear weapons, no nation uses them, and every nation is compelled to respect every other. When we don't share them, nuclear power plants are treated like nuclear bomb factories, with crazy security costs and crazy safety costs that can't be waived on grounds of military necessity, because they aren't military facilities, even though they are treated so, and there are no soldiers on site with license to shoot the protesters, who can't be accused of trying to steal nuclear bombs, or of interfering with the production of weapons needed for national defense.

    When we give up the hypocrisy about nuclear weapons proliferation, the public begins to see that nuclear power plants are already by far the safest source of power. The public will also learn that nuclear bombs are too difficult for terrorists to make with anything that they could find at any kind of civilian nuclear power plant, and it is not difficult to safeguard a nuclear power plant against hijacking. With cheap nuclear power, the winner is hydrogen, because the cost of lithium batteries will remain high. But nuclear power could also be used to make dimethyl ether from water and CO2 or ammonia from water and nitrogen; the former is a good substitute for propane; the latter can function as an easy-to-store hydrogen carrier.

  59. The Hyundai Ionic Hybrid helps recharge the battery with the breaks, not sure if all electric or hybrid cars do that yet but they should.

  60. Highly simplified presentation with no consideration for technology adavances in solid state (chemical) hydrogen storage. In 20 years time, homes will produce their own hydrogen with small decentralized systems.


  62. if you extract hydrogen-from water- are you reducing water stock? we cant live without water
    but we can live without cars

  63. Well, lithium batteries which last 5 years doesnt seem to me to be the solution or economicaly safe if u need to buy litium from other countries. What about hidrogen storage using halides (no need for compression). And energy grid uses spinning reserves when renevable kick in, piped hidrogen could be used as great energy buffer for whole grid or be generated at that point so electricity is not completly wased. Lighter cars means less materials used. I like hidrogen 😀

  64. Much simple: as more steps are added to the proces of producin-storing-using, more and more expensive it gets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *