The Truth about Hydrogen
Embed
- Published on Jul 27, 2018
- Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: skl.sh/realengineering13
Errors: I made an off hand comment about adding efficiencies in the video without thinking. This is obviously incorrect, but the final calculation does in fact multiply the efficiencies.
Credits:
Director: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-sammann.com/)
Narrator/Co-Director: Brian McManus
Animations: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Get your Real Engineering merch at: standard.tv/collections/real-engineering
Editing Laptop: amzn.to/2GKXqb7
Camera: amzn.to/2oyVNp9
Microphone: amzn.to/2HOxVXu
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=2825050&ty=h
Facebook:
realengineering1
Instagram:
brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
discord.gg/s8BhkmN
My Patreon Expense Report:
goo.gl/ZB7kvK
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Henning Basma, Mark Govea, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Kedar Deshpande 
Science & Technology
thumbs down, I only understand american english and I have no clue wtf this guy was talking about in this weird african tongue
The manufacturing of the batt is not included in the energy loss and pollution or mining the rear minerals
We can produce hydrogen with a parasitic load of ..27 kilowatts for every 50 kilowatts of energy produced. Using sound to break the bond between oxygen and hydrogen. Water in water out. However a large amount of heat is created which we would need to capture. Hydrogen is far better then electric
Most stupid thing ever. It’s just wasting more water
Oh, please... let's see a few things that you forgot to mention:
1. Trees and grass convert solar energy at just 6% efficiency. That means 94% of the solar energy is lost. Nobody is complaining that trees aren't "green enough". We accept the fact that even just 6% is efficient enough. But we complain about hydrogen process which is a lot more green than nature.
2. Lithium mines are controlled by just a few very greedy corporations. That's why the batteries are so damn expensive. I'd rather have a less efficient fuel derived from water, than to pay tax to those stinking leaches. I wanna punish them by reducing their sales. Let the greedy bastards rot.
3. Cars with batteries are heavier than cars with compressed hydrogen. Which means they waste more energy just on moving their huge mass. That's a loss you didn't count in. It also causes increased wearing of tires, which is additional cost, and additional increase of pollution.
4. Batteries don't last long. Then they have to be replaced. That's extra pollution from manufacturing new batteries, and disassembling the old ones. Not to mention enormous cost, which again goes to dirty leaches who couldn't care less about ecology.
Plants need CO2 so this problem can be solved by planting more trees. Let's get to the main point: The less energy spent on the production of a fuel or its storage, the better the outcome. Do electric cars solve environmental problems at this age? Probably not because it may take a few barrels of diesel or coal to produce a battery and recycle it only after a short life in the cold climate. Hydrogen fuel is too expensive to produce, store, deliver, etc. How about we all just use natural gas and gasoline until we come up with truely environmentally friendly batteries? We could make the vehicles lighter in the mean time to waste less gasoline. If we run out of gasoline we can run cables near highways and hook the cars to them. We can then have cheaper batteries to take the car for a few kilometers until the next cable run. Steam engine probably is not a bad idea either. We could burn wood and boil the water and in turn run the engine. That is as long as there are enough trees. It sounds like planting more trees could solve our issue. Did you know you could produce methanol from wood which is very similar to ethanol except you can't drink it. Well, you shouldn't drink ethanol either. It could be a long way to go but if we take care of the nature it will most likely take care of us, just don't go for a walk in a forest on a windy day.
I guess this buffoon does not realize that when you buy a Toyota hydrogen car they give you 3 years of free hydrogen. Or, that the hydrogen infrastructure that create hydrogen from wind or water power that has not yet been built will drastically reduce the cost of creating hydrogen with no emissions.
@Milan Swoboda Every home that has a Tesla. Here's a great Idea. Let's go pay an extra $30k for a car in order to save $2000 a year in gas. Oh yeah, that car won't even last 8 years before it becomes a toxic pile of Lithium garbage. You want to do the math? Or, shall I?
@kuei12 BEV charging stations can be found in almost every home, guess someone is not thinking at all
@Milan Swoboda lol. Yeah, of course there are more electric charging stations than H@. That is like saying when gas powered cars first arrived that there were more places to feed a horse than gas stations. Are you new to thinking?
Hmm and Tesla wants to bring back free unlimited supercharging for Model S and X. I bet you there are more Super chargers to be found than H2 filling stations.
As for renewable energy to produce "cheaper" H2, well a BEV needs about 1/3rd of the energy for the same driving distance VS. H2 FC so take a wild guess which stands a better chance of winning that race. Mirror mirror on the wall who is the biggest buffoon of them all....
It doesn't take 3 hours to recharge a Tesla. Hasn't since Superchargers were unveiled in 2012.
Look at the easily missed footnote in the presentation when the charging time is mentioned
How about natural gas turbine (energy gen) + small battery (~1,5 kWh, storage) + electric motor?
what would be the efficiency and emissions? Pretty low emissions I guess...
Gas micro turbines (
we have gasoline enough for 1000 years. better ideas will come.
thexvid.com/video/WMiVdxBToGI/video.html
thexvid.com/video/LYKi2ZGw_Lg/video.html
thexvid.com/video/fwmV-rk3v8s/video.html
thexvid.com/video/SulvNgyjAPU/video.html
thexvid.com/video/U7OgcuJghIU/video.html
I built one for myself 6 years ago and works well.
I don't buy Gasoline anymore.
3h of recharge Tesla? What a bulshit!!!!
I kinda have mixed feeling about the choices and the explanation made that electric cars are the choice to make, because in reality loads of other factors are simply forgotten.
I do not have to list them because most are being mentioned already.
But i have did myself a long study at the subject, fact is that for now electric cars will be the first to run.
The reason why hydrogen cars till now has not been a succes had to do with storing hydrogen in cars safely and with enouh capacity, when the dutch people who made it work ran with their simple old car with it, since then it became silent DEAD silent. Reason they got bought by shell and poof it became silent and still is not being produced at large scale at all for the car market.
All over the world there are massive hydrogen factories but only for industry or public transportation, the real reason why hydrogen is holded back, is because shell an others want to sell all their oil based products till the last drop before going for the hydrogen business. Its not hard to start understand how these companies prevent stuff to evolve, as long as it brings them not massive profit. There is not one company who does want to produce something without getting enormous profit on the planet.
This is the real reason why it still not at a useable level, and why almost no hydrogen plants has been developed/build and no filling stations have been placed.
Hydrogen is cheap to produce in large quantities but i agree bringing it to the places where people can fill their tanks is costing money.
But as i already mentioned elsewhere local production plants should not be such a huge deal, their are already small products which could be placed in the car itself to produce enough to refill the hydrogen tank partially during the trip. But yes it would cost ofcourse extra energy todo so.
Look at how many busses drive on hydrogen already and why only for state funded ones, indeed because shell and friends holds it back.
We should have had already huge amounts of them running and not only for just driving busses and such, there is simply no other reasons.
Ofcourse there are hurdles to take, because storing gas has huge risks we do know that as well. So nothing new there either.
Local plants should have been build many years ago, but now many decades after the invention non of it has come further than what we see now.
The world does not have enough of the products needed to build new batteries in such high quantities is what we all seem to forget, and making and using those have a huge poluting effect on the planet much more than hydrogen. If you look at the problem of people dumping batteries everywhere they can including nature reserves shows that most do not care one bit about the survival of the planet, their are long dead so they do not care one bit.
So its a very smart choice from japan to go all out on hydrogen. Either choice is not perfect, but for me its clear hydrogen is the least environmental damaging choice. This kinda compares miss the side problems which do kill the planet. And in the long term gives much bigger problems because those batteries do all have a short life. Non of the last long so simple thinking is absolutely not what we need in these choices
The problem is compressed hydrogen is super explosive isn't it?
@Ezrah Morrien lol
Only this year, with the very few pumps and h2 plants, we've got majors explosions, with two killed and many injured. Explosions blasted between a roof and half a football playground.
Yeah sure, pretty safe. Just wait we've got 3/4000 stations at 700 bars in each country ;-)
The compressed Hydrogen just like gasoline is not explosive unless it gets mixed with oxygen in the correct proportion range. The good news is that a leak out in the open is not likely going to generate an explosive mixture due to it being lighter than air thus dispersing up into the air. The bad news is that if leaking in an enclosed area it has a very wide explosive air to H2 ratio range and very low ignition energy requirement where even a very small spark can make it go boom.
They have done a lot of experiments around 1950-1960 that prove that compressed Hydrogen is pretty safe.
Finally someone brought this up
skill share while on the freeway. This is gonna be epic
Does this factor in the fact that the electricity to produce hydrogen can be off peak. The hydrogen rank becomes the battery. If you want to use off peak electricity to charge cars directly during the day then every charging station will need to have its own on site mega battery.
And that's already the case. We are presently doing this. Because it's already less expansive than use a 1MW line to feed the superchargers.
But the more efficient solution is the bidirectional charging at home and at work, we can store and get 10% of the car battery capacity, unenmployed most of time, as a gigantic "battery cloud"
It's called V2G and this, is the future.
Not the explosive h2 crap.
I love your videos but this one misses the mark. There are far better and more economical ways that hydrogen can be produced and full electric simply isnt as clean as made out to be.
I implore you to revisit this
Now this video is totally bias. How much pollution does the manufacturing of lithium batteries create! There is not anyway to make a power source without first having to use power. There will never be a 100% pollution free form of power. So when a person makes a video to tell the bad side of one power source be honest and tell thw bad side of both or however many you are comparing.
Home units for hydrogen production through electrolysis are only a few grand, if you've invested in home solar/wind on your property it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg (but a big up front cost).. otherwise you're looking at about 55kwh (and 9 litres of water) per KG of H2.. which will only give the car back about 40kwh of power back which would give you around 150-200km range in a mid sized sedan. Definitely not as efficient as Elon's lithium, but you could kill electric vehicles in range - a 50 litre tank holding 40 kg of liquid nitrogen could literally get you 6000-8000 km per tank. Of course you'd have to generate 2750 kwh at home to fill that tank.. that's a lot of solar and wind power for a home system. Wouldn't need large scale lithium mining to sustain it though, just a ton of hydro.
@Matt A reversible liquid and solid H2 carriers all have something in common, they make the already very high production energy footprint of Hydrogen even higher.
Metal Hydride reversible solid storage can achieve higher H2 storage densities but cost, weight, thermal reaction for both H2 absorbtion&release and the related absorbtion&release rate of H2 are issues. Furthermore folks like yourself which appear to have a Lithium anxiety also may have a problem since it is an element that works great as H2 MH storage as well ;)
Now to the liquid types, mainly ammonia compound or organic liquid based (LOHC).
Ammonia provides a pretty good H2 storage density with around 107 to 120g per Liter but current ammonia mass production is energy intensive and the catalytic reaction to get the H2 out requires again energy. It is somewhat safer regarding flammability and explosiveness but is considered a hazardous material.
Liquid organic carriers like methanol for example are mostly safer than ammonia but with a lower storage density. The hydrogenation of the organic liquid is exothermic and the generated heat can be used for the catalytic Hydrogen release from the organic liquid and/or other processes to improve efficiency and that will IMO only be effective in large scale industrial settings.
@Milan Swoboda Could be, what can I say.. cannabis is legal in my country lol theoretically what do you think about a liquid hydride (or maybe even solid) that could break down into hydrogen and another inert or harmless substance? Hydrogen forms lots of binary compounds. If you could apply a catalyst that splits them easily without making them + and - ions, you could have a stable liquid hydrogen source for the fuel cell without having to freeze or pressurise the H2 to death. Like hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) splitting into H2 + O2 for example.
@Matt A question, what liquid is your 0.8 kg / Liter for? Certainly not liquid H2 which gets about 0.07 kg / Liter. Did you again use the numbers for Nitrogen?
@Matt A PEM fuel cells run at Max. 60% efficiency, more realistically 50% and real world numbers looking at the Toyota Mirai are less than 100km per kg. Furthermore 55 kWh to produce 1kg of H2 is something you may achieve on a larger scale setting with units that cost way beyond a couple of thousands of dollars but not something you can expect to get on a smaller scale hydrolizer
@Milan Swoboda The way I read it was that the 50-55kwh it will take your home hydrogen generator to produce the 1kg of H2, included the energy needed to compress it into the storage tank. And yeah looking into a bit more, it looks like the tech is getting better but car industry fuel cells are currently a little over 80% efficient in converting the energy potential of H2 into actual watts needed to move the car; so if the pure energy potential of H2 is about 40kwh/kg, 80% would get you around 32kwh/kwh (probably where I was getting the 40 & 33kwh numbers).. so maybe 100-150km range per kg is more realistic for a midsize. And ya I guess if you can't store it as liquid which gets you around .8kg per litre by volume, and the best you can do with compressed gas is 5kg in a 120L tank, that makes the electrics' range competitive with an H2 vehicle. I still think it's a viable path to follow if the renewable energy industry can keep up, given that you don't need to mine a ton of lithium and the bi-product is water.
The future is fully automated battery and hydrogen fuel cell.
We won't even need to own vehicles, with automation traffic becomes more efficient and If we created all cars efficiently and less complexed to lower the cost then I could simple just hope on my phone and order a ride any time. A company could have a fleet of cars that are designed for function not form that they do all the repairs an maintenance for and all the cost can be lowered through gains in effeincy.
Electric cars are trash! Elon is stupid. Hydrogen is better but people go about it the wrong way
Please, consider hydrolysing water using solar/wind power - zero emission hydrogen fuel AND MUCH BETTER storage for inconsistent electricity production. With no battery costs, neither production nor environmental, no lithium mining from delicate desert ecosystems and better storage efficiency.
lithium production at a large scale wastes millions of liters of water. Not only that there is a very limited supply of it. Hydrogen on the other hand practically is limitless.
Im looking for articles, which investigates the overall system efficiency of different drivetrains (hydrogen, e-fuels, eletricity etc.). Can any one recommend me some?
insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/
Thank you for the video please compare the efficiency of hydrogen and lithium batteries against agricultural and marine diesel.
We all know that it is very hard to fight against the rich ones... Changing the way we transport would solve most problems. Just imagine how much can we save from not having cars. First you need so much energy to produce the materials for car, then we need energy to manufacture them and eventualy they spred toxic gasses in the air. How the hell can this be efficient. I know that many ppl have job bcs of this but man i dont thing that this should be the reason for destroying nature and ourself
Car air conditioner pump can compress Hydrogen enough for injectors & storage in a propane tank ! it really is that simple ! :) SCREW ALL THE FEAR PROPAGANDA BULLSHIT
Made a Hydrogen generator of 2 pieces of stainless steel pipe ! 12 volts dc & 20 amps ! Work's GREAT
The waste of energy is great too. (With this basic technic, about 50%)
This sorta misses the point. People don't drive gas cars because they're efficient, they drive them because they're convenient. Worst case scenario, hydrogen is still 3x-4x more efficient than gas, but with the same theoretical convenience.
hydrogen is the only right variant for future. No other variant ! But we are developing approach, which is not exact now. There must be 2 waves for hydrogen : 1/BUILD HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FACTORIES ON SITES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY STATIONS. 2/ CARS NEED TO LOAD HYDROGEN BY EXCHANGE WHOLE COMPRESSED HYDROGEN BALLOONS.
We are wrong because we do not firstly build enough hydrogen production factories on sites of renewable energy stations. We are wrong because we are trying to build network of hydrogen loading stations, which are COMPLEX AND EXPENSIVE.
We must change our approach. We should use hydrogen as energy storage method for renewable energy stations first. Then we should load hydrogen for cars by changing whole standard compressed hydrogen gas balloons. So It is very simple and not expensive to make the global net of hydrogen supplying stations. Any normal mini markets can be a hydrogen supplying point by storing standard compressed hydrogen gas balloons. We do not have to use liquid hydrogen, which is difficult to collect. But we can use compressed hydrogen gas, which is not so much different in weight by comparison with liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen is the best solution of energy storage for all energy stations now, for example, for nuclear energy stations, for renewable energy stations. Just install ready hydrogen production modules, and install independent hydrogen fuel cell modules in adjacent areas. Use compressed hydrogen gas at first time instead of liquid hydrogen.
And the last thing to notice is that, hydrogen is not more dangerous than other gases and petrol. Hydrogen has big energy storage capacity, but when burning hydrogen in accidents, IT DOES NOT CREATE ACOUSTIC DESTRUCTING WAVE TO ENVIRONMENTS. It means that hydrogen burning is less destructive than gasoline burning.
Great content but it must be "Englishized" and narrated by a well-articulated person.
We do not need Hydrogen filling stations, A small hydrogen generator can be placed in the car.
Just imagine the efficiency of this electrolyzer. 50% maybe less.
Then you need a compact hi pressure compressor. Just imagine the complexity, price, poor efficiency and danger to move a 700 bar compressor in the car !
Paul JaYmes because that's how electric cars work
@Seth Riggle haha yeah, why do cars need special batteries anyway? Surely a couple of Duracells would do? It's all a capitalist conspiracy maaaaan.
And why not put the electrolysis process directly into the car
@aaron parys Obviously he's hoping to build a perpetual motion machine!
Where do you get the energy to do the Electrolysis?? ... Electrolysis requires more energy than the vehicle can produce!!
Because there's no point in turning electricity into hydrogen to turn it back into electricity to drive a motor!
Add a catalyst to the equation along with heat from the electrolysis itself
Accelerating toward a low-carbon society The CO2 free hydrogen to backed U2 tour in Japan
tgs.tama.ac.jp/news/2019/12/06/5977.html
>real engineering
>calling Solar and Wind energy "green".
All these "engineering" channels on youtube are just propaganda channels.
Green compared to coal, yes. That's what is generally meant.
another mistakes of an amateur: the efficiency of petrol driven engine today is 32-40%. bets in class is Toyota prius Atkinson cycle 1.8 liter displacement which is 40% efficient. and you in the review state 20-30% efficiency. that was the deficiency of internal combustion engine 50 years ago! what a bad you got this time
@Nicholas Sexton yes, a lot worse than electric and hydrogen. for the long term if no new technology (than current lithium) will arise, I think hydrogen will win. its the overall viable solution as lithium is limited, very scares, and expensive. Hydrogen is unlimited, and cheap. around 3$ per kg production cost at current technology of electrolysis. nothing can beat it. the only issue is infrastructure of hydrogen fueling stations, that still doesn't exist widely.
Still a lot worse than an electric.
there is a reason so many voted negative to this review. very very wrong numbers. probably all negative voters are engineers that know the correct energy losses. yuo also did percentage calculation wrong. when you substruct percentage its multipliers not linear adding. have you graduated from elementary school ?
You are Wrong MR reviewer, The efficiency of charging lithium ion batteries is 90% - Not 99%. so your review is defective and need to be redone. Do some better learning before you broadcast misleading Data. Today is 80% efficiency of electrolysis from water to produce hydrogen and 90% efficiency to recharge a lithium ion battery from electrical grid. this is negligible. both methods as electrical traction are so efficient that it doesn't really mater if its 90% or 80% efficiency at recharge stage. totally negligible. also you ignored that the lighter the hydrogen car is compared to the heavy lithium battery car, is more than compensating for this delta if you want to be precise. use some car engineering professional to help you do the review more correct and redo it again.
WEC is going to field a hydrogen car for Le Mans in 2024 so there will be some substantial innovations coming out.
I'm curious to know what the "off-peak" cost of the power used to produce the hydrogen was. Modern solar farms are pushing the wholesale cost of electricity down below 2 cents USD per KwH, which is 7-9 cents cheaper than even the largest scale hydro projects. These solar farms are amortized over about 25 years, at which point they'll still have 10-15 years of production left in their hardware. I'm expecting all kinds of technologies which work but are too expensive in energy costs to be revisited over the next few years.
What is the "exhaust" of a hydrogen powered car? Water? The water needs to be stored on board, misted into the air, or simply dripped in passage. In my Minnesota home winter temperatures are a great challenge. Storing it on board to "dump" later will result in carrying a block of ice, hard to "drain". Just misting it into the air will change humidity and temperatures, creating unforeseen effects. Finally just dripping as you go will result in black ice, causing cars to slide. Just the heat from a conventional motor causes condensation idling at red lights. Other vehicles later will slide through the intersection. What do you propose to do with the waste water?
@Burt Buchen well it isn't really destilled water that comes out of a fuel cell since the generated water comes in contact with ambient air which has been filtered for particles only thus will become contaminated. The earth is a giant water destilling aperatus where water evaporates leaving minerals behind then it condensates in the atmosphere and then precipitates back to the surfaces where it will pick up minerals again while passing through ground formations and flowing in creeks and rivers. So nope "destilled" water is not an issue
Milan, thank you for thinking about this. I've been trying for years to get an authority to take responsibility to have an answer ready when it is needed. Of course the water presents another problem. It is essentially distilled water, H2O with no minerals and stuff. If we pipe massive amounts of distilled water into lakes and rivers, what will the effect be. Will we kill fish or foul up the flora? Can you picture lab coated scientists scratching their heads and wondering, "What now?" So, what now?
You also burn Hydrogen that is in Gasoline / Diesel with current fossil fuel cars which drip water and see the water vapor when its cold. What's the difference?
i think you missed the production of efficient batteries. mining, and all related inefficiencies of producing battery. and all the raw materials related to producing a battery.
also missed the production of fuel cells, H2 HP storage tanks and battery that are used in FCEVs, the ineffciciencies as well as all the raw materials related to producing those components.
Electrical inverters with high efficiency can be up to 99.9 %. 90% is a waaay lower than it actually is.
What does a "up to" efficiency number mean? Does it mean that under all circumstances / conditions you get this efficiency or is this an efficiency value that is for best case highly controlled narrow condition parameters that are rarely if ever going to be achieved in real life use?
Li-ion batteries are not 99% efficient. That is a coulombic efficiency (electrons in/electrons out). It doesn't take into account voltage. Energy efficiency is lower and goes down the faster you try to charge the battery because of the extra driving voltage needed.
You aren't considering that the R&D in Renewable makes it an infinite core source for H extraction. Lithium is not an endless resource.
by the time we run out of it we'll have found something better anyways
Seems that he forgot to mention Ohms law into his comment about power losses in the grid:Maximum power delivered to a load(highest efficiency) is 50%, that means only 50% of power is delivered to a load from a source or generator, add to that the 5% grid losses you end up with 45% power available to you at the other end of an electrical source. Making the source impedance go to infinity you will approach 100% efficiency but you will have the power available go to 0. Hence for example the grid has to produce power around 50KV in order to get efficient 110V to most loads in the grid.
This video is so biased, it's like you are trying to prove that batteries are bette.
no shit. that's because they are
@real engineering : i can't find your source, but i've got one on Fuell Cell theoric maximum efficiency. And it can NOT be 80% as you said at 11:00, cause 60/65% is the maximum... at close to zero Amps.
the efficiency is a function of the power. each time you you increase power output you decrease efficiency.
here is a link : www.afhypac.org/documents/tout-savoir/Fiche%205.2.1%20-%20Les%20PAC%20-%20rev%20f%C3%A9vrier%202018%20ThA.pdf
it's in french, but you have a cool graph page 4 very clear, where "rendement" is "efficiency", "puissance" is "power" and "courant" is "intensity in amp"
you have the equation of efficiency below.
its explains the theoric efficiency at nominal point is 55%, it can't be measured more than 65%, and at max power it drops to 45%.
When a builder explain that is FC has 60% of efficiency, it's true, but only on idle ! it 50% of its nominal output its perhaps 50% max in real life.
So the situation is worst : you loose effectively again 50% in the car, not 20%.
This link... is produced by the european lobbie for hydrogen ^^ the AFHYPAC.
If the cost of Hydrogen fuel goes lower than petrol or diesel, it will take over the oil market when it comes to transportation. I'd like to see how the cost fair against petrol, diesel production and energy density that is usable afterwards.
why not take into account the energy wasted to make batteries?
but then he also would have to account for the energy wasted for the complete fuel cell system (fuel cell, storage tank, battery, ....) or should that be left out in your opinion?
propaganda oriented to sell more lithium based energy systems due toalready signed long term contracsf for its extraction wihtch is much more dangerousto the nature
This is all propaganda bull cleverly disguised has a balanced analysis,
1. An electric ⚡️ car only takes energy it does not creat any 🙁
A hydrogen fueled car can produce energy so if can give back electricity to the hydrogen fueling station so if the hydrogen is made on site the hydrogen cars that fuel up at that station can help to power the station that’s creating the hydrogen fuel 🧐 ( so its kinda of a give and take process, and that is the law of all life. ( lord locust has spoken )
@MMC The radio in the car is running of fuel since Alternators in an ICE car DO NOT generate electricity for free, they take power from the ICE engine to produce that electricity and the higher the electric load the higher the fuel consumption of the ICE engine is going to be! The battery in the car is only an interim storage for starting and short peak loads that exceed the alternators output but otherwise all the car electric system runs of the alternator while the engine is running. The radio can use power from the battery while the engine is not running but that will discharge the battery and that amount needs to be recharged when the engine is running again which takes fuel.
Btw what's with the profanity prior your edit????
how do u think the radio in your gas car gets power ? It’s from the cars battery it’s not being powered by the fuel
@MMC sorry but I don't understand. What battery? one that you transport with your car?
Milan Swoboda no the car can charge a battery while it operates then off load it to your home or where ever you desire
So with your idea you'll use 3+kg of your in car Hydrogen to produce the electricity so that the station can create 1kg of Hydrogen from it. Sounds like a lot of give to me. the new H2 filling station slogan: come with a full tank of hydrogen, we'll empty it for you for free and you can buy it all back thereafter
You never mentioned Metal Hydride storage which is supposed to be very efficient, and occurs at room temp. Also the use of Super Capacitors, they work better than batteries.
@Brendan Cull yes MH H2 storage provides higher H2 storage density, the numbers I've seen for commercially available systems is more in the neighborhood of 65 - 85g H2 per Liter volume but yes a higher density is plausible. But how does it look with weight per kg stored? Fill and discharge rates including the thermal reaction involved? Cost for the AB type metal hydrides used?
As previously mentioned super capacitors just like any capacitor have a linear discharge rate quickly drops as it discharges, furthermore they have a very low energy density by volume which is why they will not replace batteries which have a low voltage drop in its usable capacity range while discharging and far higher energy density by volume than Caps. You may have hybrid systems of super caps in conjunction with batteries in the futures but not a replacement scenario.
@Milan Swoboda Hydrogen Storage: Pressurised tanks can store up to 39g of Hydrogen per litre of storage, Liquid Hydrogen 70g per litre of storage, but needs to be kept at -253°C, which takes a lot of energy and stronger more expensive tanks. These are far out shadowed by Metal Hydride, which will yield 110g Per Litre of storage, and happens at room temp. This figure can only be improved with further development, as it is relatively new on the scene. These figures come from a report I produced last year while studying for a HND.
As for Super Capacitors, I know a little about them, but from what I've seen so far, they are tipped to replace batteries for many functions in the not to distant future.
What do you mean by "efficient" in regards to Metal Hydride storage? Cost, Capacity, Volume, ......???
Regarding super capacitors, sure they can charge faster and have a long cyclic life but they have a poor energy density, high self discharge rate and the biggest issue they have linear discharge characteristic.
Hydrogen will be used to keep you hooked to the system. Lithium battery will be replaced in the next 5 to 10..
@Nicholas Sexton sorry you took me up wrong or my comment isn't clear, I'm for electric power, I just think they'll improve on it in the very near future, in regards to hydrogen it seems to me like something the oil companies could get on board with to keep us hooked to the fuel pump
That's where you're wrong. Modern electric car batteries can go over to 1,000,000 miles before they wear out. An internal combustion engine such as gas/diesel/hydrogen will wear out far before then.
no offence but dude how you spell car?
Anyway we are gonna loose the exhaust.😓
@Nicholas Sexton ooh I see.
Hydrogen cars do have exhausts. They exhaust steam/water though.
I liked the video although you left out some important information. but what I want to say is you don't seem to know about extracting hydrogen from water using magnetic fields. you can pull the water molecule apart by creating a high voltage resonance field which uses very little current. there is a lot more to it than this but what happens is because the oxygen and hydrogen atoms share electrons to create the bond holding them together making H20 water, the oxygen atom ends up with one more electron in its orbit , making it more negatively charged part of the time. and because the hydrogen atom only has one electron and when it shares it with the oxygen atom it becomes more positively charged because it missing its one negatively charged electron part of the time. so what the very powerful magnetic field does is draws the hydrogen atom to the negative side of the field and the oxygen atom is drawn to the positive side of the field. the water molecule is simply pulled appart and done with little current. but we all know big business in not going to let us use this because the country runs on oil and if you come up with anything better you get shut down.
@rmendes2 "researching free energy" well that explains it, no need to go any further.
@Milan Swoboda how would I know I have never done it, I am only sharing information that I have learned from years of researching free energy. a lot of fake stuff out there but there is also truth. watch all stan meyers videos and lectures and you will see the science behind how it's done. he was able to make enough on demand while he was driving. but I think later he did things different because he made injectors to replace your spark plugs which injected either hydrogen or treated water. he would charge the water with hi voltage or laser energy to force the electrons in the atoms to go to a higher orbit, away from their nucleus which mad it easier to pull them apart. I have done vaporized gasoline and just that alone would fix most of our fuel cost issues. and it is doable. I didn't invent it but I studied it and experimented with it and it works. how I did it was to heat gas to 250 -300 F to make it easier to evaporate, draw it through a heated intake filled with copper wool, to finish the vapor process, and the key to making it all work is you must draw in the same temp range for your air. if you use outside air the droplet size just goes back to the larger droplet and you loose your vapor as it turns back to more like a mist. up to 400 mpg the car manufactures have obtained. but they wont let us do it. you have to burn liquid fuel. so we don't need hydrogen really, we just need to stop evil greedy people from controlling us and preventing new inventions from being used.
so how many kWh are going to be required to obtain 1kg of Hydrogen via the resonating magnetic fields?
National Security?
Fk Indians are so smart