FUEL CELL VS BATTERY EV. The Future 

Generate 1kWh of green electricity, use that to directly charge an EV battery, how far can you travel? Now use the same 1kWh of electricity to hydrolysis hydrogen, compress it, cool it, put in in a vehicle, fuel cell it back to electricity, and tell me how far that vehicle can drive..... If this information is not included in a "comparison video" I don't think we have all the facts.

The BEV market is biased against FCEV! We have driven FCEV over 37K miles within California. We have leased a Honda Clarity FCEV and currently own a 2023 Hyundai NEXO. We also have an Ionia 6 which we leased in July of the same year. I have driven each vehicle over 5K miles each. Which one gives greater range? The Hyundai NEXO. It is bigger, taller and not at all aerodynamic. The range I get on recharging the Ioniq6 is around 316 miles at 89% charge. The range I get fueling up the Hyundai NEXO is 384 miles at 95%. I drive both EV’s the same: Drive the speed limit, break early, always use regenerative braking, brake early and accelerate slowly. When driving the California freeways stay in the slow lane and never exceed the speed limit! Both EV’s offer freer charging or fueling: Hyundai Ioniq 6, free 30 minute recharging for 2 years or lease or ownership while Hyundai NEXO FCEV offers a $15K fuel card. Why is the FCEV more efficient than the “World Leading EV” the Ioniq6? As you said in your video, the difference is simple, WEIGHT!! While the Ioniq6 is much more aerodynamic than the NEXO (like a big brick in size compared to the Ioniq 6) the weight makes a big difference in range. You have scientifically proved my point. Weight is the main difference. Fewer stops for fuel and more efficient use of the fuel source (electricity vs Hydrogen). Hydrogen FCEV is much more efficient than BEV, HANDS DOWN! I know because I have both. While the lose of energy from source to vehicle is more efficient with an BEV (only 62% with Hydrogen) the weight difference will catch up to the BEV over the range use compared to the FCEV. This translates (as you said) to fewer stops for needed refueling and definitely longer range. The “nay sayers” say that Hydrogen is carbon inefficient during production and transportation to the fueling station is expensive, consider the cost of lithium mining and the carbon processing pollution of making a lithium battery. The “nay sayers” are telling only half of the story. I have watched hours and hours of BEV vs FCEV and only a few have told the truth. Hydrogen fueling is the future alternative to lowering the carbon footprint from passenger cars and the future fueling of trucking. We are in the embryonic stage of Hydrogen processing. But it is changing and improving very rapidly. The key issue to making FCEV’s attractive to the consumer is not the price of the car. It is the sluggish and very expensive infrastructure. When we drove our first FCEV, the Honda Clarity, the price of Hydrogen was $12.99 a Kg. Three years later it is $37.99 per Kg. It has tripled in price. This is a big part of the problem. California is the only state, which exception of Hawaii and one or two stations on the east coast that offer FCEV fueling. California now had over 70 stations and we have traveled up and down the state and NEVER had a problem refueling. No long wait to refuel, 5 minute refueling and great range. In summation, driving an BEV or FCEV is not like driving an ICE vehicle. You have to drive intelligently. My “Mantra” is: “Leave early and enjoy the ride.”

@6:57 "Setting up a completely new transportation system is more economical than using the existing electrical grid" 🤣🤣 Yea, I guess if your business is to sell "atoms" not "electrons", the switch to electricity is pretty bad economics for your company....

You might get the conclusion right but you need to keep studying the topic. There are immense opportunities to improve both EV's and FCEV's and the same goes for batteries, electrolyzers and fuel cells plus hydrogen logistics.

Theoretical specs are interesting but I find it's better to compare best-in-class examples in the real world. Engineering complexities will ultimately determine the weight, efficiency, etc. arguments. The specs of comparable current cars are (HFCV = Toyota Mirai 2021 RWD, BEV = Model 3 LR RWD 2021): Spec.......... HFCV / BEV: EPA Range: 402 mi / 358 mi Full tank: 5.6 kg H₂ / 82 kWh Usable: 5.5 kg H₂ / 76 kWh Refill cost: $60 / up to $30 Curb weight: 1920 kg / 1920 kg 10-80% fill: 5 mins / 25 mins 0-100% fill: 5 mins / 60 mins 0-60 mph: 9.2 s / 4.2 s Trunk volume: 272 l / 561 l Frunk volume: n/a / 88 l Total cargo: 272 l / 649 l So, in summary: The HFC car can go a little bit further on one full tank and charge quickly. If we consider that an extreme EV driver might charge to 90% and drive down to 10% on long journeys before refilling, then the usable range of the EV is even less, more like 286 miles. However, thanks to the Tesla Supercharging network, they solved this issue by making it easy to go long distance and the car will always find a charger along the way. It's recommended to stop, get out and walk or rest every 2-3 hours of driving, which is perfect. So for most EV drivers, range is already sufficient and a non-issue. Whilst the charge time at a fast (H70) H₂ filling station is 5 minutes, not all filling stations are fast. Some legacy H35 stations charge at half speed and can only pump the vehicle up to 50% full. When we consider 5 minutes to refill compared with 25 minutes to refill a BEV from 10% to 80% (which is what might be expected during a long journey) then it's still quicker to refill H₂. However, on a long journey, arriving with 10% and leaving with 65% should only take 15 minutes, which is enough to travel another 160+ miles before needing to recharge. It costs twice as much to fill up the H₂ car but the manufacturer often hides this by providing a free fuel card since they sell so few worldwide (approx. 1000x Tesla worldwide BEV sales vs. Toyoto HFC). Although the tanks may weigh less than the battery, in practise they require heavy duty protection from impact. Battery gravimetric density is decreasing every year whilst the engineering needed to protect the tanks currently significantly increases the weight. In the end, curb weights of both cars are essentially the same, so no advantage to HFC. The acceleration in the battery electric car is far superior and can be sustained over extended periods and even into high altitudes unlike the HFC car, which needs to maintain its 1.2 kWh battery charge to deliver full power and uses extra energy to purify the air to provide pure O₂ to the fuel cell. The available cargo in the HFC car is significantly reduced, mainly due to the 3x large H₂ tanks under the seats and chassis along with all the crash protection. The Tesla has 2.3x the cargo capacity of the Toyota, although this won't matter to most. Finally, the H₂ refilling infrastructure rollout is problematic, mainly due to the cost of setup and maintenance. There is a good reason why no one manufacturer like Toyota is willing to fund the installation of country-wide filling stations like Tesla has done in every country it sells to. It costs at least 5x more per stall to install H₂ filling capability and then it costs 5x more to buy the electricity to generate the H₂ from the grid because H₂ is such an inefficient method of powering vehicles considering end-to-end losses. So unless the filling station uses dedicated renewable energy generation like a local solar park or wind turbine, it's using up valuable grid resources to allow one HFCV to drive the same distance as could be driven by 5x BEVs. There are some who argue that the government should fund the H₂ filling infrastructure, but given the very slow take-up of HFC cars, this is only likely to be useful for H₂ trucks in the short term. If we look at the ever decreasing gravimetric density of batteries, even trucking looks likely to be mostly BEV except for perhaps the most long range, maximum cargo weight trucks, which is only a very small proportion of the fleet. Ultimately for the majority of people, BEV is always going to be cheaper than HFCV since they can slow charge overnight at local public chargers or at home at very low electricity rates. This, and the fact that the HFCV costs more than the BEV (and probably always will) is the main reason why HFCV has such a tiny take-up. In terms of grid stability and power demand, if everyone drove HFCV the grid energy demand would be 5x higher than if everyone drove BEV. So, the fact that people can be incentivised to charge either during the day (peak solar) or during the night or weekends, when grid demand is lower, means ultimately BEV is going to be cheaper all round.

If you start usung the H2 tanks as structural components, even less weight is added!

Unless you have a way to store enough electricity to last for weeks, solar panel farms to replace coal burning power plants does not work when you have a week in the winter where it is cold, cloudy, and windy. Batteries are very expensive and not enough lithium on the planet to supply enough for battery vehicles to replace gasoline and mining of lithium is harder on the environment than burning gasoline. But you could send the excess electricity from solar farms to make hydrogen and store it in tanks, using it to both fuel vehicles and to run hydrogen fuel cells. We could eventually replace all gasoline stations with hydrogen storage facilities that make their own hydrogen from power lines coming from solar farms. Those stations can both have hydrogen fuel cells to keep the grid energized at night and in winter and also to fuel vehicles. Otherwise, solar panel farms output zero at night and very little in winter and variable constantly fluctuating amounts on partly cloudy days. Half the cost of solar panel farms needs to be the cost of storing and controlling the use of the power than is generated. Hydrogen seems to be the cheapest way to store and throttle the energy as needed. Otherwise solar panels don't output energy efficiently as it is needed without some kind of battery storage. Hydrogen seems to be the cheapest form of storage. A lithium battery only lasts 5 to 10 years and is very expensive to recycle. Hydrogen does not have that problem. We have tons of desert land in the west that can be used for solar farms if we have a way to throttle the energy that comes from them.

has this expert never heard of Fraunhofer paste the numbers would be even more impressive no real tank weight and a very safe dispersal system with little danger of catastrophic fire there's the solution yesterdays men are slowing progress wringing their hands with fear that their day is done

fantastic video of what I have been trying to explain just using words. Thank you!

Very good explanation. Thankyou

Love from imed 😉

Love to see the day when we can put water in our cars whether fuel well or ice

Gemini Ai took me here

i hear hydrogen combustion can be only water as emissions if its not too hot... to what extent this is true?

Both van exist next to each other. In Cars nowadays you can choose either petrol diesel or lpg. Hydrogen tank stations are very expensive.

Hydrogen will win out and ultimately rule. Long live the Hydrogen energy world.

So we need more efficient batteries?

Very good explanation. 👍

So happy I found this channel. Excellent videos, with excellent explanations. Thank you!

Nice and logical, but still several obstacles behind hydrogen

I love Hydrogen

Nice👍

Is the 62% Efficiency of Hydrogen also based on the method of Hydrogen production? Electrolysis methods currently used are a loosing game for "on-demand" or are we not looking at "on-demand" here?