You're Wrong About Hydrogen Cars - Toyota Mirai 

Yeah!

Linus For President. Of the world. Btw, anyone know how big LTT is in non-english speaking countries? Is the next step organizing a heap of subtitlers?

They have to, the pc market has changed so much that if ltt didn't change its content it would've been in trouble

The video is interesting and surely the variety is greatly appreciated. Just wish they would clarify if Toyota actually sponsored this, because it seems like if it is Alex's unbiased opinion but it might not be the case. Seems oddly similar to a sponsored series Physics Girl did a while back.

Agreed!

"You know who else pees a little bit? Our business team when they see this is how we segue to our sponsor" Yeah, they're comfortable alright 🤣

Alex is the best. Anthony is also a charmer. DAMN they're all great honestly. But seeing Alex grow so much more comfortable in front of the camera has been sweet.

The more I read about the more I think this is the future (combined with the WEF promotions). EV is a huge greenwash, with no solution in sight, where as green hydro is not.

@@husher5142 lol. This is such an ignorant take. Hydrogen is fucking awful in the real world. In theory it's great. But it simply wont work for large scale adoption.

@@johnathanera5863 Green hydro has come a long way, and as for fuel cells graphene has made leaps and bounds. You should look more into it. Hydro is also on the WEF development board where as EV is not. When the oligarchs are investing in something different - you should take note. Especially when they are doing it as a group.

@@dboysify Not to mention the elephant in the room, lithium is non-renewable. And you need a LOT of lithium for these batteries. It has to be mined by, you guessed it, pseudo-slaves in the third world.

@@husher5142 You think BEVs are a huge greenwash and HEVs are not? Are you from opposite-world?

An EV-Hydrogen hybrid... Interesting!

i think the new honda clarity is exactly that

roads already cracking under weight of modern cars: *chuckles* I'm in danger

@@wardancer400 you misspelled 18-wheelers

@@HCkev I did not, normal passenger cars doubled in weight in less than a decade

It is literally the reason they have so many writers. Linus still makes the big money, but can pay others to do the writing and presenting lol.

It was both a personal and business decision by Linus. He knew he wouldn't always be the face of the company. He also knew he didn't want to always be the face of the company. It's important for them to spread the screentime to retain their viewership more evenly.

I only like Linus as a host tbh

@@yacqub Cringe

anthony tech tips when

Yes, it is not combustion between fuel and oxygen, but CO2 is the side product of heat steam reform between fuel and water(steam). If you are chemical engineer, you should know ammonia or methanol is much safer option than hydrogen for consumer grade fuel cell vehicles. At least terrorist cannot turn fuel cell vehicle to a car bomb easily.

@@joelau2383 ever heard of ammonium nitrate?

@@joelau2383 I'm pretty sure ammonia would be very useful to a terrorist, either pure or in a nitrate or hydrate. The NSA even has a list of people prohibited from buying bulk ammonia products. Or ask anyone who works on refers with ammonia coolant.

@@Jazz3006 You can make explosive from ammonia, but you don't need to do the same thing to hydrogen because it is already very powerful.

@@actually5004 You have already answer your own question. Just keep prohibiting who can make explosive from ammonia to buy them. The problem about hydrogen is you don't even need professional knowledge to find out how to make it explode. And when it explode (even accidentally) on street, it may ignite other hydrogen vehicles causing chain explosion. Ammonia and methanol have no such problem

I agree, they’ve had plenty of tours and views of technology outside of computing, but the recent push into an even wider variety of concepts and technology really adds a lot of interesting content.

Unfortunately, these videos are harder to do while having fewer views.

@@VFPn96kQT These videos are honestly getting decent views. LTT is in the middle of some pretty big changes, so there will be a transition period while they figure some stuff out.

@@kylegustafson6761 hope you're correct. But Linus said on WAN show that videos that have less than 1 million views are considered under performing.

However this feels more like advertisement, omitting all problems except those few "popular", yet still avoiding any specific technicalities…

I see Hydro being used in Aviation/Commercial/Racing and EV’s for Consumers/Racing.

I wonder if there is any chance for a hybrid Hydrogen/electric car? That could be cool

why would motorsport even need to transition

@@me67galaxylife the same reason consumer car goes electric, lessen the carbon pollution.

@@RumiTheSeer oh yeah i can't wait to emit 0.00001 % less CO² by making motorsports electric

Me like vroom it sound good sometimes

I think realistically it's either hydrogen or the new synthetic fuel by Porsche. Of course that synthetic fuel requires carbon capture technology.

Amazing idea. Is there any company which try to that?

@@Baldur1005 None, because it's not stable

@@darekmistrz4364 exactly this. Cooling and the molacular size create huge problems.

@@Baldur1005 not "amazing idea", just a normal idea and a pretty common one

or skip the middle man and go for electric car

Unfortunately not all pitfalls are addressed at all. They hint at the problems with hydrogen fuel and loading up quickly. Take a look at Sandy Munro talking to actual engineers trying to quickly fuel up a truck. They have a really hard time doing it quickly because of the low temperatures and high pressures involved. Mind you, they've been at it for 40 years! You also can't wave away the higher cost per mile by saying "higher mass" on a battery since battery vehicles can recover energy during breaking offsetting at lot of the already small difference.

Also also... since green hydrogen is made from electricity it will always be more expensive to a factor of 4 per mile compared to a BEV truck. Saying "buying hydrogen in bulk" doesn't make that problem go away magically all of a sudden.

@unsubtract so it wasn't a point at all then. How is that going to work in the transport sector where cost per mile is primordial?

@@MattCasters Hydrogen vehicles can use regenerative braking and other energy recovering methods too - as the video showed they have a small battery as well!

Alex's segue was awesome

Spot on!

Yeah true, why do people criticise much on estimation since it's just help people easier to understand and visualize.

Only he completely ignores how the overwhelming majority of electricity is currently produced and distributed. The fact that green energy production is a net loss. The fact that battery production causes more damage to the environment and there is no long term disposable/recycling plan for said batteries. Horrible coverage of both technologies.

@@Ashtor1337 right, electricity is mainly produced using fossil fuels. Green energy is a joke.

Lithium ion batteries aren't sustainable or a good idea for loads of reasons so, yeah

the issue with BEV's right now is their batteries not charging or range in the long term the toxic lithium from the cells when they no longer hold a charge and it is a heavily poluting process to recycle lithium while hydrogen is extremely safe for the environment and can be made renewably using excess electricity on the grid

@UCzJ26EJ6rFPWzlAuHnJpnOA I think the problem is that not many cities have the infrastructure put in place to accommodate for bikes. I speak to someone who’s stuck in Texas, where you basically need a car to get anywhere.

Shouldn’t we also worry about the sourcing of these electricity to power these EV? At the current moment it’s still mostly coal and other fossil fuels.

I completely agree with you Succ Meister and actually hope for this to be the future. I feel Hydrogen just gets a little more hate then it deserves and wish more people and companies actually gave it more of a chance.

I believe they said on the last WAN show that they went back to using smaller cameras at 4K instead of the giant 8K cameras because they want to focus on HDR over resolution since the youtube compression and workflow needed made 8k not worth it except for some B-roll.

yeah they shoot on Sony FX3 and FX6 now, great stuff

Was thinking the same thing, and see this dine “mostly for car reviews”; which, imo, is a good thing, since car reviews can be tricky to edit….. So, this type of editing and filming, is really awesome and they do a great job☺️

@@petermadrigal7666 I wish this video was HDR graded and exported LOL got me curious enough to test, nopeeeeee it's not in HDR ):

It is just you. They've been "cenematic" for years, even at the expense of the presentation quality (EG cringeworthy aspect ratio). I'm legitimately shocked to see that your comment has so many up votes (must be a lot of new people, nothing wrong with that of course).

Especially since the whole PC market is super depressing right now

Agree this is a fantastic video

Hydrogen will die. Its just another attempt will eventually fails

As if people that likes computer only sees content about computer

We hlp advance tech. Or they've been had the tech, and in order for us to change we must first change ourselves!

Yeah same. It also doesn't help that the hydrogen comes from fossil fuels at the moment, which is like -- why bother?

The first gen mirai atleast in Australia was meant to come with a self generation hydrogen plant for you house. So that you could make your own hydrogen and fuel at home

@@TheDarkLegacy same goes for most electric cars though. it's always going to be a transition

@@TheDarkLegacy same goes for EVs at the moment unless your area has little to no fossil fuel going through the grid.

I followed a first-generation Mirai while in California. This guy was hammering it in the left lane, and the amount of water vapor produced was enough that I had to occasionally use my wipers. No, really. I can't imagine if every car on the road was this way. It would be like a continuous rain shower on the freeway. They told us it would only be a little water vapor. No, it's a LOT under heavy load conditions.

I almost peed myself when I heard that... Not gonna lie

Agreed. This one wins.

I've been witness to thousands of RU-vid sponsor segues, hundreds of them LTT. I am fully on board with this statement lmao

Greatest segue in the history.

I cant believe I had to scroll this far down for this. Fucking GEM.

Isn't there also a cap on how much power a renewable power plant is allowed to produce by law? I believe that some states have some laws like that, so that renewables do not outcompete coal and other industries.

Doesn't Musk already have a solution to this? He created the "megapack" which is a utility scaled battery energy storage.

@@resresres1 No, not enough batteries to store the amount of excess energy.

@@reshadegaming6285 it would certainly be enough to make some decent impact. Tesla is able to setup 1 gigawatt an hour system fairly quickly on limited space and that would be enough to power 850,000-900,000 for 6 hours...and it's fairly easy for scaled up larger projects.

Intermittency as a problem is vastly exaggerated I feel. A renewable or net zero world would have a combination of energy generation methods. Storage still needs work, sure, but solutions are matter of political will than they are whether it's possible.

Unfortunately, it is painting EVs as impractical in a misleading way in regards to charging time and capability in larger vehicles.

They demonstrated exactly why hydrogen is a joke while lying about the specifics. Hydrogen is the hardest gas to transport or pipeline. It is made from natural gas, so it immediately costs more than natural gas. Natural gas cars have existed for decades and never caught on, some companies and even the postal service tested fleets. Natural gas is piped into homes, it is easy to get in any town. Hydrogen is more expensive to use and the cars that run on it have to be battery hybrids. Hydrogen cars cost more than natural gas cars and far more than EVs. They are a joke. I do not get why linus keeps pushing headlines that the video details later softly contradicts. With the audi, they glossed over the problem that in 4 years the infotainment becomes a brick unless you pay a monthly fee for the car's built in cellular data. If networks upgrade and that built in radio stops working, you have no way to install your own or use wifi tethering. Any car that cannot connect to wifi for data in 2021 is a massive joke. Linus and his crew needs to stop pushing junk or what I can assume are paid ads. No one pushes hydrogen without being paid by some sponsor asking for it.

@@_PatrickO Hydrogen can be made from water with electrolysis. The problem is that its not efficient

Hindenburg

@@_PatrickO you hit the nail on the head here. I do think these are paid for ads. It would explain the toyotas... Also toyota is the largest lobbiest group in the us against EVs. This should say a lot about they extents they are willing to go.

you’re a clown, teslas truck can pull more than any diesel truck

Nah g, electric systems are scalable.

@@ALEXGIBSONCMG Nope not in trucks. Most drivers are not going to sit around for an hours waiting for their trucks to finish charging

@@-SP. you just gave me an idea

@@-SP. Truck charging stations will most definitely be different from consumer stations, like how truck diesel stations pump faster than most consumer gas stations. The charging speeds will likely be quadrupled if not more and they're creating new battery standards that are lighter and can charge faster with less heat output, since heat is generally the limiting factor of charging.

What is even more 'there', cow poop, it is everywhere and can be used to produce tons, literally, of hydrogen unlike electric vehicles. No drilling required, just some shovels.

Honestly, even if we do produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, it's still better than using fossil fuels in cars directly, since natural gas is less environmentally harmful than gasoline overall, and we could do carbon capture at the source. (Plus LNG/LPG cars haven't taken off in North America...)

Water is scarce in some places and it’s used for producing food/ and for us. Also hydrogen is not at all as clean as it seams as it also reacts with nitrogen (70%) of the atmosphere? Was there only oxygen on the atmosphere it wouldn’t be a problem. Also electrolysis is not as efficient as it sounds and it is very energy intensive. I think the video fails to depict that.

It's a lot more flexible than producing gasoline, but still a lot less flexible than charging a battery since you need a high pressure tank and compressor (and of course the electrolysis equipment).

You might be even more right than you realize. If we keep scaling up renewables exponentially then we’ll eventually have way more energy than our ever more efficient infrastructure demands. Hydrogen should be extremely cheap at that point. Still, i expect that for most people who don’t do long road trips daily in 2030 it won’t be a problem to stop for 5 mins every few hrs to charge while you go to the bathroom etc. For consumer electric vehicles theres no need to fill in seconds. Getting to a station from wheerever you are already takes a few minutes of your time, so whats a couple extra minutes especially with destination charging available?

Yep, that's the niche Nikola is aiming. I still don't understand why Toyota go this path though. It's a, somewhat niche, market, and they don't even sell trucks...

@@xmtxx they do sell trucks, under their “hino” sub brand

Yeah it doesn't seem suited for consumer vehicles, don't know why Toyota insists on developing cars like the Mirai, they should just focus on trucks.

@@xmtxx Nikola was a scam company that never had a real actually working prototype.

ships also seem like a great use case

Please don't he screwed this up royally. It was half assed at best and down right misleading at worst

@@Ashtor1337 in what regards specifically?

They really don't. He's wrong about everything here.

@@dansands8140 stop being so cryptic. Eli5.

@@SianaGearz He gave a half assed response to the safety issue. Saying they shouldn't fail is not the same thing as saying they WON'T fail. A company showing a bullet penetrating a tank doesn't mean anything. It's a single data point. There are many parts involved in getting pressurized hydrogen from a plant that produces it, into a vehicle, or HEV. Any of those points can fail, and if you actually went with hydrogen as a main fuel, you WILL have failures. As the amount of systems go up, so does the probability of failure, and the amount of inspection that would have to happen to try to keep this from happening would be too costly. And high pressure systems can fail spectacularly, and when they do they can kill everyone in that area. It's more likely to happen once you add in a bit of heat into the equation, like using this in the U.S. in southern states where it gets to 110 degrees F in the summer time. But sure in places that are cool to cold, it is safer than hot places. SO yeah, you have many thousands of hydrogen stations and you get failures. To me that was his biggest screw up because to talk about safety of systems requires a real investigation of those systems, and not showing a stupid data point presented by a company trying to push a technology. He was mostly correct. It WILL be more expensive, more so than gasoline, and as the cost of oil/natural gas fluctuates, it will create a bigger fluctuation for hydrogen. On the other hand once you have large installations of solar in the western part of the US along with many more wind farms in the central part of the US, electricity costs will come down, not go up and they won't fluctuate much. With natural gas as a backup along with cheap grid storage (company ESS, product iron redux flow batteries), that's enough to power most of the US once long range power transmission has been improved. And once you remove a lot of demand off of natural gas then its prices won't fluctuate much either. But other stuff he said or put as a title to a segment of the video is nonsense or misleading. One is charge times for BEV. So, when you have BEVs that gives you a range of over 1000 KM does it matter? For most people that's the farthest they'd drive in a day, and for the people who do long distance driving, like up to around 800 - 900 miles a day, that means you'll have one stop, about 20 minutes to charge a BEV. That's pretty trivial considering you're driving about 12 - 14 hours to do those kinds of miles a day and you really should stop at least once to eat, move around, etc.... It doesn't matter if it's a long haul semi truck driver or a person driving a car. And right now that's about where battery tech is. You do the main charge once you're at a location you're staying and this WILL happen because the infrastructure is much easier. It's more about growing the capacity for electricity production. In the U.S. in particular I'd much rather rely on BEV, and if a company like Toyota can somehow make the investment to pay for an infrastructure for hydrogen like Tesla has for charging stations then fine. But I don't think they can. In the US solar and wind, with grid storage and natural gas as a backup can power at least 80% of the country and once again with long range transmission improved and I know that will be a lot cheaper. EVEN the vehicles will be cheaper. For Tesla, BYD and another Chinese company, they are already on par with, and even less costly than building an ICEV, and eventually any company making BEVs will do so at less cost than making ICEV. An HEV will never get to that point. About the best it can do is be about the same as ICEV. A BEV is very simple in terms of construction/parts compared to ICEV. And I could pick other things apart but then TLDR.

That FOMO joke was awesome - LTT should do a science channel - something like D!NG

My only question is - whats water without the electron?

hydrogen has already lost I don't know why we keep coming back to this. they are just taking L's after L's, they took one just this week lmaoo. they just don't make sense compared to BEVs. this will be more prevalent when charging ports are at every parking lots and in every home. 5 minutes to "fill a gas tank" or "fill a hydrogen tank" will be 4:55 minutes too long. so there goes their main advantage. As for weight.. when batteries hit the same weight target of ICE passenger cars that won't even matter aswell. So 0 actual benefits to hydrogen in passenger cars. Ships are the only use case I see for hydrogen transportation especially if they get to the point where they start manufacturing H2 on the ship itself using water from the ocean no matter how inefficient it is. now that would be a game changer not just for ship but also submarines.

same here I've been thinking about them for the last 2 weeks

@@brentgreeff1115 The hydrogen regains the electron on the other side of the separator. The electron is pulled off of the proton runs through the circuit and then reattaches to a proton on the other side.

Hydrogen will probably only replace long haul trucks,its too expensive and ineficient for any type of car. Its better used in ships or planes.

Engineering Explained had a good video on that subject too

I agree! So well put together and presented. Congrats! Really liked this episode.

Hydrogen is currently a bad choice, but it's important that it's developed. Electric cars have the huge downside of rare earth availability and environmental harm (and charge time). Hydrogen may not have the efficiency, but if we ever go huge on renewables or fusion, they will become de facto winners in cost, energy density, fueling time, and environmental considerations. His comment on hydrogen storage is actually fascinating too, and something I've never considered. Water reservoirs, or battery storage? Why bother when you can make fuel.

@@ryanj610 I'm waiting for nuclear to become standard too

@@dhruvakhera5011 im waiting for gas to flat out to beat everything.

Toyota also develops hydrogen combustion engines, which already sounds amazing. I hope the future won´t be a boring EV wasteland, but a fun place with Efuels and hydrogen combustion, along with fuel cells, instead of obsolete batteries.

@@blubb7711 obsolete batteries lol, imagine thinking burning H2 is remotely efficient or economical, H2 is dead for consumer cars and slowly losing ground in semi trucks and buses.

@@blubb7711 Future certainly would not be EV wasteland because EV vehicles are evolutionary dead-end, propped by lunatics in government, and such lunacy would not last. We are witnessing rapid decline of West which would be a second fiddle in the world in few years. In PPP China had long surpassed US, and now India is coming.

@@cenakaze Batteries are an dead and technology with not much further improvement possible, while hydrogen still has huge potential to improve and solve our energy storage problem, without using tons of ressources

@@blubb7711 are you alright mate? 2021 called and wants it's stupid opinion back!

The main issue isn't getting it working. It works. The problem is an infrastructure that's practical, efficient and can compete with other energy sources. Hydrogen fuel cells will find their niche as the video suggests, because of a need for energy density. Battery energy has definite limits so can't be used for certain purposes and won't ever be good enough for some things.

Well, I kept hearing about electric vehicles as well but somehow it did arrive

@@arnabbiswasalsodeep that's the point... EV's arrived... Fuel cell.... It's all been just talk. For 30 years

If the fundamental physics doesn't work, money won't make it work

The companies can't set up hudrogen infrastructure worldwide. Even the big name brands were doing it as a side venture(like Toyota in japan) but now things are actually changing as billions of dollars and set timelines are being given by governments such India and Germany to green H sector for the setup of plants and basic infrastructure like port facilities for trading.

Aka all the crap videos coming out from youtubers endorsing a failed technology?

I think you've been reading too many Elon Musk tweets.

lol go follow the money for who subsidized Elon fusks entire operation that he’s ran at a loss for ever

It's all Toyota shills and Australians, trust me. The Australians are secretly funding hydrogen vehicles and youtubers and they've roped the Japanese into it, too.

@@vincere_ Why should we trust a random person on the internet? Just saying "trust me" and talking about shills and a conspiracy without evidence doesn't really lend itself to trust without something to back it up.

Wish they would review something that is not pure junk. They reviewed an audi that has no charging stations for travel and the infotainment bricks itself after 4 years unless you pay a monthly fee because they disabled wifi and made it so the car can only use the built in cellular data connection which requires a monthly fee. They now review a hydrogen car that they admit you should not buy and cannot fuel anywhere. They admit it is slow and then wildly speculate that toyota can magically make a faster one. That is not possible. Fuel cells are really EVs with a super small battery. That small battery between the fuel cell and the motor caps acceleration to the battery's maximum discharge rate. Fuel cells cannot start below a certain temp, don't generate power when off, and do not provide a smooth or controlled power output necessary to run a vehicle. So you must have a battery to buffer. If you increase the battery size to increase acceleration, you end up with an EV and don't need the fuel cell. Fuel cells will never be cheaper than using natural gas directly and both of those will never be cheaper than an EV.

@@_PatrickO this wasn't about the car itself it was about the information surrouding it really

@@lavahawk Their title contradicts their info and they pretty much leave out that as long as hydrogen costs more than gasoline, it is completely non-viable. When EVs are the norm and become the baseline for cost to operate, all these gimmicks that already cost more than gasoline will be so much more expensive, no one will fund any research anymore. If fuel cells have any merit, it will be in energy storage for grid level power and so far the low efficiency of making hydrogen from water neuters it. There are many technologies being worked on for grid level batteries(power storage) and hydrogen has never been considered viable because it costs more than other solutions. Hydrogen cannot work without a breakthrough in production lowering the cost of extracting it from water. We currently have zero leads on such a technology. No one has a clue what this breakthrough could be, meaning if it happens, it will be random, not something that can be planned for.

​@@quidnunc01 I agree with this. It's frustrating because, while Toyota was early in Hybrid cars, they went hydrogen and the rest of the world went a different direction. It's good to have different approaches to things but I'm seeing this all over the place now (advertisements for Toyota hydrogen powered cars) and it basically papers over the fact that 1) hydrogen is too expensive 2) it's not zero carbon for most sources and when it is zero carbon, there are is almost always a better thing to do with the energy that needed to be used to make the hydrogen 3) really the only long term application for this would be long haul trucking but Nikola *shakes head*

This is exactly my thought. Guess who owns the NiMH patent for cars right now? Chevron. Oil companies do NOT want electric cars as it is devastating to their bottom line, whereas hydrogen lets them go right back to charging at the pump.

@@IggyHitokage Oil and gas companies like Chevron didn't get so big by being stupid. If there is money to be made from other energy sources, they'll find a way to do it - they have a duty to their shareholders to make a profit, and indeed, shareholders in all industries are pushing for more "green" energy sources.

The vast majority of electricity people get from the grid is also still coming from fossil. The difference is that, with the right equipment, almost anyone can extract hydrogen, anywhere... Much less room for production to be controlled by a select few.

@@cerealport2726 Nothing like profit at any cost, including stifling innovation and competition.

You mean the same thing electric car companies are doing? Yeah, in reality carbon neutrality is a pipe dream, politicians are not engineers, they only know how to convince people to agree to things whether it's good or not.

Probably this will be like the case with Diesel / Gasoline where Diesel engines were mostly made for large, heavy vehicles. But instead of Diesel, we have Hydrogen, and instead of Gasoline we have Electric

I think for cars it still will beat batteries, while battery stations are cheaper, hydrogen is far more versatile. Unless you are only driving within a relatively small radius from your starting point it's a hassle. This is especially notable for business traffic which often requires traveling large distances, same for taxis, ubers, etc. Batteries only really work well in ease of use if you use the car for groceries, visiting friends, etc. and that's all still assuming your own house has a decent charging station. Where as with hydro you don't need a charging station at home, it just requires gas stations to offer it.

@@relo999 need a lot of infrastructure to store and transport hydrogen though. Want to add a hydrogen pump? You need a hydrogen producer. A transporter. Huge tanks to store it. And pumps. Want to put a pump to charge electric cars? Can do that in a couple weeks. As long as power lines are nearby it's just pouring a little concrete, and wiring it in.

The battery not lasting doesn't really compare to a chemical company charging 10k a truck to drop off your hydrogen tho

Same for trains by the way, hydrogen is much more energy dense and it takes a ton of energy to move a train (even though it's many times more efficient per tonne-km than any transport on tires) and the biggest drawback of hydrogen for cars in deploying a vast network of hydrogen infrastructure across a country doesn't apply to trains since you have only a handful of already heavily industrially equipped depots to install hydrogen infrastructure in, and larger depots can even have their own small hydrogen production plants and supply other depots with hydrogen via the same railway network, which is again pretty efficient. Some railways in Europe are working on hydrogen passenger trains and I think there are talks about hydrogen locomotives as well (obviously where there overhead electric supply doesn't exist already, that is via pantograph, which will always be more efficient than hydrogen, only very costly to deploy), where I live, Russian Railways also have partnered with Rosatom to create a hydrogen passenger train for the non-electric lines. I also feel like buses also might be a big contender to use hydrogen, rather than battery. Again, they use centralised infrastructure with just a handful of large bus yards across a city, and they won't require charging stations on end points of their routes to recharge, as battery buses do.

Hydrogen will most likely compete with aluminium-air batteries, since they both are designed for long distance and fast/easy "refueling" I think most cars in the near future will be hybrids with a battery (recharged in home and on public car parks) for short trips (up to 50km) and aluminium-air or hydrogen for long distance travels.

Yeah that's my idea. In this regard since hydrogen infrastructure is more expensive, it makes more sense to be dispersed as much as diesel which is easily found near highways but rarely in the cities.

I expect Hydrogen to replace Diesel in locomotives, either burning in a prime mover, or more likely, combining in a fuel cell to create electricity to drive the traction motors. Both variants exist on a limited scale already.

@@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis Since size and weight aren't significant drawbacks for a locomotive that sounds like a reasonable use case. And the water produced would be useful on board.

Eeeeh. You're making a lot of assumption that aren't at all good. Rural areas in the US just don't have many charging stations. it's Diesel and gas. Electric cars also blow for any kind of cold weather, defrosting humans takes a lot of energy. Which in gas, is basically free. Electric cars also add some amount strain to the electric grid.

and diesel/gas too cuz why not have all the info

A lot of it relies on hand wavy future cost protections of using huge excess renewable energy. Because right now it is absolutely horrible cost wise. (Especially using green hydrogen)

hydrogen requires 5-10 times more electricity per mile driven, so expect 5-10times more expensive per mile.

that's kinda impossible, hydrogen prices vary heavily across the world. Where I live it's decently affordable and accessible, but I know that in the US, like they said, it's very expensive and scarce.

@@Frostfly it ignores capital investment, water cost, development cost, shipping cost, and lower off peek energy prices just to name a few.

Researching mass hydrogen production is important because if fusion ever materializes we'll need lots of some kind of hydrogen isotope. I don't know which one the scientific community will end up using (neither do they) but having a lot of that research already funded and done will be an important step in the process. So, don't count hydrogen out just because the current solution is hydrocarbons. Remember that the ocean is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen, while the rest is salt and feesh.

In the status quo, yes, big oil still wins. HOWEVER, there are multiple modalities of clean energy hydrogen production in the works across the budding industry, and some who's stated goal is energy neutral hydrogen creation (ie more efficient, climate friendly, and not relying on oil/coal to electrolyze the water). Either way, "less emissions">efficiency as current power grids are incredibly inefficient, wasting excess power as we have no infrastructure (ie giant batteries) to store and distribute excess power generation when needed.

Especially when comparing to BEVs in BC where LTT are based, where mains electricity is overwhelmingly clean hydro power

@@kylewalsh393 The status quo will remain for quite a long time and for too long to save the green hydrogen road vehicle pipe dream. Right now Germany is (as far as I can determine) pushing the hardest for becoming the leader in green hydrogen production of any body. Even so, they hope to have less than 10% of the hydrogen they need just for heavy industry hydrogen (for example for fertilizer and steel production) by 2035. Heavy industry hydrogen is going to be a priority over green hydrogen for cars or trucks, since, frankly, BEV's are more efficient, but there is no such alternative for heavy industry. By 2030 (i.e. 5 years earlier), Tesla alone (and they would hopefully not be a monopoly, for example BYD is likely to give them a run for their money) plans to produce sufficient grid storage batteries globally every four years or so (>3TWh per year) to enable putting the entire US grid on green energy and not need to worry about intermittency or even extreme weather events. That's assuming the entire US energy market, including vehicles and heating, switches to the grid The issues LTT are mentioning about high amperage required for charging batteries and heavy batteries won't be a significant issue by then either. For lower amperage, you can "simply" increase the voltage (though that obviously requires better tech). BYD's 350kW chargers actually have thinner cables (or at least lower amperage, I'm not sure about the cable thickness) than Tesla's 250kW chargers due to charging at a much higher 800V. And Tesla is already installing megachargers (which has >1MW charging rate, hence the name) in preparation for their semi trucks. In fact, a Tesla semi truck can charge 400km range in just 30 mins. This is still a while, but not that long considering that after 400km or so, the drivers probably need to make a mandatory rest stop any way. Furthermore, the Tesla Semi is considerably faster and more powerful than a regular Diesel truck, which means you'll get back any time lost charging from faster driving. Regarding the weight issue, 500Wh/kg semi-solid state batteries are apparently hitting commercial scale availability in China and actual use in Chinese BEVs this year. That's fairly low for semi-solid state batteries' specific density (which makes sense, since it's new tech). By the second half of this decade we might see actual solid state batteries hitting commercial use and probably with >1000Wh/kg. They can in theory reach 1500Wh/kg. That gets you to approximately a third of the specific energy of gasoline (petrol) if you account for the difference in efficiency between petrol vehicles and BEVs. (Petrol has about 13kWh/kg, but is about 4 times less efficient than highly efficient BEVs. Therefore 13/4 = an effective 3.25kWh/kg.) At this point, you are not lugging around a ton of batteries. It's more like 60kg or 70kg for 1000km range on an efficient BEV, like a Tesla Model 3. And even less than that for a smaller car. Of course a semi truck will have rather heavier batteries than a car. But nothing insane either. A Tesla Semi gets 500mi (>804km) for a one ton battery, which seems about the same as what Tesla claims. But a 1000kWh/kg low efficiency solid state battery or high efficiency semi-solid state battery would get you four times less battery weight (i.e. a 500mi or >804km), and that's assuming no additional efficiency over the current efficiency as the tech improves.

Yeah but that isn`t much different with pure electric cars is it? That electricity you load your car with isn`t all green energy either and we don`t even want to talk about all the fossil fuel those heavy duty mining machines need to extract all that rare earth to make those big batteries. Fact is that no technology is as green as the companies who make them try selling it to you.

now idk about that you must be watching somelow quality automotive channels

Idk I think Donut media has some pretty good content

@@toaster6200 Yup, VERY low quality. Any channel that covers new technology in power generation, vehicles, etc... just KNOW hydrogen is hardly worth talking about, but if Toyota hands them a vehicle to test, they will. However the dude here did talk about all the inefficiency involved with HEV so there's that. That along with how costly it would be to build out an infrastructure makes it worthless where you can generate plenty of electricity to power BEVs.

@@jjbarajas5341 they did lose a bit of their soul in recent times

@@johndoh5182 The solution is easy! Just use hydrogen engines for all heavy machinery and re-purpose oil and gas pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen! /s

Future storage and applications suggest the use of ammonia which is easier to store and transport and already has a lot of infrastructure in place.

@@Leo0718 Running cars on pee, yee!

@@velianlodestone1249 I'm interested that when you heard ammonia you went straight to urine lol

@@velianlodestone1249 yeah, love that, drink a lot, drive further🤣🤣🤣🤣

Prove it

Any chance for hydrogen passenger planes flying intercontinental distances? Or is there simply not enough energy / volume of hydrogen?

Hydrogen is NOT a "source of energy" it's a way to store (and waste a lot through inefficiencies) of energy if you really miss going to gas stations so much..

What we really need is fusion power. That unlocks SO much Practical Fuel Cells, Synthetic Hydrocarbons, and of course; making coal, petroleum, and natural gas absolete

With some many fanboys bashing from one side or another, is refreshing to find people open to take all options as viable. Kudos!

@@sothasil7716 fusion still has the drawback of needing fuel. The same issue will exist, you need to make hydrogen to power fusion. Making hydrogen is wasteful. You can't use a fusion plant to make it's own hydrogen, it is impossible for a plant to manufacture hydrogen faster than the rate that is fuses hydrogen and still provide electricity to a service area. You also can't just keep fusing into higher elements, once you start getting in to the 4th row of the periodic table fusion actually requires more energy than it releases.

@@iwontliveinfear I'm talking about Helium-3 fusion. We're going back to the moon anyway, might as well mine it while we're there. Sending things into space from Earth is really expensive, but we could easily send Helium-3 shipments down to earth easily. A basic heat-sheilded spaceplane would be enough thanks to the moon's low gravity

Be careful what you wish for. You're asking for a gas which is 25% efficient if used in a fuel cell. But you suggest instead to use it in an engine that 25% efficient. So, remove the fuel cell (let's say 50% efficient after manufacture and transport of the hydrogen) then burn it at 25% efficiency (as noted, it produces less power) That's a system that's 12.5% efficient..... and you will be paying for it.

@@rogerstarkey5390 Not to mention that 1 kilogram of hydrogen made from electrolisis costs roughly about same with 50 kwh of electricity. And 1 kg of petrol is basically 0.36 gallon. Good luck being Richy Rich just to drive ICE car.

I'm not even really all that into cars but I love this content as well

a lot* wtf is an allot?

Backed, I loved seeing this guy talk about cars.

*with less emissions produced on the spot :). They should also review Mazda's Skyactive-X whenever something interesting with that engine comes out.

@@TheJPomp a typo, it happens all the time, weird you never came across one. It is even more likely to happen if people type whilst being in a rush and using their third language, but hey, I am sure the world I a better place now you went out of your way to correct somebodys typo that absolutely did not make it more difficult to read, thank you for your great service to humanity :)

Thats why reneabwle energys should be used to profuce hydrogen when they produce more than is needed and if the renewables don't produce enough we can use the hydrogen.

@@CrispyRichter But we don't have electricity surplus. A bunch of natural gas and coal plants are going online to supply current demand.

Until you have to start regularly replacing components due to embrittlement. TCO is stupid expensive.

Hydrogen has a key advantage: No exotic materials for batteries. By using solar to refine hydrogen, you can create a transportable fuel, without the use of lithium polymers etc. @Sw4lley

I think hydrogen will be like petrol and diesel is now. Other is better for longer journeys, and other one for shorter ones.

It is also a rock bottom of the CURRENT technology, which have not been developed until last ~8 years. If you skim scientific magazines, you will notice a significant uptick in Hydrogen related discoveries in last 4 years.

@Okabe Rintaro (Blackpilled) Thankfully it is green vehicle only zone, I am safe

And, also worth pointing that even if the efficiency were around gasoline, the gains on particle emissions near populated zones would make it worth it from a public health perspective.

Modern gasoline cars are around 30% efficient last I saw, they've come a long way. Gasoline makes up for its inefficiency by having tremendous energy density for its volume and mass. It makes our best batteries look like boat anchors, which is why it's so hard to escape, lol.

If you go here you should also consider the inefficiency at the point of electricity generation. ~60-40% depending on a ton of factors

Actually no. Hydrogen unfortunately requires ALOT of volume. About double that of batteries. Take the mirai for example. Toyota Camry/model S sized car. Has no front trunk, a boot so small it’s actually almost a full 100L less than what you get in a YARRIS and isn’t enough enough to hold a space saver spare tire. The cabin is so small you can’t actually fold the rear seats to extend the boot. All because of the volume needed for hydrogen. The miria, for its 5.6kg of hydrogen at 700 bar requires almost 150L of fuel tank storage. More than what you get in a Ford F-250. For this reason the miria could never go much further. This can be seen with the hydrogen semi truck the Hyundai Xcient. With double the volume of fuel tanks typically found in a semi, totalling around 30kg of hydrogen. It can only travel 400 miles. Just like the mirai. You’re not going to get any further because you can’t fit more fuel on it. The for the solar, no. This might be viable for Battery trucks but hydrogen no. Not only would you need to find space for an electrolyser but you’d also have to have a compressor which could compress to 700 bar. Which is massive. About 100x higher pressure than a domestic air compressor system. Then there is the energy. Even a large ish home solar system is around 6kW and in a sunny summers day in Australia would only produce 20-30kWh. The roof of the trailer presents significantly less surface area. But keep in mind that 1kg of hydrogen needs 56kWh of electricity to produce and compress. Meaning of the 30 ish kilos you need to travel just 400 miles. If you had a home solar sized set up on your trailers, it would still take you 2 days to produce just 1kg of hydrogen (6 miles per day). Meanwhile a BEV truck fully loaded is estimated to use 0.2kWh per mile, so for the same investment you cold travel some 150 miles on solar.

@@engineeringtheweirdguy2103 I sincerely appreciate your reply, and say this is the foundation to my floating house of thoughts.💬 But still a big-rig with the longest legal trailer has a lot of wasted space underneath the latter.🤨 But maybe Thorium salt reactors are the way to go🤔

You can find similar problems with BEV:s. Electricity can be created from CO2 producing sources. The manufacturing of the batteries produce CO2 and need to be replaced periodically. Recycling of the batteries is pretty much non-existing at the moment and requires processes that create CO2. Cold temperature can significantly lower the battery charges, which can also add to the emissions. In addition to the CO2, the sourcing of rare materials in batteries is creating other environmental problems via mining. For the green transportation future to become reality, both solutions require abundant green energy (fusion?). This is true for creating green hydrogen and also for charging BEV's without creating CO2 emissions. As BEV's have also the large CO2 emissions created by the batteries, it would be interesting to see a comparison of the CO2 emissions during a typical cars lifetime with both technologies. The CO2 emissions is the problem that needs to be solved and that is why the power efficiency comparison between BEV and HEV is not the real point here. As explained in the video, hydrogen is needed as the storage solution for wind and solar power anyway.

Too bad technology won't save us or the environment...and there's literally no empirical proof to show otherwise

@@post-leftluddite Humans are self destructive, the planet is fine.

@@crisbowman The planet, as in the piece of rock we're living on? Yeah. The planet, as in an ecosystem that can spawn other intelligent life like us in the future? Not necessarily.

@@seeibe It might take millennia but not even nuclear war could wipe out all life. We've been through severe climate shifts, supervolcanoes, meteors, and organic extinctions. Life will be fine.

To be fair, some of us have known about it for a decade or two; it's nothing new, even in cars (Honda had the Clarity 14 years ago) and GM had a truck fifty years ago.

Bullshit. Unless you're powering your electrolysis by electricity out of a nuclear power plant, you're just using fossil fuels, and spectacularly inefficiently what with all of the conversion losses. (Thermodynamics are a cruel mistress.) The cheapest and currently lobg-standing economically viable source of hydrogen is catalytic cracking of liquid hydrocarbons. You may as well just burn the damn hydrocarbon fuel because even *that's* more efficient than the thermodynamic losses involved in hydrogen generation.

@@bobthecannibal1 THIS

@@MLHunt Who says we arent gonna use nuclear?

@@bobthecannibal1 The idea is to use renewables or Nuclear energy to do the splitting and basically use the hydrogen as a relatively cheap and convenient battery though I do agree that we would almost certainly get stuck with brown hydrogen being labeled green (remember when we switched to plastic to save the trees, trees did need saving but the Oil and Gas companies weren't the saviors we thought they were).

I think you guys are missing a big point here, hydrogen will never become much more viable than it is right now. It's just basics of thermodynamics... You can not change the amount of energy necessary to separate the molecules of hydrogen from the molecule of oxygen on the H2O (water), you will not bend the rules of the universe, NEVER!

Monoculture and monopoly has some efficiencies, but those tend to benefit business owners far more than consumers. Flexibility of fuel and energy sources would place far less pressure on any single resource to provide the bulk of global energy needs, and would allow greater regional flexibility for dealing with the challenges and opportunities provided by the local environment.

It is dead. No one is ever going to invest in the infrastructure for high-pressure hydrogen. Meanwhile, we already have electricity literally everywhere, making it so much easier to build out a charging network.

Hydrogen will continue to develop to replace diesel engines in heavy equipment like trucks or equipment that has to run for 8 hour days if not more like trucks 13 hours on the road then 8 hours off for the driver to sleep then another 13 hours on the road.

I personally want Hydrogen to succeed because I don't want Lithium and cobalt to become the next oil. Just like the current OPEC cartel which controls production of fossil fuels and causing inflation around the world.

Really because this just tells me NUCLEAR is the only way billions of people will coexist on this plant using the amount of energy we do.

And still require a good size battery.

Fuel cells deteriorate, but a lot slower than batteries. And they won't stop working because of deterioration but lose some power over the years. It's similar to solar cells.

@@Henrik0x7F Not true. Fuel cells have degradation issues and at best are 150k to 200k lifespan. Batteries are easily that good and only getting better. Also a fuel cells STILL NEEDS A BATTERY!

@@sleepytrucker3454 4680 cells being used in tesla semi is supposed to last over a million miles before dying, now I’m sure the actual usable lifespan is less than that, but it’s way better than those fuel cells

@@voltspc9394 is the Tesla semi driving around have we seen a prototype that has actually transported something. I haven't seen it

Also a heavier vehicle will be less affected by bumps, something quite misrepresented in the video.

@@Hyperus ??? heavier vehicle means more mass to stop from bouncing (the shocks) and from moving up and down so that you dont get your ass beat (the springs) the only way to prevent this is by using stiffer springs or longer springs, but at some point the car just becomes to tall soooo... stiffer it is. and if you have stiffer springs you obviously need ''stiffer'' shocks.

Maybe it's because the platform is not an original hydrogen car platform. It's just made from a fuel car. Just a proof of concept car. It could be improved later