It's not that they are designed to fail. It's that they are targeted at governments who have no accountability on spending their budget.
@DuckHunterGaming
10 ай бұрын
Well when it takes 300 kw/h of electricity to make 100 kw/h worth of hydrogen you know its going to be expensive.
@robertfonovic3551
10 ай бұрын
But Solar and wind is free.😅😅
@BigBen621
10 ай бұрын
@@robertfonovic3551 But building the solar and wind infrastructure *isn't* free; and it takes three times as much solar and wind infrastructure to create green hydrogen as if the energy was used directly in BEVs.
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
@@robertfonovic3551tell that to the people paying for electricity made from wind and solar. Sure, much cheaper than fossil fuels but far from free.
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
It's actually worse than that, since it takes 400 to 500 kWhrs worth of electricity to produce every 100 kWhrs of hydrogen energy equivalent. But since we measure hydrogen in kilograms, we usually say that each kilogram of hydrogen produced requires 4 to 5 kilograms of hydrogen energy equivalent. But remember that this is theoretical energy, not the actual energy that can be extracted as electricity, and since fuel cells are 30% efficient at best, only 30% of that kilogram of hydrogen will do useful work. Hydrogen (H2) is unique among fuels in having a negative EROI of between 1 to 4 and 1 to 5. All fuel and energy sources can be measured with a term known as ENERGY RETURNED ON ENERGY INVESTED, aka Energy Returned On Investment, or EROI. This term is a ratio of the number of energy units that one gets for every energy unit used to extract the energy. Oil and gas has an EROI of around 17 to 1, meaning that one gets 17 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil used to extract that oil, and thus has what is a positive EROI, meaning one gets more energy out than what is used to extract the energy. Canadian Tar Sands oil has an EROI of 3 to 1, barely positive enough to be profitable, and below what is considered to be the minimum EROI of 10 to 1 that allows oil to be considered a viable fuel source to maintain an industrialized society. Existing renewables have a very positive EROI of 20 to 1, and new renewables get as high as 80 to 1. This means that every kilogram of hydrogen requires between 4 and 5 kilograms of hydrogen (or hydrogen energy equivalent) to produce that one kilogram, so it will always be 4 to 5 times more expensive than the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This is true if the hydrogen is produced from steam reformation of of methane (aka natural gas), or from using electricity to electrolyze water. It is sadly ironic that since over 95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from steam reformed methane, each kilogram of hydrogen used in a fuel cell vehicle produces more CO2 than just burning the methane as fuel.
@douglasburnside
10 ай бұрын
Especially when the hydrogen is being burned in an internal combustion engine at about 15% efficiency instead of being run through a fuel cell.
@vanrozay8871
10 ай бұрын
Compared with energy stored in batteries, equal energy stored as hydrogen is expensive to produce and handle; especially compress, bottle, and ship. It's amazing how officials entrusted with public money can lack sense, neglect due diligence. Shameful and disgusting!
@8ettieP46e
10 ай бұрын
they get lobby money so they can... alway easy when your spending someone else's money.
@trungson6604
10 ай бұрын
H2 car and buses are still in experimental stage, and they won't be cost effective UNTIL and UNLESS H2 will be ubiquitously available via the now natural gas piping network. It costs 1/8 the cost of electricity transmission to transport H2 via pipelines per kW-mile basis. It costs 1/100 folds less to store H2 in underground caverns than utility battery, per kWh of capacity. So the H2 can be produced near the Solar and Wind farms and transported to underground storage and to end users at FAR LESS cost than what it would take to store and to transmit Solar and Wind energy in electric forms like battery and power lines. So, even though H2 for transportation may be less efficient than battery, H2 will eventually be cost-competitive with battery when considering the entire renewable energy supply chain and storage systems.
@menotyou1234
10 ай бұрын
I still think that h2 on demand, produced, not stored, is the answer to h2.
@Tom55data
10 ай бұрын
@@trungson6604companies have tried this tech for 30 years, it is not in its infancy, this is 30 years of research and development
@BMWHP2
10 ай бұрын
@@trungson6604 You seem to forget, that in the production proces there is a constant leakage of a minimum 12% to 15% H2. On top of that, there is a leakage during storage, transport, and usage, in total close to 25% of the total worldwide production of H2 today. And the leakage of H2 prevents the breakdown of Methane. That methane is a greenhouse gas that is 11 times worse than CO2. H2 is even worse than CO2. But the Oil industry still keeps promoting the use of Hydrogen, to keep everyone 100% depended of their fuel stations. They never cared about the global warming or environment, they will never do in the future, as long as that industry makes trillions.
@rboz4637
10 ай бұрын
Santa Cruz County Transit in Calif is purchasing 57 hydrogen busse via a grant. They don't really want comment on the cost per mile. Of course they have to build a fueling facility. A disaster on the way. Someone is doing some heavy lobbying to put these grants out for hydrogen busses. I don't know anyone who saw any due diligence they (county supervisors and transit admin) are so excited about all the money they get.
@ITS_BOBBY47
10 ай бұрын
State grant via feds that gave $1B to CA for H2 development...no brainer!
@joelado
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen has been the fuel of the future for my entire lifetime and I'm old. At this point I say, "Hydrogen is the fuel of the future... and always will be. Buy electric, it is the fuel of the present."
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
As an electrician in the power industry hearing about "almost free" nuclear and hydrogen power since the 1970s, I agree. Sort of like the "free coffee tomorrow" sign at a coffee shop I went to. It was always today when I went in. In my lifetime the cost of batteries and renewables has plummeted, and is now the most scalable and affordable option for electricity, while the same cannot be said for nuclear or hydrogen. It is not just a lack of infrastructure, but a reality of chemistry and physics, since hydrogen (H2) is unique among fuels in having a negative EROI of between 1 to 4 and 1 to 5. All fuel and energy sources can be measured with a term known as ENERGY RETURNED ON ENERGY INVESTED, aka Energy Returned On Investment, or EROI. This term is a ratio of the number of energy units that one gets for every energy unit used to extract the energy. Oil and gas has an EROI of around 17 to 1, meaning that one gets around 17 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil used to extract that oil, and thus has what is a positive EROI, meaning one gets more energy out than what is used to extract the energy. Canadian Tar Sands oil has an EROI of 3 to 1, barely positive enough to be profitable, and below what is considered to be the minimum EROI of 10 to 1 that allows oil to be considered a viable fuel source to maintain an industrialized society. Existing renewables have a very positive EROI of 20 to 1, and new renewables get as high as 80 to 1. This means that every kilogram of hydrogen requires between 4 and 5 kilograms of hydrogen (or hydrogen energy equivalent) to produce that one kilogram, so it will always be 4 to 5 times more expensive than the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This is true if the hydrogen is produced from steam reformation of methane (aka natural gas), or from using electricity to electrolyze water. Then add to that the fact that the most efficient fuel cells in the lab are only 35% efficient, and real world use is only around 16 to 20%, so the cost of using fuel cells just goes up. It is sadly ironic that since over 95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from steam reformed methane, each kilogram of hydrogen used in a fuel cell vehicle produces more CO2 than just burning the methane as fuel.
@jetli740
10 ай бұрын
@@GoCoyote i like the "free coffee tomorrow sign" knowing it never arrive
@joelado
10 ай бұрын
@@GoCoyote Unfortunately, KZitem doesn't allow graphics in their comment section, but another metric to look at is the LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). Hydrogen isn't on the list because it is looked upon as an energy carrier rather than a source of energy, since it doesn't occur naturally, but if it were it would be listed as one of the most expensive forms of energy. It already is one of the most expensive ways to carry energy. Even when piped it causes metal brittling and being the smallest of all atoms it finds its way out easily so the transmission losses will always be very high, as well as being dangerous because once it has access to oxygen it can burn very powerfully.
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
stopped when the hindenburg did a bad docking
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
@@flodjod My understanding is that a big part of the Hindenburg fire was the magnesium in the oil paint used to seal the gas bags.
@buggiesindustries7550
10 ай бұрын
That's a serious eye opener about the failings of hydrogen vehicle fuel!
@tedg1609
10 ай бұрын
Buying a Hydrogen bus is the opposite of investing.
@ab-tf5fl
10 ай бұрын
My suspicions here is that the touting of green hydrogen as the clean transportation solution is not even really about hydrogen, per say, but about oil. Electric vehicles are a long-term threat to oil company profits because electricity is cheaper than oil, and all that's holding it back is short-term bottlenecks in battery supply. Hydrogen is not a threat to oil because it is massively more expensive than oi. Meaning that the practical result of hydrogen being the clean energy solution, will be everybody just burning oil because clean energy is too expensive. Which is exactly what the oil companies want.
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
there is no doubt the oil and gas cartels are driving the bs of hydrogen and also the coal barons are sticking their pennies worth of crap to any who will listen
@devonbikefilms
10 ай бұрын
It’s not a threat to oil because it’s made by oil. They already see sales of fuel for transport dropping, they need a new income stream, so do the politicians, follow the money.
@kaijen2688
10 ай бұрын
Hydogen is expensive to produce. Its just a simple math problem, and an electric bus is cheaper to build and operate.
@MichaelLloydMobile
10 ай бұрын
The people who make those decisions in that city in Europe that discovered hydrogen buses are expensive to maintain are grossly incompetent. I put more thought into buying something on it Amazon for $20. I guess when you're spending someone else's money people tend to not care as much. So... narcissistic and stupid.
@robertjanusz3136
10 ай бұрын
imagine the maintenance costs!!
@jimmielin1141
10 ай бұрын
Elon musk already said that it just doesn’t make sense to use energy to produce liquid hydrogen to power cars. It just waste energy let alone the expensive contaminants for the liquid hydrogen and the stations
@gowanduff7501
10 ай бұрын
Engineering facts need to guide these decisions! Electric busses, with on board batteries, overhead wires, wireless charging or a combination of all these, has been shown to be most economically effective based on actual costs.
@robertfonovic3551
10 ай бұрын
Cuckoo Cuckoo 😊😊
@robincollis6349
10 ай бұрын
You know what makes more sense remove the batteries, forget the wireless charging. Put down some steel rails keep the overhead power transmission and stick a few busses together oh thats right it's called a train/tram if your worried about economy oh no rubber tyres either that's another positive as that's a bit of an ecological and economical problem
@Harrythehun
10 ай бұрын
@@robincollis6349Rail doesn’t always make sense. You build in massive amounts of capital, maintenance, buss lanes and fixed buss routes.
@garethrobinson2275
10 ай бұрын
@@robincollis6349You can't replace buses with trains in most of the situations they are used in. Good grief.
@robincollis6349
10 ай бұрын
@@garethrobinson2275 yeah so just run Diesel buses as there's a good chance the BEV buses are going to be charged using fossil fuel generators cut out the middle man incase you didn't get it I was being facetious I don't like battery powered vehicles unless it's a toy
@jasonrhl
10 ай бұрын
Its just like life. You need to let kids make their own mistakes. They never want to learn from others because they always know better
@iceman9678
10 ай бұрын
Green energy in general isn't economic for the general population without subsidies.
@satriojumeneng7055
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen bus-making companies have the best, most talented marketing people.
@awabooks9886
10 ай бұрын
And I suspect they place the biggest bribes into secretive Seychelles bank accounts.
@radart6037
10 ай бұрын
Government lobbyists imo.
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
pulling wool over polys eyes is their speciality
@willeisinga2089
10 ай бұрын
There is no Hydrogen. The City of Groningen Nederland Uses 200 BYD EV Busses for Years now. Cheap Clean Reliable Transport in Groningen. Its Normal. Nobody Pays attention. Never in the Media. Charged with Cheap Clean Solar Energy from Solar Parks in Groningen. Clean Air Health Affordable Reliable.❤. And Money making Solar Energy Production in Groningen. We are Smart People in Groningen. Must be.😊👍☀️☀️☀️
@davidinkster1296
10 ай бұрын
I wonder which minister or public servant made this decision? And are they prepared to publish their reasoning? Or did they only order 2 in order to obtain real-world data and make it easier to make the case for battery-electric.
@jetli740
10 ай бұрын
dont even need to order 2 for testing, just need to ask how much hydrogen require to run a km, dont ask how much it cost per KM.
@antegcabo
10 ай бұрын
No need for "expert". They could just ask me.
@aerotecvideo1270
10 ай бұрын
Elon wasn't just whistling dixie when he called the 'hydrogen fuel cell for public transport' dumb,.. and that was a few years ago.
@kongwee1978
10 ай бұрын
West Malaysia is using hydrogen bus and 3 carriage bus aks ART. Especially ART bus to substituted subways.
@tonystanley5337
10 ай бұрын
Yeah 6x is the standard for cars in Hydrogen cost/mile compared to batteries.
@AndrewTSq
10 ай бұрын
In sweden we have busses going from methane gas that is produced from waste from househoulds etc. We have had them for over 25years, and they still work. Hydrogen seems like a worse source.
@devonbikefilms
10 ай бұрын
I’ve had a number of friends saying they’d rather have a hydrogen vehicle rather than an EV. It’s so obvious it makes no sense, but the FUD has been strong with this.
@frankcoffey
10 ай бұрын
Any type of vehicle that uses some kind of fuel you have to buy is a trap. We are going to see a lot of these attempts to replace the fuel business. After 100 years it's being disrupted and they will not go down without a fight. The most important thing for them is to make sure it's something the customer can't make on their own or fix the price of.
@bun5320
4 ай бұрын
You clearly don't undertand hydrogen and are looking at old obsolete hydrogen buses which were badly mismanaged. Electric is good on small numbers, horrible for depots, higher ongoing costs due to limited battery lives and also are bigger fire risks. Operators also hate electric buses due to the fact they take forever to charge.
@kennystrawnmusic
10 ай бұрын
One of the main problems with the design of many of these systems is that A, hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism, NOT an energy source, and B, the fact that water is both the byproduct AND the source material means that fuel cells if designed right (i.e. reversible fuel/electrolytic cell in a closed loop system) can be made rechargeable, something none of the manufacturers even thought about when designing the FCEV systems currently on the market. Combine a reversible fuel/electrolytic system with not just an H2 tank but an O2 tank as well, then replace the hydrogen hookup nozzle with a NACS port, and what you end up with is a FCEV that operates indistinguishably from a BEV.
@aradventuresaustralia1400
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen is a expensive joke
@Sacto1654
10 ай бұрын
Well, a huge reason why hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles haven't taken off is the lack of an infrastructure to _fuel_ the vehicles. At least with compressed natural gas fueled bus, it takes advantage of already existing natural gas distribution infrastructure. And of course with electric vehicles, the availability of the local electric power grid.
@eman67rp
10 ай бұрын
It's more expensive to make it
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
@@eman67rpNo, it really is just that there is no way around ridiculously high fuel costs and the 3x the electricity needed per mile compared to just charging a BEV.
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
It is not a lack of infrastructure, but a reality of chemistry and physics, since hydrogen (H2) is unique among fuels in having a negative EROI of between 1 to 4 and 1 to 5. All fuel and energy sources can be measured with a term known as ENERGY RETURNED ON ENERGY INVESTED, aka Energy Returned On Investment, or EROI. This term is a ratio of the number of energy units that one gets for every energy unit used to extract the energy. Oil and gas has an EROI of around 17 to 1, meaning that one gets 17 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil used to extract that oil, and thus has what is a positive EROI, meaning one gets more energy out than what is used to extract the energy. Canadian Tar Sands oil has an EROI of 3 to 1, barely positive enough to be profitable, and below what is considered to be the minimum EROI of 10 to 1 that allows oil to be considered a viable fuel source to maintain an industrialized society. Existing renewables have a very positive EROI of 20 to 1, and new renewables get as high as 80 to 1. This means that every kilogram of hydrogen requires between 4 and 5 kilograms of hydrogen (or hydrogen energy equivalent) to produce that one kilogram, so it will always be 4 to 5 times more expensive than the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This is true if the hydrogen is produced from steam reformation of of methane (aka natural gas), or from using electricity to electrolyze water. It is sadly ironic that since over 95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from steam reformed methane, each kilogram of hydrogen used in a fuel cell vehicle produces more CO2 than just burning the methane as fuel.
@chris27gea58
10 ай бұрын
@@GoCoyoteYes, and that is when the tail chasing starts. The pained cry from the (would be) H2 industry is, "but we can be green, too", meaning that hydrolysis/water splitting can be used to produce hydrogen. The quiet part, though, is that electrical energy from already green solar, wind or hydro plants will have to be used to drive the electrolysis process which still fails to return anything like the amount of energy (in the form of refined hydrogen) that went into making it. So, you waste energy you already have to make less energy in hydrogen form. The advocates of H2 think they have that based covered, though. Hydrogen isn't just an energetic fuel but it stores electrical energy as well. It does, kind of, do that although it does it exceedingly badly and much worse than batteries that we also already have and the battery supply chain that we already have. And, unlike hydrogen (and a hydrogen supply chain) batteries are comparatively inexpensive and handling batteries and chargers is a less risky pursuit than handling highly explosive hydrogen.
@trungson6604
10 ай бұрын
H2 car and buses are still in experimental stage, and they won't be cost effective UNTIL and UNLESS H2 will be ubiquitously available via the now natural gas piping network. It costs 1/8 the cost of electricity transmission to transport H2 via pipelines per kW-mile basis. It costs 1/100 folds less to store H2 in underground caverns than utility battery, per kWh of capacity. So the H2 can be produced near the Solar and Wind farms and transported to underground storage and to end users at FAR LESS cost than what it would take to store and to transmit Solar and Wind energy in electric forms like battery and power lines. So, even though H2 for transportation may be less efficient than battery, H2 will eventually be cost-competitive with battery when considering the entire renewable energy supply chain and storage systems.
@trainspotting_and_tech2023
Ай бұрын
No, trolleybus is 2nd if tram not available as a solution, period.
@KKandEV
10 ай бұрын
Total waste of time . I blame Toyota for all the silly hype.
@robinpenfold4733
10 ай бұрын
Perth did a hydrogen bus trial which quietly ended in 2007. It wasn't continued due to very high costs.
@robincollis6349
10 ай бұрын
The tech has come a long way since 2007 I'm pretty sure if they ran a BEV in the same era they'd be on there 10th 50-100k battery replacement by now
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
sadly once again WA is flirting with it again, polys mummbling about creating hydrogen infrustructure preaching about a subject they know nothing about when they spout its the future
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
its come nowhere since the hindenburg @@robincollis6349
@lowtech_1
10 ай бұрын
Australia is gearing up to produce to renewable hydrogen. And export it. Including a A $51 million green hydrogen plant in Victoria. Solar locations not near any electrical infrastructure can make hydrogen. Solar power when batteries are full, can make hydrogen. Solar power was many times more expensive than the grid when it started. Hydrogen will have its niches. Hydrogen is the not the best option , for most passengers vehicles thats true.
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
just goes to show aussie polys are bought the same as the rest of the world
@ahaveland
10 ай бұрын
Using hydrogen for transportation has never made any sense, unless you're a terrified fossil fuel company that has realized they are sitting on an ocean of stranded assets. H₂ is just too expensive to handle and store, and inefficient to generate. Making it from methane creates CO₂, so that's out. Electricity used to make it by electrolysis is much better used to charge batteries with very little coulombic loss, so why introduce losses into an already efficient process? There's one use for hydrogen, as a dump load for curtailed wind turbines/solar, where otherwise unused energy could be diverted to make cheap hydrogen/oxygen or do other local work.
@steve_787
10 ай бұрын
Are these H2 buses based on combustion engines (like JCB) or are they still fuel cell to power power elec motors? If the later could they not remove the fuel cell/tank and replace with a bigger battery pack and just run as a BEV bus? Don't fuel cell cars still have a small battery anyway?
@simon-c2y
10 ай бұрын
Good questions
@briangriffiths1285
10 ай бұрын
A person with basic arithmetic could work out with all the energy losses in compressing and storing hydrogen it wouldn't add up financially. Well I hope the Japanese car manufacturers take note, nice technology but forget it. The German rail experiment with hydrogen trains for unnelectrified lines has also been abandoned too. And I cannot see what the rush to green hydrogen for industry is all about? Sure a few processes such as steel making will need it but brick and pottery will just go electric.
@litestuffllc7249
10 ай бұрын
EVs and Hydrogen are in the same boat; Hydrogen needs cheaper production, and EVs need a new non lithium chemistry that can scale. Neither exist yet; though they both claim big breakthroughs. Hybrids running ethanol already exist, being sold in Brazl - no fossil fuels.. If CO2 was really an emergency; we could do massive carpooling - why aren't the liberal Ozzie governments doing that? - it would cut CO2 by vehicles overnight by over 50% Because it isn't an emergency it is a sales pitch.
@Beatles4Sale.
10 ай бұрын
Belt and Road Initiative? You have to be kidding. 😢😢😢 check what happens when you can no longer make payments my friend. Not pretty…
@stvybaby
10 ай бұрын
Burning anything to produce heat energy, whether hydrogen, wood, gasoline, diesel, vegetable oil, or garbage is obsolete dinosaur technology. Think steam engine. Green energy takes the energy that is everywhere around us and moves this energy to where it is needed. Think heat pump, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, gravity batteries, molten salt heat storage batteries, EVs, LiFePo batteries...
@lornereedhead325
5 ай бұрын
How much less do they cost up front? How much longer do they last? Different climates seem to make a difference with fueling . Idk. I think energy will always have equal cost to the environment no matter how it’s produced if you look at the full story’s.
@stigbengtsson7026
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen can be used in some chemical processes, to use it in cars and busses, will be expensive very expensive. The problem, as I se it is that it gives you a feeling that you are in the "future" but the idea is from Early 1800, if it wasen't for the american space program - No one will hear about this - There are so many things to think about. From how to get the H. How to transport it. When you driving a buss where all is driven with electricity, the driveline uses ca 50% and the auxillary systen uses ca 50% of the energy. - If you get some pollution in to the stacked fuel cell, if it still works, the efficiency drops. It is far moore easy to use a battery, than fuel cells.
@NackDSP
10 ай бұрын
You can calculate the cost on the back of an envelope at lunch. Who are they kidding. Actual research. What a load of bull. They knew the cost going in. Anyone promoting hydrogen powered vehicles is a scam artist. Follow the money. Who got the big commission and who got the kick back for these orders.
@vilester
10 ай бұрын
Your comment on the belt and road is uncalled for. Back it up with facts otherwise you are just spreading misinformation.
@charlespisani9923
10 ай бұрын
Melb is the biggest. and no brains. fast train to Geelong is long overdue, A train to Doncaster is not even in their radar, Every building site is unionized, evry project is over budget , West gate tunnel project is over budget and still its not finished, Time for a change
@avgjoe5969
10 ай бұрын
Seems like you need to investigate your leadership in Melbourne... maybe reserve a few seats in the prison.
@tonychow5845
10 ай бұрын
What makes you think that governments operate based on logic and common sense? Just look at the Ukraine war. The cheap oil they used to enjoy is now the same Russian oil that costs much more via India.
@asphalthedgehog6580
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen is something like not having rivers and canals, but instead bringing the rainwater in buckets to the sea. The moment we have no idea what on earth to do with the surplus of electric energy, that's the time to start thinking of hydrogen.
@chris27gea58
10 ай бұрын
What an gossip you are. You are right abort the crummy hydrogen buses. The rest was tripe.
@ITS_BOBBY47
10 ай бұрын
The local transit authority has H2 buses. Have not heard of any problems and as they said they get better distance at a better cost than EV equivalent in this area in the USA.
@incognitotorpedo42
10 ай бұрын
Does their hydrogen come from methane or coal? Is it subsidized? Are they taking the cost of the hydrogen fueling station into account? Something is being left unsaid there.
@ITS_BOBBY47
10 ай бұрын
The electricity in this area is very high cost fom natural gas combustion. Not sure where the H2 comes from.
@BigBen621
10 ай бұрын
Seems unlikely. I notice you didn't specify where; how about giving the location, so these claims can be independently verified?
@ITS_BOBBY47
10 ай бұрын
@@BigBen621N. CA grant from state to develop 200 H2 stations by 2026. part of the $9 billion from feds with $1 b to CA for H2 deveiopment. Humboldt Transit Authority...Eureka, ca 11 New Flyer buses with h2 fuel cell tech. Air Products H2 station design with public as well as private fleet access. Much better than electricity from the pge 10 IC engines combusting nat gas! and 163mw total.
@amosbatto3051
10 ай бұрын
@@ITS_BOBBY47, Yes, the California state government and the federal government are willing to give all sorts of subsidies and grants for hydrogen, but that doesn't mean that hydrogen transport is a good idea or makes economic sense. It doesn't even make environmental sense in my opinion.
@RodMitchell-x5v
10 ай бұрын
Go get em Sam
@cityblue0202
10 ай бұрын
They should bring back the gyro bus,
@JoeyBlogs007
10 ай бұрын
Hmmm they finally woke up???
@jamesdubben3687
10 ай бұрын
Green hydrogen needs to go to fertilizer
@jtkrpm1
9 ай бұрын
Ban EV'S
@sparkysho-ze7nm
10 ай бұрын
Mr Sam DIG DIS!!!!! I jus gotta report Tesla stock holders may receive XAI stocks Click click
@sparkysho-ze7nm
10 ай бұрын
Gudday mate tytyty soldier this video will age well!!! 👍
@lesliecarter4295
10 ай бұрын
Sam is setting up a new channel called ‘H2 Viking’ to reflect the massive growth in hydrogen vehicles ! 😂😂😂
@trainspotting_and_tech2023
Ай бұрын
Well, battery buses are more expensive than trolleybuses. Play this.
@trainspotting_and_tech2023
Ай бұрын
Trolleybuses with secondary batteries for the future. 🙂
@glennrmarks
10 ай бұрын
I asked the victorian transport minister today about this article and out of 50 busses only 2 are hydrogen, 48 are battery electric. 2 busses should not break the bank. They will be run on gray hydrogen temporarily just for the trial. The price difference between gray and (projected) green hydrogen cost will be factored in to the evaluation. A comparison will be able to be made between the battery and hydrogen busses on the longest bus routes. The minister said that one of the most common complaints was diesel busses ideling in built up areas. Both battery and hydrogen busses eliminate this complaint.
@ThomasChristie-t9f
10 ай бұрын
That seems more reasonable; not a huge waste. However, these governments don’t need to buy and run them to compare them. They can have the makers compete using their dollars. That’s the way it used to be done. If that is what Victoria is doing, wonderful, well done.
@yuglesstube
10 ай бұрын
This has been obvious for years.
@AllDogsAreGoodDogs
10 ай бұрын
The Hindenberg. Ahem.
@王焉-v4u
10 ай бұрын
这玩意儿太贵了,基本上是靠政府补贴。
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
Something a lot of people who support hydrogen vehicles seem to forget is that all hydrogen vehicles are hybrid electric vehicles with a battery pack, just like gas engine hybrid vehicles, and so require a lot of the same batteries that they claim are filling up landfills. It is not a lack of infrastructure holding back hydrogen, but a reality of chemistry and physics, since hydrogen (H2) is unique among fuels in having a negative EROI of between 1 to 4 and 1 to 5. All fuel and energy sources can be measured with a term known as ENERGY RETURNED ON ENERGY INVESTED, aka Energy Returned On Investment, or EROI. This term is a ratio of the number of energy units that one gets for every energy unit used to extract the energy. Oil and gas has an EROI of around 17 to 1, meaning that one gets 17 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil used to extract that oil, and thus has what is a positive EROI, meaning one gets more energy out than what is used to extract the energy. Canadian Tar Sands oil has an EROI of 3 to 1, barely positive enough to be profitable, and below what is considered to be the minimum EROI of 10 to 1 that allows oil to be considered a viable fuel source to maintain an industrialized society. Existing renewables have a very positive EROI of 20 to 1, and new renewables get as high as 80 to 1. This means that every kilogram of hydrogen requires between 4 and 5 kilograms of hydrogen (or hydrogen energy equivalent) to produce that one kilogram, so it will always be 4 to 5 times more expensive than the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This is true if the hydrogen is produced from steam reformation of of methane (aka natural gas), or from using electricity to electrolyze water. It is sadly ironic that since over 95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from steam reformed methane, each kilogram of hydrogen used in a fuel cell vehicle produces more CO2 than just burning the methane as fuel.
@menotyou1234
10 ай бұрын
I still think that h2 on demand, produced, not stored, is the answer to h2
@222INFINITY
10 ай бұрын
If all these cities around the world got rid of their hydrogen buses, they should go extremely cheap, but yes you need affordable hydrogen to make it work. Look at the Ford Lightning, over 1,600 lb. battery at 140 KWH costing $35K, switch it to a 20 KWH pack backed up by hydrogen, much cheaper, much lighter, more range, fast fuel ups, a complete winner all around. Semi tractors, drop from 1 megawatt pack to 200 KWH battery pack, add hydrogen fuel cell and tanks, and again, much cheaper and lighter with more range and fast fills, this is the future. Here's the killer Viking, when you combine hydrogen with nuclear, you get rid of all those monster storage batteries, plus the price of hydrogen drops from $30 per KG to $1 KG. A real kick in the nuts for Tesla, wouldn't you say Viking? Tesla $25, in 2025!!!!
@aradventuresaustralia1400
10 ай бұрын
😂😂😂😂 talk about delusional
@BigBen621
10 ай бұрын
_the price of hydrogen drops from $30 per KG to $1 KG_ That's completely absurd. The energy content *alone* of H2 is 33.3 kWh/KG; so for "hydrogen with nuclear" to cost $1/KG, the cost of nuclear energy to create green hydrogen would have to be 3¢/kWh and *every other cost* of generating hydrogen would have to be zero. Meanwhile, new nuclear has the highest LCOE of *any* energy source except offshore wind. You're living in some sort of dream world, where nuclear energy is 3¢/kWh delivered to the hydrogen plant, and there are no other costs to build the plant, hydrolyze water to for H2, compress the H2, build dispensing stations, transport the H2 to the dispensing stations, have no losses to boil-off, etc., etc., etc. You're going to have to do better than just making up fatuous numbers.
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
BS. No HFCEV has ever demonstrated being lighter, longer range, cheaper, or to have any advantage on fueling time. If you want to argue, don’t unless you bring concrete examples to defend your claims.
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
I forgot to add that all hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are hybrid electrical vehicles with batteries, just like gas/petrol hybrids. So you are not "getting rid of all those monster storage batteries," but are still needing more of them.
@222INFINITY
10 ай бұрын
@@GoCoyote - 100 KWH pack can drop to 20, semi 1 MWH pack can drop to 200 KWH. Depending on the application, the reduction could be even more. We just have to wait and see where it all goes.
@rhuisjes02
10 ай бұрын
Nice outro
@MrGMawson2438
10 ай бұрын
Morning mate
@bjornhelgason1879
10 ай бұрын
toy autos h to play
@sparkysho-ze7nm
10 ай бұрын
You ever think th Toyota crew might gotta few patents on fuel cell repair or replace or remove reuse
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
No
@MrGMawson2438
10 ай бұрын
Cheers mate
@craigcullen4171
10 ай бұрын
Like electric cars are significantly more expensive than ICE with a significantly larger carbon footprint to build eg 1 Bev makes 12 Ice or 6 hybrids . Big plus with hydrogen much larger range. Not affected by hot or cold climates as batteries are . Don’t leak down charge overtime . Park it for 2 years energy still stored 100% . Much faster to recharge = 5 minutes . Infrastructure cheaper and easier to roll out using existing gas stations . Production costs will lower significantly over time as production ramps up . Like EVs it needs tax payer funding to get it to viability like telsa and all the others have had . It fills the gap that EVs cannot. Towing, significant loads over distances . Highway running . Significant power needs eg excavators tractors trucks
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
Large mining equipment operators are finding that large electric mining trucks are better than hydrogen ones. People all seem to miss the fact that all hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles are electric hybrids with battery packs, and have all of the problems associated with all EVs, but with the added complexity, costs, and issues of the hydrogen fuel cell equipment. There are already large battery operated loaders and 65 tonne dump trucks being used in underground mines, and 300 tonne battery electric trucks in the works.
@ab-tf5fl
10 ай бұрын
"Park it for 2 years energy still stored 100%" Not true. Hydrogen leaks very easily.
@derjager5706
10 ай бұрын
Sehr informativ dieser Beitrag ! Danke!
@jimgraham6722
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen may have a role in steel production, although this isn't assured (advances are being made in electrolytic steel manufacture). It will very likely have a role in the fertilizer, chemicals and synthetic fuels industry.
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
Lots of industrial uses for green hydrogen, but energy storage or transport are not among them.
@nickmcconnell1291
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen powered buses.... What a gas!
@G_de_Coligny
10 ай бұрын
Expensive stuff cost a lot of monies… News at 11…
@stephenbrickwood1602
10 ай бұрын
Tony Seba David Cebon Both anti hydrogen. 😊
@lesliecarter4295
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen destroys both of their earnings streams which is why they are anti. Same goes for for Sam unless he is prepared to eat humble pie !
@stephenbrickwood1602
10 ай бұрын
@@lesliecarter4295 you make things up.
@lesliecarter4295
10 ай бұрын
@@stephenbrickwood1602🤡
@lesliecarter4295
10 ай бұрын
Cebon is discredited because he can’t get backing for his pantograph system for lorries. This is a FUD video and Sam’s bias is pretty obvious.
@menotyou1234
10 ай бұрын
I still think that h2 on demand, produced, not stored, is the answer to h2
@bruceburns1672
10 ай бұрын
Viking your bigotry and fanatisism against every other form of powering Autos except batteries is just pure ignorance, let the market do its thing Viking, let projects that seek to power Autos in whatever form, let them run their course, the market will sort them out, remember batteries are subsidised by the tax payer to vote harvest, also learn some history about powering Autos, remember this fact, electric battery powered Autos were wiped from the map one hundred years ago because of cheap Model T Fords and cheap Texas oil, and here we have the exact same me situation happening here with bulky resource draining land trash filling batteries outpricing hydrogen.
@WANDERER0070
10 ай бұрын
Youre the ignorant one bro,,watch the vid again and pay attention 😊
@robertfonovic3551
10 ай бұрын
Damn straight!!!!
@mistermood4164
10 ай бұрын
lol
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
BS. Hydrogen can’t compete with batteries. If you believe so, explain how so i can explain where your logic fails.
@bruceburns1672
10 ай бұрын
@@williammeek4078 I accept that right now at this present time in history, but time and technology do not stand still, batteries are a massive drain on finite resouces like oil for ICE vehicle's, and are a major disposal problem. Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle's operate on a fuel which will never deplete and are pollution free and in time the cost of manufacture of hydrogen and production of appropriate vehicle's for hydrogen will come down to a price the market will accept.
@trungson6604
10 ай бұрын
H2 car and buses are still in experimental stage, and they won't be cost effective UNTIL and UNLESS H2 will be ubiquitously available via the now natural gas piping network. It costs 1/8 the cost of electricity transmission to transport H2 via pipelines per kW-mile basis. It costs 1/100 folds less to store H2 in underground caverns than utility battery, per kWh of capacity. So the H2 can be produced near the Solar and Wind farms and transported to underground storage and to end users at FAR LESS cost than what it would take to store and to transmit Solar and Wind energy in electric forms like battery and power lines. So, even though H2 for transportation may be less efficient than battery, H2 will eventually be cost-competitive with battery when considering the entire renewable energy supply chain and storage systems.
@jetli740
10 ай бұрын
storage never be a problem, the biggest cost of making it/deliver it. super dumb idea to store in underground cavern you get all sort of problem like gas leakage or various gas release from the cavern mix with your hydrogen then you need another equipment to purify the hydrogen add additional cost
@menotyou1234
10 ай бұрын
I still think that h2 on demand, produced, not stored, is the answer to h2
@jetli740
10 ай бұрын
@@menotyou1234 cost 3x to produce end user will paid like 6x per Km vs EV the math dont work out. it a dead end technology
@davidpearn5925
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen will have a place in Victoria and Australia - if the Japanese government, MITI and Toyota decide that it represents their best path to net zero. I won’t replace my EV for hydrogen, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t work for someone somewhere else. A sovereign decision might be explained by the thinking behind it.
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen can’t beat batteries economically. There really isn’t anyone it makes sense for.
@davidpearn5925
10 ай бұрын
@@williammeek4078 heavy industry knows more than the Elon Musk brigade. Sovereign decision making might explain a lot, underpinning the transport sector and even more. Hydrogen is already a thing and will be a player for countries without our benefits.
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
@@davidpearn5925 hydrogen isn’t a thing in heavy transport. Electric is.
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
ffs what crap@@davidpearn5925
@davidpearn5925
10 ай бұрын
@@williammeek4078 industry feels no need to consult media. Numerous fingers with converging demands and cooperative relationships can result in outcomes that might not make sense to outsiders.
@darkhorseman8263
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen technology has potential. It just isn't there yet. The future mix will probably be electrical hydrogen hybrids, where hydrogen will be useful for longer trips. Electrical for the short stop and go trips around cities.
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
It really doesn’t. Hydrogen just can’t be competitive. There are hard physics limits that keep hydrogen from ever being less than twice as expensive and twice as much electricity per mile. Right now it is 3x as much electricity and 10x the per mile cost on fuel alone.
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
It is not a lack of infrastructure, but a reality of chemistry and physics, since hydrogen (H2) is unique among fuels in having a negative EROI of between 1 to 4 and 1 to 5. All fuel and energy sources can be measured with a term known as ENERGY RETURNED ON ENERGY INVESTED, aka Energy Returned On Investment, or EROI. This term is a ratio of the number of energy units that one gets for every energy unit used to extract the energy. Oil and gas has an EROI of around 17 to 1, meaning that one gets 17 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil used to extract that oil, and thus has what is a positive EROI, meaning one gets more energy out than what is used to extract the energy. Canadian Tar Sands oil has an EROI of 3 to 1, barely positive enough to be profitable, and below what is considered to be the minimum EROI of 10 to 1 that allows oil to be considered a viable fuel source to maintain an industrialized society. Existing renewables have a very positive EROI of 20 to 1, and new renewables get as high as 80 to 1. This means that every kilogram of hydrogen requires between 4 and 5 kilograms of hydrogen (or hydrogen energy equivalent) to produce that one kilogram, so it will always be 4 to 5 times more expensive than the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This is true if the hydrogen is produced from steam reformation of of methane (aka natural gas), or from using electricity to electrolyze water. It is sadly ironic that since over 95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from steam reformed methane, each kilogram of hydrogen used in a fuel cell vehicle produces more CO2 than just burning the methane as fuel.
@darkhorseman8263
10 ай бұрын
@GoCoyote Sounds like fossil fuel industry speak. I've consumed entire advanced meta material journals, and know how easy it is to extract hydrogen without external energy sources. The new advanced membranes used for desalination, drawing energy out of sea water, and separating gold and lithium from water are second only to the hydrogen extracting membranes. Don't try to gas light someone like me. It won't work out well for you.
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
@@darkhorseman8263 😂🤣😂 Ok, you do that then and get rich. Meantime, i will keep powering by BEVs off of my off grid solar. Sorry, you can’t gaslight people like us. It doesn’t work out for you.
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
now thats todays best load of rubbish i have read
@menotyou1234
10 ай бұрын
I still think that h2 on demand, produced, not stored, is the answer to h2
@alanmatthews7235
10 ай бұрын
To the Electric Viking, The State of Victoria Australia is not broke, it is thriving with A$100 Billion dollars of new infrastructure. Eg : Roads, Rail ,Hospitals and Schools. As far as I'm concerned ,you can stay out of Victoria for as long as you like.
@hideaki8881
10 ай бұрын
Google state of Victoria broke. There is about a dozen articles related to the subject.
@alanmatthews7235
10 ай бұрын
@@hideaki8881Victorian Appropriation Bill (2023-2024)2023,Google that one .
@GolLeeMe
10 ай бұрын
I don’t think the City of Melbourne runs the bus network, the state government does. Melbourne is not broke, but the State is in deep financial trouble. Not sure you would describe it as broke though. Melbourne is a C40 city, so I am weary of any pronouncements around whats in our best interests. I am frankly surprised and happy H2 has made it into our network. If the expert says it’s expensive, then isn’t that what all disruption is about! Prodding everyday people to buy into something better, but at most likely a much higher cost? Not an expert by all means, but I can’t see Electric buses being cheap or taking on the brunt of public passenger road transport either. We need to get CO2 down in urban areas, so we do need something. Maybe we should try a bit harder on H2 until we get it right? After all, EVs did not start where they are today (and still have a long way to go IMO) and there is scope to add a bit of Oz clear thinking to a problem first. Anything else is defeatist. Oslo has an electric bus fleet, but we are not Oslo the last time I checked.
@jb5music
10 ай бұрын
It's still a better technology. Batteries in giant vehicles is a joke. Hydrogen fuel cell buses have a normal weight and can of course be refueled normally like the old ICE engine buses. The hydrogen infrastructure would eventually be able to achieve the capacity needed to refuel the bus is on site with renewable energy. It wouldn't matter that it takes more electricity to make the same range. It would be made by renewable sources. You just want to block hydrogen because you're a lithium opportunist shill. That's what we just went through with the fossil fuel industry for 50 years and now and the BEV ilk are doing the same thing.
@ctrayes
10 ай бұрын
The majority of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels now is correct, but where do you think the majority of the energy to charge battery EVs is coming from?
@BigBen621
10 ай бұрын
In California, where the plurality of all US BEVs exists, the majority of the energy comes from renewable sources, by a 54% to 46% margin.
@craigcullen4171
10 ай бұрын
Hydrogen is certainly worth watching, the gains being made with hydrogen fuel cells coupled with electric motors is phenomenal. It’s very flexible as ice motors can be readily converted to hydrogen. Lots of new innovative tech on the way solid state batteries included
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
As an electrician in the power industry, I have been hearing about "phenomenal" gains in hydrogen fuel cells since the 1970's, and that we were just around the corner from converting to hydrogen fueled vehicles. I once went to a coffee shop that had a large sign saying "free coffee tomorrow," but of course it was never "tomorrow," only "today." Plus, everyone seems to forget that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles all require substantial batteries, since they are hybrid electrical vehicles.
@Tom55data
10 ай бұрын
Regardless of all tech reasons not to use hydrogen, it is economically insane to use hydrogen for transport.
@alexmckenna1171
10 ай бұрын
ICE engines are no longer very useful. Best to scrap them. Complicated and prone to conk out anyway, unlike electric motors which go on forever.
@robincollis6349
10 ай бұрын
@@alexmckenna1171 Ah ICE vehicle conk out only ones owed by people who don't know how to maintain things I have a 1969 model corolla starts first go. I also have a diesel Hilux owned from new taken it to Brisbane from Sydney and back at least 15x in 10 years only stopping once for fuel and a quick bite to eat 11hrs each way with traffic let me know when your BEV can do that and I'll consider the technology is right for everyone for now just an option for those who chose it
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
toyotas ice conversion melted pity it didnt have toyotas head in it at the time. omg solid state myth been on the horizon for a century
@gooldii1
10 ай бұрын
First!!
@robincollis6349
10 ай бұрын
What you forget is that once upon a time it was ridiculously expensive to have a battery vehicle with similar performance to an ICE vehicle so who's to say in 10years with R&D and like batteries scale of production this tech may become the most ecological and economical form of transport and energy solutions especially if they can either find large pure hydrogen stores which they are starting to discover and if they can effectively and efficiently obtain the hydrogen from sea water with the potential to use this to both generate electricity and fresh water in the process of power generation which is a finite resource this would be a great future
@williammeek4078
10 ай бұрын
Physics says. And these limits have been understood for decades. When hydrogen was the only working alternative to fossil fuels, it was worth pursuing, but since we started mass producing lithium batteries, the economic case for lithium dropped like the economic case for nuclear when the price of wind fell.
@amosbatto3051
10 ай бұрын
Even if hydrogen fuel cells mature and there are better economies of scale, hydrogen vehicles will always be more expensive than BEVs, because it takes 3 times more energy per km to run a green hydrogen vehicle vs a BEV, and only green hydrogen makes sense if you care about the environment. Your proposal to get hydrogen from sea water is going to consume even more energy than using fresh water.
@robincollis6349
10 ай бұрын
@@amosbatto3051 so what you're saying is batteries are good enough that'll do lithium is going to be the coal of the future massive mining it's a matured tech (improvement and cost are now very incremental not leaps and bounds). Just with research alone fuel cells have halved in cost now with scale and more research efficiency can be improved and costs lowered even more and the seawater is in its infancy hydrogen is a better way forward no mining it can be made into fuel to run the existing 1.3b ICE vehicles on the roads it can be used for heating, energy storage and production, it is much more abundant yes harder to get in its pure form NOW but like I said with R&D this will change
@GoCoyote
10 ай бұрын
It is not just a lack of infrastructure, but a reality of chemistry and physics, since hydrogen (H2) is unique among fuels in having a negative EROI of between 1 to 4 and 1 to 5. All fuel and energy sources can be measured with a term known as ENERGY RETURNED ON ENERGY INVESTED, aka Energy Returned On Investment, or EROI. This term is a ratio of the number of energy units that one gets for every energy unit used to extract the energy. Oil and gas has an EROI of around 17 to 1, meaning that one gets around 17 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil used to extract that oil, and thus has what is a positive EROI, meaning one gets more energy out than what is used to extract the energy. Canadian Tar Sands oil has an EROI of 3 to 1, barely positive enough to be profitable, and below what is considered to be the minimum EROI of 10 to 1 that allows oil to be considered a viable fuel source to maintain an industrialized society. Existing renewables have a very positive EROI of 20 to 1, and new renewables get as high as 80 to 1. This means that every kilogram of hydrogen requires between 4 and 5 kilograms of hydrogen (or hydrogen energy equivalent) to produce that one kilogram, so it will always be 4 to 5 times more expensive than the energy used to produce the hydrogen. This is true if the hydrogen is produced from steam reformation of methane (aka natural gas), or from using electricity to electrolyze water. Then add to that the fact that the most efficient fuel cells in the lab are only 35% efficient, and real world use is only around 16 to 20%, so the cost of using fuel cells just goes up. It is sadly ironic that since over 95% of the worlds hydrogen is made from steam reformed methane, each kilogram of hydrogen used in a fuel cell vehicle produces more CO2 than just burning the methane as fuel.
@flodjod
10 ай бұрын
simple fact of life it takes more energy to produce than the availiable energy available at the end of the process, nothing can change that fact its non negotiable...stupid is that stupid does
Пікірлер: 242