We've already had a clean, faster and electric form of transportation than can haul 100 times the tonnage of what a truck can do for over a century. They are called trains. The easiest way to cut down truck emissions is to invest in more freight rail infrastructure to get more trucks off the road.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

True, but many European countries have great rail networks and still have insane numbers of trucks on the road.

@sanuthweerasinghe7825

6 ай бұрын

@@Simon-dm8zv their freight rail infrastructure is far from perfect.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

@@sanuthweerasinghe7825 Are you envisioning an extremely dense network? Would be nice, but also has its problems like cutting up landscapes and neighborhoods. Or do you mean replacing existing roads by train tracks?

@techcafe0

6 ай бұрын

and trains don't require nearly as much land + bridges, highways, roads, parking lots, and tons of other infrastructure needed to support car & truck ownership. we have to stop paving over nature and bring back the train.

@fulconandroadcone9488

6 ай бұрын

​@@Simon-dm8zv Where I live major lines need to be replaced in the next 30 years ago. There is a lot of room for improvement for existing lines.

In India, government working on hydrogen, hybrid and bio diesel technology. while currently they made a whole electric freight rail networks system called Dedicated Front Corrider, which connects all major cities, industrial areas and only freight rails can run on this tracks. And these tracks are now open by current government. Which are cheap mode of transport and eco friendly.

@AtarahMata

2 ай бұрын

Hydrogen is horrible. The only way we get hydrogen fuel is by creating carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is not a good fuel source.

Best way is to invest in freight rail so that each city/town is already reachable through that and complement that with electric trucks which has operation range of less than 300 km.

@kornkernel2232

6 ай бұрын

Yep, a perfect combination. Trains with EV trucks (hyrdogen or battery) will be most efficient solution for that. Even more so if the trains are electric as well.

@Karl-Benny

5 ай бұрын

I think Tesla is proving you wrong

@forte609

5 ай бұрын

​@@kornkernel2232electric this electric that. If there is no proper Renewable source of energy then you are still burning coal. Its like dieting. Oh I'll just eat half a pint of ice cream every 2 days to lose weight instead of minimizing it more or forgoing it entirely

@anydaynow01

5 ай бұрын

The best way to invest in freight is to invest in Hyliion and Karno

@marcosteiner3619

3 ай бұрын

@@forte609 Fossil this Fossil that it's going to run out anyway the question is how many people die in between.

I always thought that the trouble with electric trucks was that the batteries are heavy so they eat into the weight that the truck is permitted to carry on the roads.

@brushlessmotoring

6 ай бұрын

Yes, but not as much as had been feared, US adds 2,000 lb to the 80,000 lb limit for low emission vehicles, and it looks like that's enough. The volume (space) taken up by long range hydrogen tanks is the flip side of the same coin.

@bowez9

6 ай бұрын

The weight is a factor but charging time hasn't changed and each truck needs a Megawatt charger for about 8 hrs to go 500miles /800km. Where as diesel has 1000miles/1600km with a 5 minute fuel stop (truck stop pump move fuel much faster than passenger pumps) Then ask yourself how are the roads being funded when EVs weigh more put are not paying fuel taxes.

@bartvandenpoel8568

6 ай бұрын

You're math skills are a bit off I think. A truck uses 1,1 kW per km. So to drive 800 km you need 880kWh. A megawatt charger charges 1000kW. So to fill up a 880kWH battery it needs to run 880/1000 of an hour. That is 53 minutes, not 8 hours.

@bowez9

6 ай бұрын

@@bartvandenpoel8568 efficiency rules all. Can't charge at max power or battery will explode and more systems are used than just the motors during driving plus elevation changes and are your numbers at max load?

@markotrieste

6 ай бұрын

​@@bartvandenpoel8568Of course you are perfectly right, but as you can see with the following comment, being right on basic maths does nothing if one has already decided that EVs are bad. Haters gonna hate.

For heavy loads on middle and distances we already have trains. The rail infrastructure here in Germany is far behind the Netherlands or Switzerland but I think it's still the best option to invest in it if we wanna meet our climate goals. For the remaining trips and to reach places without rail connections, Electric trucks are the most efficient option so far.

@b100pech

6 ай бұрын

Being from the Netherlands our train network is full and is not growing with the speed of our economy... We have a fairly decent rail network, but we have one of the highest population densitys for a "full size" country... There is not enough space left for our passanger trains needed to be able to sit when travelling longer distances. In theory our passenger trains have priority over the cargo trains... But passenger train priority makes a rail network inefficient, if you have no passenger train priority you get an American style rail network... It will be the most efficient in the world, like the US has now, but it would take forever to travel by passenger train... You could turn it around, have the most efficient passenger train network and not do cargo... Its probably a lot cheaper to let trucks use the road and put passengers in trains then let people drive and transport goods by rail... So i think electric trucks (or battery or h2) could have a future far more important then the future for electric cars, also the youht does not care about driving (world wide, in general)...

@nntflow7058

6 ай бұрын

The main problem with electric vehicles is the West ability to source the materials needed to build tons of those batteries. Many of the required materials are mined in some countries with unstable political landscape. It could easily get shut down in a single night.

@noseboop4354

6 ай бұрын

​@@nntflow7058The reason for that is western countries don't want to deal with the huge pollution from these mines. Lithium mines are way more pollluting than iron mines, plenty of attempts have been made to open some in America, Australia and Canada and nearly all of them were stopped by environmental red tape.

@nntflow7058

6 ай бұрын

@@noseboop4354 Currently, only US have significant amount of lithium that are easily accessible, Australia got decent amount of them but Canada's geographical feature made it more expensive and difficult to mined them. EU basically got almost none. Cobalt is even worse. Half of them are located in Congo. And only Australia got 20% of them. Which is not enough to satisfy Australia/New Zealand, EU, US/Canada and East Asia. The rest are miniscule. We cannot just talk about Production, we need to talk about Reserve instead. Because even though australia got decent amount of minerals in their territory, they are gonna starting to run out of it soon if they keep increasing the production. The don't have the largest reserve of lithium.

@IMGreg..

6 ай бұрын

Trains, ships, heavy farm and Ming equipment will need hydrogen. Even for militaries, hydrogen will be a better option. We need both.

Best Option is to get as much Cargo on the rails as possible.(Like it used to be) Then use electric for the last few miles. Hydrogen is too expensive and valuable to waste it that inefficiently. It takes a ton of energy to compress and cool hydrogen.

@falsificationism

6 ай бұрын

Yes! Under-subscribed comment 👆🏼 Steel-on-steel will always be more efficient than rubber on tar. And the limited degrees of freedom on rail potentiates efficiencies up and down the chain. Also good to ask where the hydrogen is coming from and what the net energy/environment calculus actually looks like. We know carbon credits are a scam because of b.s. calculations, so be wary of silver bullets and techno-utopian and pro-capitalist/growth perspectives in general.

@multitablez7825

6 ай бұрын

electric is also on its way out, without even beginning.. look at what Ford are doing, they say due to cost and customer demand, but it's not just that. They are halting all their EVs and cutting back on battery plant that was being made. Rail should be used for freight i agree

@tHebUm18

6 ай бұрын

@@multitablez7825 What are you talking about? Global EV sales are approaching 20% of global new auto sales this year continuing the rapid growth of years past. Ford's EVs are both worse and more expensive than Tesla--it's a product problem, not a demand or other problem. Tesla's global days of inventory at the end of Q3 was 16--half that of any other large automaker, 1/4 that of a "normal market" of 60 days supply. Legacy autos want to keep milking ICE profits till we all die in societal collapse to climate change. Tesla and Chinese automakers will put most of legacy autos out of business over the coming decade with EVs that are good, profitable, and much cheaper than ICE vehicles as costs continue to decline. Legacies have been trying to prevent EVs for decades and will go extinct just like the dinosaurs they insist on burning.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

@@multitablez7825electric is not on its way out

@multitablez7825

6 ай бұрын

ok, but Tesla is one company. Ford is also 1 company of many who are going to cut back on EVs... not saying EVs are going away, i am saying that gas is here to stay. Esp for freight, i can't see EV trucks lasting. Poor range, fire hazards, and nothing beats power of a diesel or gas powered truck, going up hills, pulling torque etc. When electric will use heaps of battery to do the same. Our power grids couldn't handle all the charging. @@tHebUm18

Competition is a great motivator, and I think companies should focus on developing both. In the end, you have redundancy so we won't repeat a reliance on a single source as we have been with oil.

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

Hydrogen already lost the competition. Some companies just can’t afford to admit that they bet wrong.

@Cesar13M

6 ай бұрын

@@williammeek4078 and i say the hydrogen its the future , and many companies are already shifting to hydrogen .

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

@@Cesar13M based on what? Real world data only from commercially available vehicles please.

@forte609

5 ай бұрын

Or you know invest in rails so long haul distances should be removed and trucks should be used on the shorter routes.

@zoransarin5411

5 ай бұрын

@@Cesar13M I wouldn't bet money on hydrogen. Hydrogen has many many limitations that make it unlikely to match BEVs for cost and efficiency. There is a great deal of material out there which gives you the reasons behind the limitations of both BEVs and hydrogen trucks. Hydrogen even in the best case, has far more limitations and will be more expensive due to the differences in theoretical efficiency. As an aside, do you know why hydrogen was even considered as an option? Because it sounds good and will fool the stupid. Take hydrogen, burn it, it mixes with oxygen and water comes out the rear. That's the seller. What is the reason behind it? Just like a murder, follow the money and motive. It is because 94% of the worlds hydrogen is produced via the gas reforming process. In other words the fossil fuel industry wants to keep extracting and selling gas.

Well done for producing a balanced and factual comparison, that's a rare thing for this topic! Hydrogen has so many disadvantages and so few advantages that its application will be niche at best - and, realistically, will struggle to compete against the flood of second hand diesel trucks on the market when so many routes will be served by battery-electric due to the low running costs. Battery supply is a major bottleneck (e.g. it delayed the Tesla Semi launch for years) but hopefully that will get solved soon.

@cbarcus

6 ай бұрын

Hydrogen still has some key advantages, and it is another sustainable technological pathway with plenty of opportunity for improvement. Overall efficiency will probably get within one-half of BEVs by 2030, and the infrastructure should be able to expand considerably faster than building out all the new transmission/distribution required. Yes, more generation will be needed, but this is probably much less of a problem as we move to advanced nuclear for its scalability and low environmental footprint. In the meantime, the energy flow of fossils can be used to quickly achieve an economy of scale. There is also the possibility of using pyrolysis with natural gas to avoid CO2 emissions, which could be cheaper and safer than sequestration. And then there are the other sectors of industry that will benefit from the wide availability of sustainable, low/zero-emission H2: ammonia production for fuel and fertilizer, aviation, rail, and maritime shipping.

@robertide5182

6 ай бұрын

@@cbarcushydrogen is by nature less efficient than electric. So any infrastructure that lacks for battery recharging production would be bad for hydrogen as well. And you get supplement that with stationary storage to reduce peak load which is what Tesla is doing with their mega charger installations.

@robertide5182

6 ай бұрын

They could have brought out the Semi earlier but they obviously made more money selling 10-15 Model Ys instead of one Semi.

@jonathanmelhuish4530

6 ай бұрын

@@cbarcus Yes I've heard that narrative many times before: "Let's pursue hydrogen because although it's horribly inefficient and largely pointless right now, in the future we'll have magical technologies that make all the troubles go away. And in the meantime, we can just keep using fossil fuels to make the hydrogen." Do you own oil company shares or do you just work for them?

@cbarcus

6 ай бұрын

@@robertide5182 We completely agree that H2 has an inherent disadvantage in efficiency, but that can be compensated for by its other advantages. The infrastructure requirements are not the same, and I am not sure why you would believe that to be the case. Not having to integrate with a power grid should allow a much higher growth in generation capacity, especially as advanced high temperature fission reactors come online. Fuel cell efficiency is expected to rise from about 50% today to perhaps 70% by 2030. Today, the packaging of H2 storage within vehicles is an incredible challenge, but there has been a breakthrough in solid state storage which could largely address this issue for even light duty vehicles. As an economy of scale is reached by the end of the decade, the production and distribution of H2 will greatly improve in efficiency, so much so that H2 stations may also serve as charging depots for BEVs. A new high-flow standard for H2 (H70HF) will enable an effective fill rate in excess of 10 MW, whereas the new mega charging standard will be around 1-3 MW. H2 delivery should easily end up being competitive with the current Supercharging rates of $0.25-0.50/kWh. Also, endurance racing will, in a few years, see a new class of H2 race cars; see Mission H24.

Trucks, are fine for small scale delivery and for remote areas. But everywhere else we should switch exclusively to TRAINS.

@bar8665

2 ай бұрын

They do in Japan. Seen it first hand. Works way way better.

@PermanentHigh

2 ай бұрын

​@@bar8665Japan is also not a superpower. Trains are not enough. Japan is a tiny group of Islands. The US is a large mass of land. Train routes can't cover every nook and cranny of the land. That's why trucks exist

@bar8665

2 ай бұрын

@PermanentHigh Japan is 93.57% the size of California... If their country was bigger, they wouldn't say, "Oh, well forget what works awesome and expanding on that".

@PermanentHigh

2 ай бұрын

@@bar8665 That's not how shit works. What works for a small geographical area is generally not gonna work for a far larger area simply by "expanding what works"

@yesno103

2 ай бұрын

That means you will have to cut down more land to build railroads increasing deforestation problems

Once again, trains solve all our problems and small electric trucks could drive small distance from train station to final destination, but people don't want trains. They would rather build train infrastructure above highways, than to use already superior trains...

@russ549

6 ай бұрын

Public transit will not get you where you want or when you want....plus it's nice just to sit in your car or on your motorcycle to watch the sun set for example

@jannovotny6244

6 ай бұрын

it's not that people don't want something - people don't care about anything. It's the fossil lobby who is massively pushing for hydrogen - because it will take decades before hydrogen is even remotely commercially viable, but once there is demand for it, it can be manufactured from natural gas comparatively cheaply...

@danielcontenteromanzini817

6 ай бұрын

There is huge investment in trains going on in Europe including the massive tunnel TELT Lyon Turin and investments in railways going to India and the Middle East recently announced besides the already good rail infrastructure in Europe connecting even China. But trucks have its reason to be. We can not just cut metropolis with railways and bring then to every medium city. Therefore we need more efficient trucks too.

@E1Luch

6 ай бұрын

There is Shift2Rail initiative too

@yeetboi268

6 ай бұрын

Come on, all you gotta do is wait for 15 minutes until the next train/bus arrive@@russ549

4:21 You can produce Green Hydrogen at the fueling station itself, no need to transport Hydrogen. You only need, Electricity, Water and an Electrolizer to produce Hydrogen. That can be don at fueling station itself.

Mining trucks are still debating battery vs hydrogen fuel cell with Caterpillar taking an early lead with a bet in battery, but the unique conditions of mines - extremely heavy loads and relatively short distances - changes the decision-making process. The cost of hydrogen will be a big factor for the mining industry here as well.

@harshadthorat5212

5 ай бұрын

Can we get any articles on same

@gobimurugesan2411

5 ай бұрын

Diesel is good

@sambones1092

5 ай бұрын

​@@gobimurugesan2411Oil has already peaked dude, and that's not even mentioned climate change look at the ice caps

@orionbetelgeuse1937

5 ай бұрын

@@sambones1092 the ice caps are growing, says the ESA. Besides there is synthetic fuel or biofuel. We have large unused areas which can be used to grow oil producing plants (like palm trees) by using solar energy to desalinate and irrigate the desserts (you know because there is more sun and the solar panels actually make sense to be put there where is a lot of sun not in Germany). Both battery or hydrogen trucks are just utopic dreams.

@gobimurugesan2411

5 ай бұрын

@@sambones1092 Diesel less costs. U Europeans go electric. We will go electric in 2050.

Realistically, electric. If we get grid energy too cheap to meter, hydrogen all the way.

@matthiaskreidenweis

6 ай бұрын

That will never happen, this was a slogan from the nuclear industry which was wrong.

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

@@matthiaskreidenweismaybe he was being sarcastic.

What about huge freight train networks? Edited for clarification: I meant freight trains as part of a sustainable transport network.

@legostud

6 ай бұрын

If you add batteries to the locomotives, you can then place overhead wires along various locations of the freight rail network to top those batteries off as the train is moving.

@zerotwo_.002

6 ай бұрын

@@legostud thats a terrible idea overhead cantelivers are far more reliable and dont require any rare earth material to function

@jamie3226

6 ай бұрын

These would only transport from certain points. and would still require trucks to deliver to the city and even to the last mile. Combination of both could be a solution

@jeanfalconer6377

6 ай бұрын

​@@jamie3226Thank you😊

@legostud

6 ай бұрын

@@zerotwo_.002 installing catanery wires over the entire freight rail network could be very cost prohibitive. Some sidings are rarely used so the return on investment would not be worth it. Adding battery packs helps mitigate the costs by reducing how many wires need to be installed. Also the battery packs enable the train engines to use regen braking, making them more efficient.

When it comes to trucks, ... you Just can't beat a good Strong Diesel. It makes good economic sense !!

@Simon-dm8zv

Ай бұрын

According to ‘cleanairpeople’ 😂

from 7:46，it is a typical scenario in China that some cities are using EV trucks. These trucks are modified from traditional truck and they use some space between head and compartment. They can be deployed in short range haul missions and easy to replace battery.

Weight is not just about just the payload but the whole vehicle. Think weight restriction on certain bridges or roads. There H2 has a huge adavantage but at the end of the day I think there's a place for both technologies

@juliussiegfeld8181

6 ай бұрын

Why did they never mention the weight of the batteries? Because it would not fit their agenda? Batteries for a truck weigh around 8 tons while the max load is 40 tons. And the weight will always be there, no matter if the batteries are empty or full. So truck A can still move 40 tons of cargo, but truck B only 32 tons. This is not economical viable for a freight forwarder if he can move 20% less than the competition. I think it is an unbalanced, unneutral report that is more intended to convey an opinion than to inform people about all the pros and cons. Otherwise they would have shown the ONLY thing that matters: What are the costs per KG for Diesel, for EV, for Hydrogen? In the end it's an industry and the one who does not save costs is out of business VERY quickly.

@goldenalbatross9462

6 ай бұрын

@@juliussiegfeld8181Most trucks don’t carry their maximum capacity. The trucks that some to my store are never being filled to max, those could easily be replaced with battery powered trucks. If combined with good rail transportation, most trucks could be replaced with battery powered ones as they shouldn’t need to drive all too far. Of course there are some long distance and heavy haul applications that will remain so personally, I’d say ICE trucks can be continued to be used in those niches until a solution is found

@stevenverrall4527

6 ай бұрын

​@@goldenalbatross9462Toyota has developed a hydrogen ICE.

@juliussiegfeld8181

6 ай бұрын

@@flemlion13 "Keep running things in order" is a good further point. Trucks for food or pharma do not only need to carry the weight, but the whole cargo has to be refrigerated the whole time, consuming a lot of energy. So the range of the Volvo FH Electric for example, which is stated 345 km on the Volvo homepage, is even less. Traffic jams will therefore also become much more expensive, they cut into your range and time loss much deeper. However, it still may be worth in some applications, I don't know, I don't have a truck each. But as said, therefore the makers of this clip should have researched the most important fact: What are the costs per KG for Diesel, for EV, for Hydrogen?

@juliussiegfeld8181

6 ай бұрын

@@flemlion13 How would the trailer "autonomously" create energy? By magic? It cooling unit is of course connected to the engine. "Consumption of a cooling unit is approx. 2.5 liters of diesel per hour" oh and this is news from 2020: "For the first time, a semi-trailer truck is supposed to supply itself with electrical energy and become independent of its diesel engine and its pollutants. The German medium-sized company Schmitz Cargobull invented the drive. Now the first test drive starts." So no, your statement is wrong, it's pretty much standard that the trailer is supplied with energy by the truck.

The biggest problem with charging from the grid is the fact your relying on instant supply of power. You turn on a light bulb and a power station has to instantly produce additional power to handle that. Fine for a light bulb but scaled to a +350kwh charger for a truck and then multiply it to multiple trucking companies and thats a hell of a lot of power. You imagine the infrastructure you'd need to scale up and down to handle the load changes. Hydrogens biggest benerfit is it can be produced when the powers available and stored. Such that you can rely on solar and wind which supplies predictable but intermittent power to produce the hydrogen. The hydrogen then can be converted at will back into power to run the truck ect. The efficiency loss through conversion is worth it when you consider the hydrogen is energy storage. Hydrogen has the place for heavy duty and long range applications. Though BEV has the best case for light vehicle, commute applications. Something that doesnt need to be fast charged to give you a reasonable charge time.

I think it’s best to have options, this will bring competition between industries that will only further hasten development of the technologies, fossil fuel included, my only concern is they all decide to choose one to save money and make it inefficient

I think anybody who talks about possible uses of green hydrogen should always mention that the first, most urgent need is for fertilizer production decarbonisation. For green hydrogen, we are not starting from zero, but from *minus* 70 million tons/year.

@raptorthegamer5524

2 ай бұрын

you mean hydrogen production emits 70 million tons of co2 per year?

@markotrieste

2 ай бұрын

@@raptorthegamer5524 No, 70 million tons is current hydrogen used for fertilizer production. Albeit indirectly, we actually eat coal and methane, as precursors for the hydrogen inputs to the haber-bosch cycle.

@ultrastoat3298

2 ай бұрын

@@markotrieste LOL almost all current hydrogen comes from fossil fuels 🤣

@markotrieste

2 ай бұрын

@@ultrastoat3298 Exactly what I am saying.

There will probably be an application for both. Even if the electric grid will be capable of supplying fast charging for trucks here in Europe in the future, there may be markets where hydrogen will be a more realistic option.

@smileyeagle1021

3 ай бұрын

A really good point on where hydrogen will probably make a lot more sense is delivery to very remote locations. We forget oftentimes that all the advantages that electric has all assume an existing power grid, we forget that there are still large areas that aren't connected to the grid. This is obviously a niche application, but that niche is still going to represent a large market on a global scale.

@AtarahMata

2 ай бұрын

@@smileyeagle1021this entire video is illogical. The cheapest way to obtain hydrogen is through fossil fuels. Even if there is a way to obtain it through a renewable means it will not make as much profit. Hydrogen is a horrible energy source and should not be used at any means. Full green energy and electric vehicles is the way and we just need to adapt. These companies that have refused to go green like shell and bp only refuse because it is not an exploitative resource.

@monsieurtukini7051

Ай бұрын

​@@AtarahMataTry adding Li-ion battery packs to aircraft or cargo ships.

Seems like great progress? For long distances… trains still seem to be the best option tho!

@Cesar13M

6 ай бұрын

Trains are a lot slower them trucks but they are part of the solution

@Cesar13M

6 ай бұрын

@@Will-ef2tw cargo trains are used today for long distances in Europe but truck are needed to connect the unload hubs to the redistribution centers but will take 16 hours from paris to Lisbon by truck and 30 hours by train .

The more solutions we have the better it will be. I support diversification over total electrification.

Congratulations. Very well made video. Mostly this comparison is not made in such a balanced and well informed way.

@thereckon3592

5 ай бұрын

Is it though? Where's the mention about pollution caused by the mining for the battery? About the recycling process?

@martinkominek6712

5 ай бұрын

@@thereckon3592 No such thing in the minds of agenda pushers. Technical facts doesn't matter to them. Nobody cares about question of where are we gonna make the electricity to power all the vehicles also.

I find the whole idea of Trucks with gigantic batteries a little silly, It really should be *the trailers that carry the main battery* This way they can be slow charged cheaply and efficiently while in storage/being loaded and truck only needs moderate top ups during it's working day. Also having thousands of MegaWattHour scale batteries connected to our grid would do wonders for grid stability and absorbing excess green power surges.😄

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

The entire trucking industry disagrees

@gcvrsa

5 ай бұрын

You cannot possibly imagine that no one has thought of this idea before. Maybe study Physics, specifically the physics of towing.

@HetkiPieni

5 ай бұрын

Few issues here. FIrstly there are 2 big limits globally in trucking, first there is a leght limit, often 18.75 meters and a weight limit, often 40 tons. Even if you shove your batteries to the trailer, if you are hauling 5 tons of batteris plus 10 tons for the truck, you can only carry 25 tons of cargo. This solution would solve absolutely notthing. Secondly, many trucking companies do not own their trailers or do not own the ones that they are pulling etc. Logistics is extremely complicated so this would make life even harder for everyone

This video made it sound as if there are too many unknowns, and charging time is definitely not an unknown. Truck drivers have legally mandated breaks, where the driver must have a rest as long as the charging time is less than this break then there is absolutely no problem. With cars right now Citroën are releasing their Ë-C3 which has a recharge time of 26 minutes and Volkswagen have just started the producing the first few ID.7 which have a recharge time of 25 minutes, and in 2025 VW will be releasing the ID.2 which also has a recharge time of 25 minutes but it costs a lot less 25,000 Euros which is a fraction more than the Citroën. There are some cars already in production that can recharge in 18 minutes, but it's from somewhere in Asia. This year at the Goodwood festival there was a demonstration prototype of a car that can recharge in 6 minutes, but that would take a few years to come to market. So basically the technology for fast charging is already here, it just has to be scaled up. Truck drivers will have to stop for more than 25 minutes so they will definitely be OK with the recharge times. As for the cost of the batteries in the trucks, if Volkswagen can make the ID.2 for 25,000 Euros (in 2025) and Citroën can make it's Ë-C3 right now for less than the ID.2, then after scaling things up it's not a problem. Diesel costs multiple times more than the cost of the truck and electricity is massively cheaper than diesel. Also EV's need less maintenance than diesel vehicles, which is another cost saving.

@no-damn-alias

6 ай бұрын

Well there's already a huge lack for truck parking. How could you possibly integrate charging infrastructure then?

@matthewbaynham6286

6 ай бұрын

@@no-damn-alias build more infrastructure

@no-damn-alias

6 ай бұрын

@@matthewbaynham6286 well I can see how that has worked for truck parking already

The only answer is Hybrid models, with all the different technologies being tested, it is imperative that the truck can adapt quickly and conveniently.

@Simon-dm8zv

5 ай бұрын

Worst of both worlds.

@e60stevan

5 ай бұрын

@@Simon-dm8zvhow so

Starting simple is a better idea. Both industries require a huge amount of investment, and its better to funnel all the investment into the project with better ROI. Electric short haul transport is a smaller step and is probably more impactful, so I'd argue it's better to fund that industry first.

@jpfidalgo7

2 ай бұрын

That doesn't seem to be best ROI to me unless it only considers short term returns. I'd say that Trains are a better ROI over their lifespan compared to electric short haul transport. With the more significant criteria for this being: 1) Less resources necessary for increasing the speed of technological development and new materials because it's a very mature technology (still can be developed further, just maybe at less resource usage). 2) In the short term, it has a foreseeable longer life span with some of the most efficient results we know to be possible, just based on the technological principles alone.

The trend is favourable for the electric vehicles. It is a matter of mass scale.

@worldeconomicfella3228

2 ай бұрын

@huanghermann5207 Hydrogen can be a succes when white hydrogen becomes a big thing. If it can be drilled just as easy as natural gas, it will probably cost just as much as natural gas.

Could hydrogen not be generated overnight when we are asleep using cheap rate electricity? And this could surely be carried out in our current petrol stations / garages - i.e. locally generated hydrogen to cut out the delivery costs to points of sales?

@TarviVerro

6 ай бұрын

And in countries with excess solar or wind, produce when the electricity price goes negative

@stevenverrall4527

6 ай бұрын

​​@@TarviVerroExcess solar and wind are almost daily occurrences. Also, Toyota has developed a hydrogen ICE.

@user-nb5sr7by6y

6 ай бұрын

Many in media focus only on green hydrogen, and ignore regenerative grid theory, which uses all of the wasted electricity streams. I am not quite sure why they remain so ill advised at this late stage. Convert wasted electricity to hydrogen to cash in for generations.

@Tron-Jockey

6 ай бұрын

Hmm, interesting question. At roughly 67% efficiency electrolysis requires about 50 kWh of energy for both Alkaline and PEM electrolysers to get 1kg of hydrogen out (energy value of 33.3 kWh). When considering energy density, 1kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline. So roughly 57 kWh of electricity is needed to make the energy equivalent of one gallon of diesel. To fill a 100 gallon semi tank with hydrogen would require about 5.7 mega Watts (about $680 of electricity at 12 cents/kWh). This is just back of the napkin math so I could be a bit off. I don't have information on how many miles per kg an H2 semi gets.

@GuyHubbard-ji9yj

6 ай бұрын

Free when renewables have to be turned off on windy and sunny days

Well, lorries are used in so many diverse ways, some move 10-30 tons over a distance of less than 50km ie in local distribution and they would run fine on battery meanwhile others move 60+ tons over a distance of over 800km and they would need h2 so companies need to focus on both technologies.

It depends on the business service being offered. We can do both because hydrogen can also be used for heavier equipment like trains, ships, mine and farm equipment. Continental long haul, heavy farm, mining and transoceanic - hydrogen Interstate, inter and intra city - batteries. We already have a multi fuel economy with fossil fuels. You can't run a harvester 16 hours a day on batteries in the middle of a prairie wheat field but you can transport hydrogen for a refill.

You should do a video on what Tesla and Pepsi are doing to develop electric trucks. The results are promising.

@AccidentalScience

5 ай бұрын

I've read they have a range of 160 miles.

@zoransarin5411

5 ай бұрын

@@AccidentalScience You read wrong. Google North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE), and see the recent results from its independent Run on Less program which tested several electric trucks in real-world conditions and released the data in real time.

@DerekGardiner72

5 ай бұрын

That’s wrong, Pepsi are easily getting 450/500 miles

@ultrastoat3298

2 ай бұрын

@@AccidentalScience Lol, you have low media literacy then. Its so very very very easy to dunk what you just said with 2 minutes on google.

@ultrastoat3298

2 ай бұрын

The results are more the promising. Its the nail in the coffin.

We probably shouldn't overlook hydrogen just yet. It could still be one of the only feasible option in industries like airlines. Also just like batteries have evolved over the years, hydrogen too could get more efficient with rapid advancements in technology.

@DWPlanetA

5 ай бұрын

If you like hydrogen, please also check out our video dedicated to it fully here 👉 kzread.info/dash/bejne/c3uIzK2DeNifacY.html.

@gcvrsa

5 ай бұрын

What makes you think aviation is going to continue to exist?

@dakshitchhadwa2454

5 ай бұрын

@@gcvrsa It is one of the fastest and safest modes of transport. I believe people need to think out of geographical boundaries and consider the entire planet.

@qlder0284

5 ай бұрын

@@gcvrsa What makes you think it won't?

@user-ls5zb2dx5j

5 ай бұрын

Hydrogen will get more efficient; the only reason electric batteries are where they're at now is because of governments forcing people to switch to electric cars and pushing how great electric cars are when they are not really that great, imagen if they pushed hydrogen powered vehicles instead of electric vehicles to start with? hydrogen vehicles would be more favored than electric vehicles.

when you switch to electric then you need to put over head wires so you don't need to carry your own power, use steel weals to reduce friction, then line them up one by one so only the first truck has to break most of the air and hope we can get there in the next 100 years

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

Why bother with all of that when we already have battery electric trucks that can take 54,000 lb 500 miles on a single charge?

@fulconandroadcone9488

6 ай бұрын

@@williammeek4078 why lug batteries around and wait for them to charge when you can have power directly over your head? and use less power because steel wheels on steel tracks have lower friction?

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

@@fulconandroadcone9488 because it is cheaper

I have not read anywhere about a high speed electric charger behind close to being developed. And what do we do with all the old batteries?.

I think the focous needs to be on releasing the patents. I think ICE trucks would benefit from this a lot, as would batteries, Hydrogen production and much much more. The best ideas are patented and shelved and I am not sure if there is something entirely different like anti gravity that could be employed and do away with our energy conundrums entirely

@Simon-dm8zv

5 ай бұрын

Yeah some good old conspiracy theories is something this comment section still needed..

same time this came out, I saw that a teals semi was tested with 70,000 lb load travele3d 1070 miles in 24 hours

Hard to beat an efficient BEV, unless we have alternatives that match or exceed its efficiency.

As an engineer knowledgeable of what is being developed, I can honestly state, it’s not battery driven electric power trains. All engineering development that I am aware of falls into two categories 1- Producing more HP/liter, allowing for smaller/lighter IC engines ( current goal is to achieve 200hp/liter @ 70mpg 2- Develop Hydrogen to eventually replace gasoline/diesel For IC engines. …. I expect us to wind up with 4 technologies, in the future… 1- Micro Inner city, BEV, with limited range (

You said assumptions about batteries is outdated!! STOP misleading!

Overhead wires. This could work with, hybrids, fuel cells, and fully electric. This can reduce the need for batteries. The only drawback is a massive upfront cost of installation.

I would say it like this, in my opinion - battery trucks for the city transportation and hydrogen and fossil trucks for long ranges (200+ miles per cargo)

8:32 A megawatt charger is just four 250 kW chargers and many Tesla sites have dozens of 250 kW chargers. So not a big deal at all. Not to mention many trucks are doing local routes and can be charged at "only" 250 kW while loading / unloading.

@Chasval

Ай бұрын

I think a megawatt spike being thrown into the grid is nontrivial deal. That's about 250 homes going from nothing to peak power. I see my power lines struggle when I turn on a vacuum

@didierpuzenat7280

Ай бұрын

@@Chasval US home are at peak power at 4000 W ? Are you sure ? Furthermore a 250 kW charger does not take 250 kW during the whole charge, it will be the same for a megawatt charger. Not to mention charging sites have batteries. Anyway, many industries consume far more electricity, in the US as everywhere in the world. And finally, as for cars, many charges will be done at lower power when the semi is parked, and off peak charges will be privileged since it will cost far less.

@didierpuzenat7280

Ай бұрын

@@Chasval I have a supercharger site 5 km away from my home, with at least 24 stalls capable of 250 kW DC charging, why would the impact on the grid be higher than a 6 stalls capable of 1 MW DC charging ? And I do not struggle at all with my electricity, in fact I did not have any power outrage for decades (not even a one second outrage). So maybe France has a far better grid that the US (or wherever you live) but at least it proves that it is doable.

I have the pleasure of working for a company that moves and dig up dirt, at times across rather large distances. I personally hope that Hydrogen trucks are still getting developed, despite the headstart of electricity. Mainly because electricity will likely never be a viable solution on its own to the needs that our company faces. More areas of industry working to cheapen and expand the hydrogen market would only help others for whom electricity will not be able to help, at least in the short term (5-10 years). Hybrids would be a good choice, which is partly what we work with already, except it is currently fossile fuels, which we hope to avoid the moment it becomes economicly viable. Thank you for the video, and I hope to hear more in the future of where this and adjacent areas are headed.

@stevenverrall4527

6 ай бұрын

Toyota has developed a hydrogen ICE.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

@@stevenverrall4527 Too inefficient.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

Hydrogen trucks will always be far more inefficient. The vast majority of trucks will be battery electric, also the ones hauling dirt.

@rehanb637

6 ай бұрын

Where straight electric isn’t feasible companies can use a diesel electric hybrid like what is Edison motors. Also quick swappable batteries like those from Janis electric are another possible solution

@kt88sl45

6 ай бұрын

JCB has done the same.

How could you not even mention the tesla semi ? It shocked the trucking industry with its capability running on just batteries. Tesla semi proved itself at the north American council for freight efficiency's "run on less program". In this new independent test study tesla semi proved a viable alternative to diesel and out classed other electric trucks by far.

@zerotwo_.002

6 ай бұрын

tesla semi sucks. its carrying capacity is minuscule. That con man is yet to even deliver them. Though his intended date has long gone pass.....

@nuroo1

6 ай бұрын

Con man? Pepsi corp has been using them, testing them for months! Did u know that? It was independently tested against other electric trucks and beat them all. Sounds like you don't like Elon musk. That's fine. But to ignore independent testing means your letting your hate cloud your judgement.

@Tron-Jockey

6 ай бұрын

@@zerotwo_.002 - LOL, like you would have anywhere near the technical or engineering background or even a laymen's acumen to make such an assertion.

@zerotwo_.002

6 ай бұрын

@@Tron-Jockey hi, so this is awkward.... I am an EEE undergraduate........ So yeah

"Yes, Jonas, This is our first..." You guys rock! :D

A lot of people are going to talk about trains in the comments, but they're already at the limit of what trucks provide that trains do not. If you want trains to reach the same productivity as trucks, it needs to be some sort of transport system that brings items from A-B on a comparable route to roads, and also directly from a storage site directly into the business. This is a necessary progress, if we want to reach our goals and slash emissions from multiple sides of the pie.

@BrianHunt1911

4 ай бұрын

Germanyhas trains converted to r un on hydrogen. Japan has done the Hydrogen thing best. a new Nuclear power station using some of its zero C02 output to produce clean Hydrogen, and whats left over to supply Co2 free electricity to industry. And then in France a new Hydrogen SUV from NamX that uses swappable capsules of Hydrogen gas, 4 I believe; each providing 800k m of range.So range 4 x 800km, 3200km .Where I live, for smallish 8-16kgLPG barbecue requirements outside every hardware store. where's a storage of "Swap & go LPG cylinders. At last, someone has thought to use the same concept for Hydrogen

The USA was built on the railroad, theres no excuse that we can’t do that again.

@nuevision8

25 күн бұрын

Freight railroads in the USA could have been 100% electric decades ago. Hydrogen fuel cell combined with electric motors are the future of Railroads.

@nuevision8

25 күн бұрын

As a Commercial OTR Truck Driver for 25 years in the USA, I see the competition and we need cooperation for all clean energy Truck systems. Overhead electric lines could provide electricity to electric truck pantographs.

@moneyhungryvisionzz7450

21 күн бұрын

Sending the money to all other country’s

We need both. Electric can be for short distances and Hydrogen for long haul freight.

@worldeconomicfella3228

2 ай бұрын

@MichaelMengo Well, with battery swapping EV trucks can be used for long haul freight as well.

@MichaelMengo

2 ай бұрын

@@worldeconomicfella3228 I agree since many do rest stops which would be ideal for a swap

The best alternative for this is sea weed biofuel which doesn't require any modifications in our current technology

Informative video as always

@DWPlanetA

Ай бұрын

Thanks for watching! You can also subscribe to our channel so you won't be missing any of the coming videos. 🌸

Question, what is the safer of the two option presented in this video? We know batteries can be highly dangerous once they catch fire and the fire departments do not know if they are really out, so what is the risk with Hydrogen?

@rozonoemi9374

6 ай бұрын

💥

@forestrybasics7240

6 ай бұрын

If hydrogen truck catches fire and fire reaches the tank you don't need to call the firefighters. They will hear it most likely.

@Tron-Jockey

6 ай бұрын

Type "Deadly Tanker Explosion" into the KZread search bar for an example of what can happen when transporting compressed or liquified hydrocarbons. Not exactly hydrogen but you get the idea. One of these KZread videos is particularly frightening. It shows an Inside Edition news video of a collision on a highway in Italy that caused an extraordinary blast that killed at least two people and left at least 70 others injured. I don't care how many batteries a truck is hauling they WILL NEVER CAUSE ANYWHWERE NEAR THAT SORT OF EXPLOSION.

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

Watch a video of the Hindenburg to see the danger.

@saintient

6 ай бұрын

most people are so ignorant about hydrogen ffs it will not explode

both ways are great to invest. The future is multimodal

With Pepsi already running 1000+ mile/day routes with loaded electric trucks, there doesn't seem much room in the market left for hydrogen powered trucks.

One strength of FCEVs not mentioned is that their efficiency is less impacted by weather. So, the efficiency numbers for BEVs have greater volatility in this respect.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

Yes, FCEVs are always inefficient..

@palmshoot

6 ай бұрын

@@flemlion13 Heating is just about the most energy-intensive process there is. According to AAA, EVs lose between 12 and 41 percent of their efficency in cold weather, the higher number corresponding with heat at full blast. When you combine this with efficiency loss due to battery aging and the chemical volatility of lithium ions, the efficiency goes lower.

@palmshoot

6 ай бұрын

@@Simon-dm8zv Though, in principle, hydrogen is inexhaustable, unlike lithium and other metals, even sand, allegedly. My other post delves into the efficiency losses inherent with current battery chemistries.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

@@palmshoot Electrons are also inexhaustible. You are making the wrong comparison. It should be: batteries vs. fuel cells + tanks and hydrogen vs. electrons.

@palmshoot

6 ай бұрын

@@flemlion13 Correction: Fossil-fuel ICE vehicles see non-trivial drops in efficiency with temperature extremes, yes, but not hydrogen ICE ones or FCEVs. Coincidentally, fuel cells currently are and/or are planned to be used in Antarctica, and they're already used in cold places like Iceland. AAA doesn't mention anything about the Antarctic. Losses of around 15 percent are also seen in temps above 95 degrees F. The hottest temps on Earth happened in the US. The ages of the Volvos' batteries need to be taken into account when evaluating efficiency deltas.

Great video. I have a few questions that maybe have simple answers. We have hybrid electric/ICE cars. Is it possible to have a hybrid electric/hydrogen truck? Even if it's possible, would it be viable? It seems some trucks will only be electric - think the smaller ones. Some might only have the option of needing hydrogen for remote areas. But at least having both might allow them to use batteries as much as possible, but hydrogen when it's not.

@user-dw2yp6jl8s

6 ай бұрын

There is no need in H2 ICE and big battaries. Fuel cells are H2 container and electric generator in one. You also may add on H2 tank.

@user-dw2yp6jl8s

6 ай бұрын

Or did you mean both fuel cells and big battaries. It is more effective to use the densest energy storage not both. Hybrids are best with ICEs. ICEs are inefficient if not run in narrow set RPM range

@lawrenceheyman435

6 ай бұрын

@user-dw2yp6jl8s I don't think you follow what I was asking. If you have both, use the battery when available. Then use the hydrogen when not available, being the less efficient alternative

@Tron-Jockey

6 ай бұрын

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCV) are essentially electric vehicles. They employ essentially the same electric drivetrain that an all-electric semi uses. They simply use hydrogen as the energy carrier instead of a huge battery pack. HFCV's even have a fairly large battery that acts as a buffer for the output of the PEM stack (though not nearly as large as in a fully electric semi, probably only about 15-20kWh). So, a hydrogen semi is already a hybrid/electric of sorts. You may have been thinking that the hydrogen is going to be burned in an ICE but that would be less efficient than even a gasoline ICE. Hydrogen will be way too expensive to burn it in an ICE. Burning hydrogen in an ICE also produces NOx in addition to water vapor. Now, if you're talking about a diesel/electric hybrid (like a modern locomotive) that would be something different.

@lawrenceheyman435

6 ай бұрын

@Tron-Jockey so thanks, I wasn't aware that hydrogen fuel cell cars / trucks already have a battery. That would mean it might be quite feasible to put larger batteries on them and allow the operator to refuel one or both. It may not be an economic method, but it would seem to have advantages. Mainly for those needing longer range sometimes, they have the hydrogen, but when they have the option to recharge the larger battery they get the efficiency. It doesn't solve the weight problem, but for remote areas in say outback Australia, it might be useful.

Calling it team H2 and team Battery is similar to calling it team Wind and team Solar. They all complete each other. All necessary against fossil fiels.

The problem with battery trucks for fleets (think delivery companies) is that you effectively need as many charging stations as you have trucks, if you are utilizing most of your fleet on a daily basis. Lots of efficiency loss keeping your fleet charged and ready to go, or staggering charging to limit the number of charging stations you need. Whereas the logistics of keeping a hydrogen truck fueled is essentially the same as diesel: you install one fuel station with a few pumps on site outside your garage or warehouse, and refuel whenever trucks return from work. Also, charging stations aren't cheap, and use a lot of copper and specialty steel in the inverter, meaning that they actually compete with EVs themselves for some of the metals they use (EVs also require an inverter to use the electricity stored in the battery). So the more charging stations have to be deployed, the less materials there available to manufacture EVs. So in general, it might be a good idea for all fleet operators to use hydrogen, while personal vehicles owned by individuals use batteries instead.

@Hans-gb4mv

6 ай бұрын

I think you need to look into how hydrogen refueling stations work and the challenges surrounding those. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

@microcomputermaster

6 ай бұрын

@@Hans-gb4mv The footprint is still smaller than the footprint of multiple electric charging stations, and doesn't need the grid infrastructure that deploying a large number of stations would require. For example, a fleet deployed by the average Amazon warehouse would require an entirely new electric substation to be installed just to handle the load of most of the trucks charging simultaneously. Whereas hydrogen stations can be installed basically anywhere you can install diesel or gasoline pumps and don't require much electricity on the pumping side of their supply chain. You just need tanks capable of holding the hydrogen in gaseous form (not liquid, which is more difficult), which isn't technically difficult (we've been moving gaseous hydrogen around for years in the chemical industry). Many warehouses are already fueling all their forklifts with hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries for exactly this reason (the whole industry is switching away from diesel, compressed natural gas, and propane forklifts to eliminate indoor emissions, which are a health hazard to warehouse workers).

@chrishar110

6 ай бұрын

@@microcomputermaster I can tell you that your example- Amazon uses electric vans that charge when they return in the depot. They don't make deliveries 24/7. They use mega batteries in 40 feet containers that charge when there is plenty of renewable energy and give that power to the vans when they need it. These containers can stack on each other and are not bigger than a big tank that most of depots usually have. About the charging points, they are normal van parking spots and they have a post with a 7Kw/h charging point that can fill the battery in 7-10 hours. They don't need more and they already have it. Theey save millions every year only from that. If it didn't work do you think that they would waste their money for all these? Do you think they are stupid? Same thing with Royal mail in UK and many, many, many other companies. There are companies i Europe right now that fund wind turbine parks to get cheaper power for their vans-trucks.

why not just expand the rail network instead? Countries could make a separate network for cargo trains so that it wouldn't affect passenger trains.

This is such a good video explaining the topic in a very nuanced way! Very well done For cars batteries have one, and I think they will for trucks too. But time and technology improvements will tell!

@thereckon3592

5 ай бұрын

There's absolutely no mention of the pollution caused due to the production of batteries in these vehicles and how they'll be handled after their life.

Neither will really replace diesel powered trucks...Simple energy physics involved... We need to shift as much transport as possible to rail.

The safe and clean disposal of used batteries always comes to mind when talking about evs..

All this presumes availability of electricity from the grid. Industrial supplies at MVa scale simply aren't available to most industrial users, with upgrades even if small levels of grid capacity years in the making and at prohibitive cost.

Hydrogen is the future - since the 1970ies...

Hydrogen combustion engine could level the playing field

@philiptaylor7902

6 ай бұрын

The trouble with hydrogen combustion engines is that they are even less efficient than fuel cells. Apart from a few niche uses I cant see them being adopted widely. JCB are working on them FYI.

@Tron-Jockey

6 ай бұрын

Burning hydrogen in an ICE is even less efficient than burning gasoline in an ICE and much less efficient than burning diesel fuel in an ICE. Hydrogen will be way too expensive to burn it in an ICE. Keep in mind as well that burning hydrogen produces NOx (smog) in addition to water vapor.

All truck makers other than Tesla use BEVs with battery capacities large enough to give a range of roughly 500km; Tesla have decided on 800km and have compromised cargo capacity for range in doing that (implication of Tesla statements is that the Semi battery is ~850kWh, around 5 tonnes). The big move in battery tech over the last decade has been to make Li-ion cheaper rather than any significant improvement in energy density, and there's no production-ready battery tech around to do that in the next 5-10 years. The big advantage for hydrogen would be that it's WAY quicker to refuel and would easily offer a way to 1000km range or more. The inefficiency is less of a deal breaker than the cost per km to run; if the hydrogen is generated from off-peak electricity the input energy cost for recharging a BEV during a working day would be comparable. Ultimately, whoever gets the infrastructure in place first will win this race, just like it was with BEV/FCEV cars - Toyota had a useable FCEV car a decade ago and made no attempt to install infrastructure to support it, so it was (and is) a techy toy. Tesla installed the supercharger network.

Why do all of these videos also forget to mention that maintenance of internal combustion engines also takes a lot of resources vs electrical power trains? It also efficiency, time and money los

I like electricity because electricity can’t be controlled by few greedy companies like oil companies , if we go hydrogen , what is happening to oil right now will happen to hydrogen too

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

Correct. Among the biggest proponents of hydrogen are oil companies.

@chrishar110

6 ай бұрын

@@Simon-dm8zvThey want to use the methane from the oil rigs that escapes in the air to produce hydrogen.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

​@@chrishar110 Pretty good, but that would only be enough for a tiny part of the total hydrogen demand. Also: in the future we will have far fewer oil rigs in the world.

@chrishar110

6 ай бұрын

@@Simon-dm8zv I think that you misunderstood me. They are sure that they will loose money and they talk about hydrogen so they will delay the development of electric cars-truck.

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

@@chrishar110 I see, sorry. Yes, that sounds likely!

Both technologies are evolving and it's too early to call one a winner. For the next couple of decades, both technologies will have a place in our lives.

Many trucks do not drive long distance. They connect near by citys or forfill repetitive tasks e.g. garbage collection. These Trucks operate only one shift per day and stand the rest of the time in a fixes place. So they just can be charged over night and do not have to use public Infrastruktur at all.

@chrishar110

6 ай бұрын

You described 30% of cargo logistics. The rest use the trucks 24/7. BUT, in real life trucks don't work 24/7. There is always some time to charge, a break for the driver, load or unload, change of shifts. I work in a big super market distribution center (deliveries in stores) in the transport office but I was a driver for 30 years. Trucks don't stay in the yard more than one hour on every shift (2 shifts), but that's enough to make 3-400 miles every 24 hours. That's more than enough for us.

@langohr9613ify

6 ай бұрын

@@chrishar110 Yes this is true. But how much of the market is the "last mile" stuff, where e.g. single supermarkets in citys are surved and distances between loading / unloading stops are short and driving speeds are low?

Another option, DME is a synthetic fuel that is compatible with diesel. It would be made with thermal nuclear energy using a high temp reactor like the Molten Salt Reactor which could crack water with heat alone using Sulfur Iodine cycle potentially much cheaper than electical energy, the eff is 50% from heat. If you use electric splitting the eff is possibly half or much worse. The hydrogen is then converted into DME as a carbon neutral process and since it is a diesel substitute, no infrasture changes other than building these synthetic fuel plants next to thermal nuclear plants. Nobody at this poit can project the pricing of all the options until all options have competed at scale for a while. Also Sodium Ions batteries could supplant or complement Lithium Ion batteries, not quite as energy dense, but potentially cheaper to produce in the long run and besides, Sodium is 1000x as plentiful as Lithium. Table salt is just Sodium Chloride.

Tesla Semi has solved this issue. Recent data have shown it works and the costs to build out Hydrogen infrastructure is way more expensive than electric.

@assassinul95

6 ай бұрын

Tesla what? Solved what? Stop drinking antifreeze please

@matthewbaynham6286

6 ай бұрын

Tesla is a little late to this party, the Tesla Semi has had plenty of delays and most other truck manufactures got their electric models out before Tesla.

I've suspected that hydrogen fuel is better for heavier freight. This is because the fuel can be more centralized and service transport vehicles more economically. My hypothesis is that fueling long routes and heavy freight like ships, trains, and cargo trucks (in that order) would be the first and most likely to benefit from a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

@zoransarin5411

5 ай бұрын

what is more abundant, hydrogen filling centres or powerpoints? Then tell me which infrastructure is more likely.

Thanks for making a video about this topic, I think the last survey you made is actually working. Just the type of content I ask for. 👏

What about battery recycling costs and environment impact?

Electric freight trains make the most sense for medium to long trips. They already exist, work just fine, and are incredibly efficient. Plus as grids get cleaner, the power they consume will also be cleaner. Electric trucks for last mile delivery makes sense beyond this point. I don't see hydrogen as being anything other than wishful last gasps for the petrochemical industry at this point.

A hybrid truck combining the advantages of both, like regenerative breaking(Battery), and long range + heavy haul(Hydro). And add some solar panels, recharging roads. Like an electric multi-tool for Truckers. Add armor, dinos and a post apocalyptic world for a good movie concept too.

@Keylevitation

6 ай бұрын

Building refueling stations would be a nightmare

@user-kg4fr9jr7v

6 ай бұрын

Trying to push both solutions in one as a rule of thumb inherits disadvantages from both

How are they generating the electricity to charge the trucks?

The most important "part" is open-mindedness and a willingness to experiment.

There are other problems with Hydrogen not mentioned in the video. Hydrogen leaks very easily. Hydrogen is an indirect greenhouse gas with a GWP100 of 11. This means 1 ton of hydrogen causes as much warming as 11 tons of CO2 over 100 years. Also, how will you move the H2 around? it can not be moved through Natural gas networks because it will cause much of the metal to become brittle. The networks were also not designed to deal with H2 which is a significantly smaller molecule than CH4 so there will be leakage problems.

@arvindsat

6 ай бұрын

There is a small flaw in the analysis. While Hydrogen may or may not have a higher GWP than CO2, it's very hard for molecular hydrogen to get trapped in the atmosphere due to its extremely light weight. So just as Hydrogen leaks from most materials, as you rightly pointed out, it also leaks very easily from the atmosphere.

@trowawayacc

6 ай бұрын

Hydrogen can be produced at point of sale. Fuel cells last forever. How much would a fast charging battery last?

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

@@trowawayaccfuel cells don’t last forever. Neither do their tanks. They are only rated to 150,000 miles on vehicles like Mirai. Batteries have demonstrated a 300,000 mile life for ternary batteries and 1 million mile for LFP.

Hydrogen and Batteries both look great at a high level, but once you start digging into the details, the hydrogen solution fails. Most hydrogen’s is grey (made from natural gas) not green which produces CO2 emissions so it’s not much better than just burning diesel. You then have the environmental impact of releasing hydrogen into the atmosphere as well, which slows methane from breaking down in the atmosphere causing an increase in global warming. Batteries are truly the answer. The only question is can we ramp up production of batteries and chargers fast enough to prevent the climate catastrophe.

Personally, I see a major use case for hydrogen-electric vehicles here in Canada, especially in the forestry industry. Often times trucks are required to go on long haul journeys out into the wilderness, or up secluded logging roads for many kilometers. The disadvantage to electric trucks here is the isolation. There are no charging stations in the back country, there is no grid on the side of a British Columbia mountain kilometers above sea level and tens of kilometers down winding narrow forest service roads from the nearest town. If you were out in the back country and your vehicle, car or truck, runs out of battery then you're hooped. But, with a hydrogen-electric truck, or even a regular fuel-electric truck, you could massively extend the operating range and it's way easier to get extra fuel out to you if you run out.

Clearly we need booth it depends on the requested Miles and Wight. Let's not forget the nature gives us a non negotiatonable time frame. We have to reach this goal non matter what.😊 Thanks for the Video.

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

There are no commercially available hydrogen trucks that can beat the best battery electric trucks in any commercially significant category. If you want to argue. Provide examples.

TL;DW hopefully neither because we'll be using trains.

@anahita-bn6cy

6 ай бұрын

Amen to that

@cx5307

6 ай бұрын

There are many tours where trains can't be a real alternative.

@anahita-bn6cy

6 ай бұрын

@@cx5307 as a self proclaimed train enthusiast, I think we should put railways in every position in the world and bann cars

@einfischnamenspanda3306

6 ай бұрын

For long distances between busy locations, trains are just best. But to get to specific sites like factories for which it is not worth building rail to, trucks will be needed. Because building street will be needed anyway to get people there. For these rather short trips battery trucks will always win out I guess. To get to more remote areas where rails are not worth either, hydrogen trucks might be better suited.

@jacobtauro4830

6 ай бұрын

​@@anahita-bn6cydon't think it would be possible...

For the long term hydrogen. Some of the issue with hydrogen is that it escapes the hold oil companies hold if we keep them from taking it over.

@trowawayacc

6 ай бұрын

Exactly. Now battery companies are screwing hydrogen over. So they can keep selling you new cells when the old ones run out.

@williammeek4078

6 ай бұрын

No, hydrogen had a chance a couple of decades ago. Now it is too late as we already BEV semi trucks that outcompete both diesel and hydrogen.

@thereckon3592

5 ай бұрын

​@@williammeek4078 Outcompete how? There's absolutely no mention of the pollution caused due to the production of batteries in these vehicles and how they'll be handled after their life.

@williammeek4078

5 ай бұрын

@@thereckon3592 you think that is a problem? Show me your research. Show me the pollution from the mining of materials for and manufacturing of a diesel compared to the pollution from the same for a BEV. Then use that to compare operating pollution and pollution from disposal. Then sum all of that data for lifetime pollution. Only then will you know enough about the subject to argue one way or another. By the way, EV batteries are already being reused and recycled.

@dougjohnson4266

5 ай бұрын

@williammeek4078 100+ million cars over 100 years, show us your research that there is enough lithium for that. Battery recycling is not clean, and there are toxic locations all over the earth from mining.

The fact that a lot of wind farms don't always run at their 100% capability when the wind blows, says we already have capability for more and better green energy. It is the storage of this lost energy that needs to be worked on. So if all wind farms made hydrogen and had lots of storage for the hydrogen, then the price would come down quite quickly. Alternatively, have on-site battery storage that is not lithium-ion. Pure Electric trucks need to take engineering from cars. In the sense that trailers can use batteries as sidewall structural. And putting the thinner solar on the sides of the trailers would also help increase range.

It is simple, the production, storage and refueling is expensive and another key aspect is the expense production of hydrogen truck + fuel cell expenses in long run which is not discussed in the video.

Electric trucks for big cities and urban areas due to less noise and diesel trucks for long hauls cross countries

@youseflatif796

6 ай бұрын

Also make sure those diesel trucks at least use some biodiesel to reduce emissions.

Oh I know this one - the answer is electric, with hydrogen having a 0% chance of winning this race (calculated with a 0% margin of error).

@Simon-dm8zv

6 ай бұрын

Haha yes

@Umski

6 ай бұрын

Agreed, hydrogen is a pipe dream, same situation with hydrogen boilers

If we want to produce clean hydrogen, electrolysis is probably our best option. However, to produce 1 kg of hydrogen fuel via electrolysis, you'll need to use ~50-55 kWh. The specific energy of 1 kg of hydrogen fuel is only around 40 kWh. So you're spending 50 kWh to get something that'll only give you 40 kWh. 🤔 It makes more sense to me to just use the electricity to charge a battery.

Do they even talk about the manufacturing of the batteries and the cost to the environment of creating them?

@DWPlanetA

3 ай бұрын

We made previously videos on this you can watch here 👇 🧂"How salt and sand could replace lithium batteries" kzread.info/dash/bejne/X6qjxK-lZc_Kf9Y.html 🚗"Can you recycle an old EV battery?" kzread.info/dash/bejne/gpaDpM-nirXWipc.html

Electric. It can be paired with solar and has fewer moving parts.

@Hybridsixtynine

6 ай бұрын

Replacement part industry be like: AH, HELL NAH!

@chrishar110

6 ай бұрын

@@HybridsixtynineExactly this is one of the enemies. First of all oil companies, no comment for them, second the car-truck industry, they will loose the service that makes tons of money, the parts industry that will loose money, the goverments that loose money from the taxes on fuel. They can not tax electricity, they don't know if that electricity goes to a house or in a truck battery, there are companies that have solars on the roof, that have wind turbines, they can't tax them!!!!

Clearly the hidrogen is a better option and for sure will be the future.

I like this change, but do you have some data on the amount of additional electricity that needs to be produced to charge all these trucks, in addition to all the private vehicles? How much more energy has to be produced and how much more CO2 will be released in the process? How much more nuclear waste?

@Simon-dm8zv

5 ай бұрын

Electrification will actually lower total energy demand. Electricity is always cleaner than burning diesel in an engine.

@eric8372

2 ай бұрын

@@Simon-dm8zv Nevertheless more electricity is needed, which has to be produced somehow.

@Simon-dm8zv

2 ай бұрын

@@eric8372 Correct, so in a worst case scenario this will be supplied by fossil fueled power stations for the time being.

Divide and conquer. In the quest for the cheapest stuff we managed to get ourselves both rich and racing to the bottom. Introducing more alternatives spreads out the money and slows down things in the short run but makes everything more robust in the long run.

Making a video about electric EVs and trucks and not mentioning Tesla once, kind of seems to negate your mission towards green future. Right?

Hydrogen is only 3Wh per litre at atmospheric pressure.. Soon batteries are likely to reach 500Wh/kg. Batteries will likely win, too many advantages and far more economical.

@morganangel340

5 ай бұрын

gas have 12,200 Wh/kg - imagine if someone would invent a fuel cell for gas, would be ''game over'' for batteries. even if by-product would be CO2+H2O, producing like 60kw from around 2 gallons of gas would be unbeatable... also that ''electric car'' would be much lighter than the battery ones... imagine the range from a 16 gallon tank.

@AORD72

2 ай бұрын

The problem with petrol/diesel is the cost. Batteries will eventually work out more economical (if not already) . The other factor is the ability to be corporation independent with solar panels on your roof.

In 2012 (I think this the right year) the government tabled solid hydrogen that was activated by laser. They termed the technology “too disruptive” to be released. If it were available it would destroy oil, electric and other energy. Supposedly, certain military applications are able to use it now.

Obviously focus on both. It's like asking whether ICE manufacturers should focus on petrol or diesel engines.