Toyota Fuel Cells Trail Teslas as Energy Losses Drive 8-Fold Fuel Gap

The Truth about Hydrogen — Real Engineering

Real Engineering

Compounding energy losses from electrolysis, compression, and fuel cell conversion cut hydrogen efficiency to less than half of battery systems, driving real-world fueling costs up to eight times higher.

AI-assisted summary of The Truth about Hydrogen — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published:

Key ideas

  • While compressed hydrogen has a specific energy of ~40,000 Wh/kg compared to 167–278 Wh/kg for lithium-ion battery cells, end-to-end conversion losses make hydrogen fuel roughly 8 times more expensive per kilometer driven in real-world retail comparisons. (1:24)
  • Water electrolysis loses 20% to 30% of input renewable power as waste heat upfront, whereas direct battery charging accepts incoming electrical current at approximately 99% efficiency. (3:47)
  • Densifying hydrogen for vehicular transport requires either mechanical compression to 790 atmospheres (consuming 13% of its energy content) or cryogenic cooling to -253°C (sacrificing roughly 40%), compared to standard electrical grid transmission losses of just 5%. (5:56)
  • Even under an idealized model featuring on-site PEM electrolysis and zero transport logistics, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle retains less than half the total round-trip efficiency of a battery electric vehicle. (10:52)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by the educational channel Real Engineering on July 27, 2018, this video is narrated and co-directed by Brian McManus with direction by Stephanie Sammann. The video examines the physical, thermodynamic, and economic realities of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles compared to battery electric vehicles, sponsored by Skillshare.

## TL;DR While hydrogen boasts an energy density roughly 236 times higher than lithium-ion batteries and refuels in under five minutes, its lifecycle conversion physics present massive inefficiencies. Compounding losses from water electrolysis, mechanical compression, transport logistics, and fuel cell reconversion leave hydrogen vehicles with less than half the well-to-wheel efficiency of battery electric cars. In real-world testing, driving a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle proved roughly eight times more expensive per kilometer than charging a battery EV. While hydrogen holds potential for aviation or specialized off-grid applications, battery electric platforms emerge as the clearly sensible choice for consumer transport.

## Atmosphere & style The presentation carries a calm, analytical, and rigorously objective tone characteristic of an engineering white paper brought to life. Driven by Brian McManus's measured narration and clean technical diagrams, the video systematically deconstructs industry marketing hype with first-principles calculations. The mood shifts from curiosity about hydrogen's impressive physical properties to a sobering realization of its thermodynamic bottlenecks, concluding with transparent, candid reflections on channel design and the future of transport.

## Bulletin - [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) While compressed hydrogen has a specific energy of ~40,000 Wh/kg compared to 167–278 Wh/kg for lithium-ion battery cells, end-to-end conversion losses make hydrogen fuel roughly 8 times more expensive per kilometer driven in real-world retail comparisons. - [03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=227s) Water electrolysis loses 20% to 30% of input renewable power as waste heat upfront, whereas direct battery charging accepts incoming electrical current at approximately 99% efficiency. - [05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) Densifying hydrogen for vehicular transport requires either mechanical compression to 790 atmospheres (consuming 13% of its energy content) or cryogenic cooling to -253°C (sacrificing roughly 40%), compared to standard electrical grid transmission losses of just 5%. - [10:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=652s) Even under an idealized model featuring on-site PEM electrolysis and zero transport logistics, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle retains less than half the total round-trip efficiency of a battery electric vehicle.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=0s) The zero-emission vehicle transition is divided between chemical batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, with industry figures like Elon Musk dismissing fuel cells as marketing ploys while the Japanese government invests heavily toward a 'hydrogen society'. - [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) Compressed hydrogen provides roughly 236 times more energy per kilogram than production lithium-ion battery packs (~40,000 Wh/kg vs. ~167 Wh/kg), avoiding the weight-compounding penalty where heavier batteries require reinforced chassis, brakes, and larger motors. - [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) Fuel cell vehicles can refuel in under 5 minutes like conventional combustion vehicles, whereas a long-range battery electric vehicle can take more than 3 hours for a full recharge on typical equipment. - [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) A real-world cost comparison shows filling a Toyota Mirai at an off-peak hydrogen station costs $85 for 480 km (17.7¢/km), about 8 times more expensive than charging a Tesla Model 3 for $10–$12 over 500 km (2.0–2.4¢/km). - [03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=227s) Most industrial hydrogen is generated via steam methane reforming, which releases greenhouse gases and yields less energy than the initial natural gas feedstock, ruling it out as a sustainable long-term solution. - [03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=227s) Zero-carbon water electrolysis incurs substantial production losses: traditional alkaline units are ~70% efficient, and current PEM systems operate around 80% efficiency, compared to 99% direct acceptance efficiency in batteries. - [05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) Mechanical compression to 790 atmospheres consumes 13% of the gas's energy, while cryogenic liquefaction at -253°C consumes around 40% of the fuel's energy value. - [05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) Centralized hydrogen production faces transport and pipeline losses of 10% to 40%, whereas electrical distribution across the United States grid loses only an average of 5%. - [05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) Total well-to-tank losses range from 33% in best-case on-site PEM generation to 56% in centralized systems, compared to only ~6% total loss for battery electric vehicles at the same stage. - [08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=528s) Onboard PEM fuel cells operate at roughly 60% conversion efficiency when turning hydrogen back into electricity, shedding the remaining 40% as waste heat. - [08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=528s) Accounting for onboard AC-to-DC chargers (92%), battery retention round-trips (90%), and traction inverters (90%), battery electric powertrains maintain a net tank-to-wheel efficiency of roughly 75%. - [10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=613s) Both vehicle architectures use highly efficient electric drive motors (90%–95%), far exceeding petrol combustion engines (20%–30%), but hydrogen accumulates far more intermediate conversion steps throughout its cycle. - [10:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=652s) Thermodynamic modeling predicts hydrogen should cost 3.5 times more per kilometer than battery power in worst-case efficiency scenarios, but capital expenditures like expensive high-pressure fueling stations push real retail prices to 8 times higher. - [10:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=652s) Rapidly expanding charging infrastructure and larger battery capacities position battery electric vehicles as the sensible, practical choice for consumer road transport, leaving hydrogen best suited for off-grid applications or aviation.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=0s) The Electric Vehicle Boom and the Hydrogen Debate

As nations seek to remove fossil fuels from global energy consumption, electric vehicles have experienced rapid adoption. Over one million electric cars were sold globally in the previous year, expanding the worldwide population of Nissan Leafs, Teslas, and other models beyond three million vehicles. While automakers offer numerous brands, powering an electric vehicle comes down to just two core technologies: fuel cells or chemical batteries. Both systems generate electricity to turn electric motors, sidestepping the tailpipe pollution and thermal losses of internal combustion engines. Furthermore, both hydrogen and battery electricity can be supplied by low-carbon or zero-carbon infrastructure, such as solar and wind installations, driving sustained research and capital into both paths.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Zero-Carbon Power Pathways for Electric Vehicles accDescr: Diagram showing how renewable energy branches into battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. subgraph S1["Renewable Power Generation"] REN["Solar & Wind Power"] end subgraph S2["Energy Carrier Pathways"] GRID["Electrical Grid Transmission"] PROD["Hydrogen Production (Electrolysis / SMR)"] end subgraph S3["Vehicle Storage & Traction"] BEV["Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs)"] FCEV["Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs)"] end REN --> GRID --> BEV REN --> PROD --> FCEV ```

This technological fork has triggered a sharp division among industry leaders and governments. Brian McManus highlights how stark this conflict is: “Elon Musk has called hydrogen fuel cell technology ‘incredibly dumb,’ claiming they’re more of a marketing ploy for automakers than a long-term solution.” Conversely, the Japanese government has partnered directly with domestic automakers to establish the world's first "hydrogen society," setting target deployments of 160 hydrogen refueling stations and 40,000 fuel cell vehicles by March 2021.

- Over 1,000,000 electric cars sold globally in the prior year. - Global EV fleet exceeds 3,000,000 units in operation. - Japan's March 2021 target: 160 refueling stations and 40,000 fuel cell vehicles.

---

[01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) Weight Compounding and the Real-World Cost Disparity

At first glance, hydrogen appears to be an ideal transport fuel due to its exceptional energy per unit mass. Compressed hydrogen possesses a specific energy near 40,000 watt-hours per kilogram ($40\text{ kWh/kg}$). In contrast, top-tier lithium-ion battery cells deliver around $278\text{ Wh/kg}$, while everyday production packs average roughly $167\text{ Wh/kg}$—meaning compressed hydrogen provides roughly 236 times more energy per kilogram of fuel. This allows fuel cell vehicles to carry extended energy reserves without the severe penalty of weight compounding. In battery design, each added kilogram of battery demands reinforced chassis members, heavier braking hardware, and larger, higher-torque motors, which ultimately forces engineers to install even more batteries to pull the added deadweight. Furthermore, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles mimic internal combustion convenience by refueling in under five minutes, whereas a long-range battery EV like a Tesla Model S can require over three hours for a full charge.

Despite these physical advantages, hydrogen encounters a severe economic breakdown when evaluated across the entire energy production lifecycle. Recharging a Tesla Model 3 equipped with a 75-kilowatt-hour battery costs roughly $10 to $12 depending on regional retail utility rates. Over an EPA-rated range of 500 kilometers, that works out to just 2 to 2.4 cents per kilometer driven. McManus compares this against an on-site hydrogen generation station he visited, which relied on off-peak grid electricity to fill a Toyota Mirai:

> “The hydrogen from this station cost $85 dollars to fill the 5 kg tank of the Toyota Mirais on site, which had a range of 480 kms. That’s 17.7 cent per kilometer, 8 times the price.”

- Compressed hydrogen specific energy: ~40,000 Wh/kg. - Production lithium-ion battery specific energy: 167 to 278 Wh/kg (~236× less than hydrogen). - BEV recharge duration: 3+ hours for complete replenishment on typical chargers. - FCEV refuel duration: Under 5 minutes. - Tesla Model 3 (75 kWh pack): $10–$12 per 500 km range (2.0–2.4¢/km). - Toyota Mirai (5 kg tank): $85 per 480 km range (17.7¢/km, an 8-fold increase).

---

[03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=227s) Production Pathways: Steam Reforming vs. Electrolysis

The severe financial premium of hydrogen stems directly from upstream conversion physics. While hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it does not exist freely on Earth; it remains chemically bound in water, methane, and other organic matter. In the United States, industrial hydrogen is overwhelmingly synthesized via steam methane reforming (SMR), where high-temperature steam combines with natural gas to crack the hydrocarbon bonds. McManus points out the environmental and thermodynamic dead end of this process: “Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually has less energy than the natural gas that the steam reforming began with.” Because SMR emits greenhouse gases and wastes primary thermal energy, it cannot serve as a clean long-term transport foundation.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Clean vs Fossil Hydrogen Generation Paths accDescr: Comparison of Steam Methane Reforming versus Water Electrolysis. subgraph Fossil["Fossil Fuel Process"] direction TB CH4["Methane + Steam"] --> SMR["Steam Reforming<br>(High Thermal Input)"] SMR --> H2_F["Hydrogen + CO2 Emissions"] end subgraph Green["Renewable Pathways"] direction TB H2O["Pure Water + Green Power"] --> ELEC{"Electrolyzer Type"} ELEC -->|Traditional Alkaline| ALK["70% Efficient<br>(30% Energy Loss)"] ELEC -->|PEM Tech| PEM["80% Efficient<br>(20% Energy Loss)"] end ```

The zero-carbon alternative is water electrolysis, which uses electric current to cleave water into hydrogen and oxygen. However, standard commercial electrolysis is notoriously power-hungry, discarding roughly 30% of input renewable electricity as waste heat right at the production facility, leaving an efficiency of 70% before the vehicle even moves. Polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysis improves on this, operating around 80% efficiency while enabling modular on-site generation. While laboratory projections expect PEM units to reach 82% to 86% efficiency by 2030, this still lags far behind battery systems, which absorb incoming electrical current at a 99% charging efficiency.

- Steam methane reforming consumes high heat and results in net energy loss relative to the input fossil gas. - Traditional alkaline water electrolysis efficiency: ~70% (30% parasitic loss). - Current PEM electrolysis efficiency: ~80% (20% parasitic loss). - Projected PEM electrolysis efficiency (pre-2030): 82% to 86%. - Direct battery pack electrical acceptance efficiency: ~99%.

---

[05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) Storage Densification, Transport, and Grid Transmission

Beyond synthesis, the physical characteristics of hydrogen create major hurdles during storage and transport. Because ambient hydrogen gas has an exceptionally low volumetric density, it must be mechanically densified to fit inside practical vehicle footprints. Pressurizing hydrogen to 790 atmospheres (roughly 700 bar / 10,000 psi) consumes approximately 13% of the total energy contained in the gas itself. Alternatively, hydrogen can be liquefied cryogenically at -253°C. While cryogenic liquid tanks are significantly lighter than heavy composite high-pressure vessels, hydrogen is harder to condense than any gas besides helium. Chilling, refrigerating, and handling cryogenic liquid sacrifices roughly 40% of the fuel's gross energy value.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Hydrogen Densification and Logistics Energy Penalties accDescr: Flowchart illustrating mechanical compression versus cryogenic liquefaction and delivery losses. RAW["Raw Pure Hydrogen Gas"] --> CHOICE{"Densification Method"}

subgraph Storage["Storage & Densification"] CHOICE -->|Mechanical Compression| COMP["790 atm Pressurization<br>(13% Energy Loss)"] CHOICE -->|Cryogenic Cooling| CRYO["Liquid State at -253°C<br>(40% Energy Loss)"] end

subgraph Transport["Distribution Options"] COMP --> DIST["Logistics Distribution"] CRYO --> DIST DIST -->|Local On-Site Gen| ZERO["Minimal Delivery Loss<br>(Higher Capital Cost)"] DIST -->|Tube Truck / Pipeline| BULK["Long-Distance Haul<br>(10% to 40% Energy Loss)"] end ```

Logistical distribution introduces further penalties. Large centralized production facilities capture economies of scale during generation, but require fleets of tube-trailer trucks or high-pressure pipelines to move the product to pumps, inducing transport losses of 10% to 40%. Conversely, distributed generation at individual gas stations eliminates road transport, but suffers from higher unit production costs due to smaller equipment throughput. By comparison, moving renewable power through the standard United States electrical grid incurs an average transmission loss of only 5%.

Evaluating the system from generation through delivery, McManus lays out the compounding losses:

> “So in the best case scenario for hydrogen, using the most efficient means of production and transport, we lose 20% of energy during PEM electrolysis, and around 13% for compression and storage, amounting to a 33% loss. In other systems, this could be as much as 56%.”

In contrast, charging a battery off the grid up to this exact phase surrenders only about 6% of the primary renewable energy (5% grid transmission loss plus 1% battery storage acceptance loss), giving batteries a 27% to 50% efficiency lead before either vehicle begins driving.

- Hydrogen gas mechanical compression requirement: 790 atmospheres (13% energy loss). - Cryogenic liquefaction requirement: Chilling to -253°C (40% energy loss including machinery). - Long-distance truck and pipeline transport losses: 10% to 40%. - US average electrical grid transmission loss: ~5%. - Well-to-tank total losses: - Hydrogen: 33% (best-case PEM + on-site compression) to 56% (centralized generation + transport). - Battery EV: ~6% total system loss.

---

[08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=528s) Tank-to-Wheel Conversion: Fuel Cells vs. Battery Powertrains

The final stage of the powertrain comparison is the tank-to-wheel efficiency. In a fuel cell electric vehicle, stored compressed hydrogen must be converted back into electricity on demand. This takes place inside a PEM fuel cell stack, which operates as an electrolyzer in reverse: hydrogen gas is fed to the anode, where a precious-metal catalyst splits the molecules into separate protons and electrons. The center polymer membrane permits only the positively charged protons to cross to the cathode, forcing electrons through an external motor circuit to generate electrical work before recombining with oxygen to form water vapor. When operating on high-purity hydrogen, fuel cells max out around 60% conversion efficiency, releasing the remaining 40% of the gas's energy content as waste heat.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Powertrain Inversion and Drive Losses accDescr: Step-by-step conversion chains for fuel cell vehicles and battery electric vehicles. subgraph FCEV_Drive["FCEV Powertrain"] direction TB H2_T["Stored Hydrogen"] --> FC["PEM Fuel Cell Stack<br>(Catalyst Separation)"] FC -->|Heat Waste: ~40%| MOTOR_H["Electric Drive Motor<br>(~60% Net Efficiency)"] end subgraph BEV_Drive["BEV Powertrain"] direction TB AC_IN["Grid AC Power"] --> CHG["Onboard Charger (AC to DC)<br>(92% Efficiency)"] CHG --> BATT["Li-ion Cell Chemistry<br>(90% Round-Trip / Leakage)"] BATT --> INV["Traction Inverter (DC to AC)<br>(90% Efficiency)"] INV --> MOTOR_B["AC Induction Motor<br>(~75% Net Tank-to-Wheel)"] end ```

Battery-powered drivetrains face their own conversion steps. Utility lines deliver alternating current (AC), whereas chemical lithium-ion cells store and discharge direct current (DC). Converting wall power to battery storage requires an onboard vehicle charger; taking a Tesla Model S as the engineering baseline, this charger exhibits a peak efficiency around 92%. In addition, internal chemical resistance and cell leakage mean the battery storage cycle itself is roughly 90% efficient. Finally, because the Model S employs AC induction drive motors, stored DC current must pass through a high-frequency solid-state inverter running at roughly 90% efficiency. Compounding these electrical conversion stages ($0.92 \times 0.90 \times 0.90$) leaves a pure battery electric vehicle with a tank-to-wheel operating efficiency around 75%.

- PEM fuel cell peak electrochemical efficiency: ~60% (balance lost to thermal radiation). - Tesla Model S AC-to-DC onboard charging efficiency: ~92%. - Lithium-ion battery pack energy retention and chemical round-trip efficiency: ~90%. - DC-to-AC traction power inverter efficiency: ~90%. - Net battery tank-to-wheel powertrain efficiency: ~75%.

[10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=613s) Conversion Losses and Motor Efficiencies

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles carry several unavoidable electrical and chemical conversion steps that compound throughout the powertrain. Because water electrolysis requires direct current, alternating current delivered from the grid must first pass through a rectifier, which operates at an efficiency of around 92%. At the other end of the cycle, once the fuel cell consumes the hydrogen onboard the vehicle, it outputs direct current that must be converted back to alternating current via an inverter to run the electric drive motor, operating at roughly 90% efficiency.

When it comes to mechanical propulsion, both battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles utilize electric motors with high efficiency, typically ranging between 90% and 95%. This performance dramatically outclasses legacy combustion technology: petrol-powered internal combustion engines convert only about 20% to 30% of their fuel's chemical energy into mechanical motion. Yet despite matching battery electric cars at the motor stage, hydrogen vehicles suffer from the sheer accumulation of intermediate conversion steps.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Powertrain Efficiency Flow accDescr: Step-by-step conversion stages from grid AC power through electrolysis, onboard storage, inverter conversion, and electric drive motor. subgraph GridToFuel ["Production Stage"] A["Grid AC Power"] -->|"Rectifier (92%)"| B["DC Electrolysis"] B --> C["H2 Storage"] end subgraph Onboard ["Vehicle Powertrain"] C --> D["Fuel Cell (DC Output)"] D -->|"Inverter (90%)"| E["AC Motor (90-95%)"] end ```

- Grid AC to DC rectifier efficiency for electrolysis: 92% - Onboard DC to AC inverter efficiency for motor drive: 90% - Electric motor efficiency (both BEV and FCEV): 90–95% - Conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) petrol efficiency: 20–30%

[10:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=652s) Battery Electric vs. Hydrogen: The Verdict on Cost and Efficiency

Compounding the full chain of conversion losses demonstrates a staggering gap between current generation batteries and hydrogen systems. Even when evaluating an idealized best-case scenario—assuming local, on-site hydrogen generation with zero transport losses, alongside optimistic 80% efficiency ratings for both electrolysis and the fuel cell stack—hydrogen retains less than half the total efficiency of a battery system. The worst-case scenario falls far lower. Consequently, although a single hydrogen tank might offer longer continuous driving range than an electric car on a single charge, delivering that energy incurs an enormous economic penalty. Brian McManus notes: “So while you may be able to go further on one fill-up of hydrogen in your fuel cell vehicle over a battery powered electric vehicle, the cost that is needed to deliver that one fill up would be astronomically higher compared to charging batteries due to these energy losses and efficiencies.”

Based purely on worst-case energy losses, hydrogen fuel was modeled to cost approximately 3.5 times as much per kilometer as battery charging, yet empirical market rates showed it sitting closer to eight times the price. This real-world discrepancy arises from capital expenditures unrelated to thermal efficiency, such as the steep construction cost of high-pressure fueling stations and retail retail profit margins. As both vehicle classes offer comparable climate benefits when charged or fueled via renewable energy, battery electric platforms are winning the research and investment race. Hydrogen may retain utility for off-grid applications or aviation, but the rapid scaling of charging networks and expanding battery capacities make consumer battery vehicles the practical winner:

> “For now, battery powered electric vehicles seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport.”

- Modeled cost per kilometer based on worst-case energy losses: ~3.5 times higher for hydrogen than battery electric - Real-world measured retail cost per kilometer: ~8 times higher for hydrogen than battery electric - Idealized best-case hydrogen assumptions: 80% electrolysis efficiency, 80% fuel cell efficiency, zero transport loss (still yields less than half the efficiency of battery electric)

[12:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=765s) Skillshare Sponsorship and Channel Redesign

Looking toward the future of transport, Brian McManus connects the rise of electric propulsion to the advent of autonomous driving. With the driving task expected to be automated away, commuters will suddenly regain hours of free time to read, watch media, or acquire new technical capabilities. Skillshare offers a catalog of over 20,000 guided classes spanning programming, electronics, animation, and graphic design, offering structured learning paths without requiring users to curate materials themselves.

Illustrating the direct practical value of design tools, McManus reveals an honest behind-the-scenes look at the channel’s recent performance. Over the preceding two months, viewership had slumped despite increasing production budgets and effort. The team analyzed their branding and realized that while the signature blueprint aesthetic was recognizable, the thumbnails looked so uniform that subscribers failed to notice when a new video had been released. Using Photoshop, they redesigned the visual language to incorporate a dynamic split showing a concept transitioning from blueprint lines into a photorealistic render. The tactical change produced immediate results: viewership on the subsequent release jumped 80% above their two-month rolling average. Brian concludes by encouraging viewers to take advantage of two free months of Skillshare Premium before directing them to his social channels and Patreon support page, noting an upcoming Q&A session covering the hydrogen video on his Instagram stories.

> “We saw immediate effects with the views on our last video jumping 80% compared on our 2 month average.”

- Skillshare catalog: over 20,000 classes covering animation, programming, electronics, and digital art - Premium subscription pricing: approximately $10 per month (promotional offer: first 1,000 sign-ups get 2 months free) - Thumbnail overhaul impact: 80% increase in video views relative to the previous 2-month baseline - Creator engagements: Patreon community support and a topic-specific Q&A hosted on Instagram stories

## Notable quotes > [10:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=652s) For now, battery powered electric vehicles seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport. — Brian McManus

> [03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=227s) Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually has less energy than the natural gas that the steam reforming began with. — Brian McManus

## Mentioned Adam Flohr, Brian McManus, Chris Plays Games, Discord, Elon Musk, Facebook, Frejden Jarrett, Graham Haerther, Hank Green, Henning Basma, Instagram, Jason A. Diegmueller, John & Becki Johnston, Kedar Deshpande, Mark Govea, Mike Ridolfi, Nevin Spoljaric, Nissan Leaf, Patreon, Photoshop, Real Engineering, Skillshare, Stephanie Sammann, Tesla, Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model S, Tony Kuchta, Toyota Mirai, Twitter, Vincent Mooney, William Leu, darth patron

## Video description Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: https://skl.sh/realengineering13

Errors: I made an off hand comment about adding efficiencies in the video without thinking. This is obviously incorrect, but the final calculation does in fact multiply the efficiencies.

Credits:

Director: Stephanie Sammann (https://www.stephanie-sammann.com/) Narrator/Co-Director: Brian McManus Animations: Mike Ridolfi (https://www.moboxgraphics.com/) Sound: Graham Haerther (https://haerther.net/)

Get your Real Engineering merch at: https://standard.tv/collections/real-engineering

Editing Laptop: http://amzn.to/2GKXqb7 Camera: http://amzn.to/2oyVNp9 Microphone: http://amzn.to/2HOxVXu

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2825050&ty=h Facebook: http://facebook.com/realengineering1 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brianjamesmcmanus Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebrianmcmanus Discord: https://discord.gg/s8BhkmN

My Patreon Expense Report: https://goo.gl/ZB7kvK

Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Henning Basma, Mark Govea, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Kedar Deshpande

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY)

中文简报

能耗损失致燃料成本差达8倍，丰田燃料电池车落后特斯拉 电解、压缩和燃料电池转换带来的复合能量损失使氢能效率不及电池系统的一半，导致实际加注成本最高飙升至8倍。 尽管氢的能量密度约为锂离子电池的236倍且可在五分钟内完成加注，但其全生命周期的物理转换效率却极低。水电解、机械压缩、运输物流以及燃料电池二次转换带来的复合损耗，导致氢能汽车的“从油井到车轮”综合效率不及纯电动汽车的一半。实际测试表明，驾驶氢燃料电池汽车每公里的花费约为纯电动汽车充电费用的8倍左右。虽然氢能在航空或特殊离网应用领域具有潜力，但对于乘用交通而言，纯电动平台显然是更为合理的选择。 尽管压缩氢气的比能量约为40,000 Wh/kg，远高于锂离子电池单体的167至278 Wh/kg，但全流程转换损耗使得在实际零售对比中，氢燃料汽车每公里的行驶成本约为纯电车的8倍左右。 (1:24) 水电解前期会将20%至30%的输入可再生能源电力作为废热损耗掉，而电池直接充电接收输入电流的效率约为99%。 (3:47) 为了便于车辆使用而增加氢气密度，要么需要机械压缩至790个大气压（消耗其自身能量的13%），要么需要低温冷却至-253°C（损失约40%的能量），相比之下标准电网输电损失仅为5%。 (5:56) 即便在采用现场PEM电解且零运输物流的理想化模型下，氢燃料电池汽车的全部往返效率仍不及纯电动汽车的一半。 (10:52)

Reading summary

While hydrogen offers dramatic advantages in energy density and refueling speed over chemical batteries, Brian McManus of Real Engineering demonstrates that compounding conversion losses across production, storage, and powertrain systems make fuel cell vehicles significantly less efficient and far more expensive to operate than battery electric vehicles. Energy Density Benefits Versus Retail Fuel Costs (1:24) Compressed hydrogen holds a theoretical specific energy of roughly 40,000 Wh/kg, roughly 236 times the 167 to 278 Wh/kg found in production lithium-ion battery cells. This density sidesteps the engineering penalty of weight compounding, where heavier battery packs force automakers to install reinforced chassis components, larger brakes, and higher-torque motors. Fuel cell electric vehicles also match traditional combustion vehicles with refueling times under five minutes, compared to more than three hours for a full charge on a long-range battery electric vehicle like a Tesla Model S. However, this physical advantage collapses at the pump. Fully charging a 75 kWh Tesla Model 3 for an EPA-rated range of 500 kilometers costs roughly $10 to $12, or 2.0 to 2.4 cents per kilometer. In contrast, McManus observed an on-site hydrogen generation station dispensing fuel to a Toyota Mirai at $85 for a 5 kg tank providing 480 kilometers of range. At 17.7 cents per kilometer, the real-world fuel cost of hydrogen proved eight times higher than charging a battery EV. Upstream Inefficiencies in Hydrogen Generation (3:47) The economic disparity begins with primary fuel synthesis. Most industrial hydrogen in the United States is extracted via steam methane reforming, a fossil-fuel-driven process that releases greenhouse gases and yields less energy than the input methane began with. Zero-carbon hydrogen relies on water electrolysis, but commercial alkaline systems operate at roughly 70% efficiency, losing 30% of input renewable power as waste heat. Polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers improve this to about 80%, with projections targeting 82% to 86% by 2030. In comparison, chemical lithium-ion battery packs exhibit an electrical acceptance efficiency of approximately 99%. Storage Densification and Transport Losses (5:56) Because hydrogen gas has a very low volumetric density, preparing it for distribution consumes significant energy. Pressurizing hydrogen to 790 atmospheres consumes about 13% of the gas's energy content, while cryogenic liquefaction at -253°C sacrifices roughly 40%. Centralized production models face further logistical losses of 10% to 40% when trucking or piping gas to retail stations, whereas on-site station generation avoids transport losses but forfeits economies of scale. By contrast, standard electrical grid transmission in the United States incurs an average loss of only 5%. McManus notes that in a best-case hydrogen scenario using PEM electrolysis and on-site compression, 33% of input renewable energy is lost before reaching the vehicle, rising to 56% in less efficient setups. A battery electric vehicle loses only about 6% of its energy across the same well-to-tank phase. Tank-to-Wheel Conversion and Compounding Inefficiencies (8:48) Within the vehicle, fuel cell conversion introduces another major bottleneck. PEM fuel cells split hydrogen molecules across a precious-metal catalyst to generate electricity at a peak electrochemical efficiency of about 60%, emitting the remaining 40% as heat. Onboard power electronics require a DC-to-AC inverter running at roughly 90% efficiency to supply the electric drive motor. While battery electric drivetrains also incur losses across their onboard charger (92%), internal cell retention (90%), and traction inverter (90%), their net tank-to-wheel efficiency reaches approximately 75%. Both vehicle types use electric motors operating between 90% and 95% efficiency, far exceeding internal combustion engines at 20% to 30%. Yet because hydrogen incurs heavy thermodynamic losses at every preceding stage, even an idealized best-case hydrogen system delivers less than half the total system efficiency of a battery platform. Modeling worst-case energy losses produces fuel costs 3.5 times higher than battery charging, with actual retail rates reaching eight times higher due to station capital expenditures. McManus concludes that while hydrogen may retain practical utility for weight-sensitive sectors like aviation or off-grid storage, the scaling of charging networks and expanding pack capacities cement battery electric vehicles as the sensible, cost-effective choice for consumer passenger transportation.

精炼阅读摘要

Brian McManus在《Real Engineering》节目中指出，尽管压缩氢气具备极高的质量能量密度与快速加注能力，但由于制氢、储运及车载发电全流程中存在巨大的复合能量损耗，氢燃料电池车在能源转换效率与每公里行驶成本上显著落后于电池纯电动车，难以在常规乘用车市场成为主流替代方案。 能量密度优势背后的实际使用成本差距 (1:24) 在物理指标上，压缩氢气展现出极为优异的燃料特性，其比能量约为40,000 Wh/kg，而主流生产型锂离子电池组仅有约167至278 Wh/kg。这意味着压缩氢气的单位质量能量约为电池的236倍，能够让车辆免受电池车严重的“重量累加效应”（weight compounding）拖累——在电池架构下，每增加一公斤电池就需要强化底盘、制动及驱动电机，从而被迫装载更多电池来驱动自重。此外，氢燃料电池车加注仅需5分钟以内，远快于特斯拉Model S等长续航纯电车动辄3小时以上的常规充满时间。 然而，当核算全生命周期的能源成本时，两者的经济性表现出现剧烈反转。搭载75 kWh电池的特斯拉Model 3行驶500公里仅需10至12美元电费，折合每公里成本约2.0至2.4美分。McManus实地探访采用非谷电制氢的现场加氢站发现，为丰田Mirai加注5公斤氢气需耗费85美元，其480公里续航折合每公里成本高达17.7美分。氢燃料电池车的实际每公里行驶成本达到了纯电动的近8倍，打破了单纯物理能量密度带来的优越性。 制备与储运环节中严重的热力学损耗 (3:47) 氢气昂贵的经济成本直接根源于上游复杂的转换物理学。地球上缺乏游离单质氢，美国工业界绝大部分氢气通过天然气蒸汽重整（SMR）制取。McManus强调，SMR不仅会产生碳排放，且制得氢气所含能量甚至低于初始天然气的化学能，无法作为清洁长远基石。若改用零碳的电解水技术，传统碱性电解效率仅为70%（产生30%寄生损耗），质子交换膜（PEM）电解效率约为80%（预计2030年前达到82%至86%），而锂电池的充电接纳效率高达99%。 储运物流进一步放大了氢能的系统损耗。常温常压氢气体积密度极低，机械压缩至790个大气压需耗费气体自身13%的能量；若采取深冷液化至-253°C，降温与维护设备更会直接损耗约40%的总能量。长距离管束车或管道输送还会附带10%到40%的配送损失。相比之下，美国电网的平均输电损耗仅约5%。从“油井到油箱”（Well-to-Tank），氢气在最佳路径下（PEM电解结合现场压缩）损耗为33%，在集中式制运网络中损耗可达56%，而电网充入电池的综合损耗仅约6%。 多重动力转化造成的综合能效劣势 (8:48) 在从储能到车轮驱动的“油箱到车轮”（Tank-to-Wheel）终端环节，能量损耗继续在氢燃料电池车上层叠累积。电解水前端需要整流器将电网交流电转为直流电（效率约92%），而在车辆端，PEM燃料电池电催化分离质子与电子将氢转化为电能的最大效率仅约60%，剩余40%以废热形式散失，随后该直流电还需经车载逆变器（效率约90%）转换为交流电供给交流感应电机。尽管两类车型采用的驱动电机效率相当（均在90%至95%之间，大幅优于仅有20%至30%热效率的内燃机），但氢能系统中间转化步骤过多导致了严重的能量衰减。 在纯电动车方面，以特斯拉Model S为例，车载充电机交直流转换效率约为92%，锂电池充放电与漏电损耗约10%（往返效率90%），直流变交流牵引逆变器效率约为90%，系统最终端到端动力总成效率保持在75%左右。综合全链条测算，即便在最理想的假定下（现场零运输损耗制氢、电解与燃料电池效率双双达到80%），氢能系统的综合效率依然不到电池纯电系统的一半。仅能量损耗模型推算氢气行驶成本便应是电动的3.5倍，叠加高昂的高压加氢站投资建设摊销及运营利润后，最终体现为近8倍的终端价格壁垒。 面对电动化浪潮，产业与政策呈现鲜明分歧：Elon Musk直斥氢燃料电池是车企的宣传噱头与“极其愚蠢”的技术，而日本政府则积极推进“氢能社会”战略，曾设定在2021年3月前部署160座加氢站与4万辆燃料电池车。尽管氢能在偏远离网设施或航空等极度依赖高能量密度载体的领域仍可能具备应用潜力，但由于能量全链条损失过大、补能网络建设成本昂贵，随着充电基建与电池容量的快速迭代，锂电池纯电动车已被证明是现阶段实现乘用车无污染消费运输更务实、更具经济可行性的路线。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本内容由 YouTube 科普工程频道 Real Engineering 于 2018 年 7 月 27 日发布。视频深入探讨了氢燃料电池与锂离子动力电池的技术路线之争，频道简介中除提供赞助商链接外，还坦诚更正了视频口播中关于效率相乘的口误细节。 ## TL;DR 视频全面对比了纯电动汽车（BEV）与氢燃料电池汽车（FCEV）在能量转换与实际应用上的优劣。虽然压缩氢气在比能量和加注速度上远胜锂电池，并能避开电动车因续航而陷入的“重量复利”困境，但全生命周期的综合效率却极其低下。从电解水制氢、高压压缩、长途储运到车载电化学逆转换，氢能链条的能量损耗层层叠加，导致其现实使用成本高达纯电动的 8 倍。因此，尽管燃料电池在航空与离网场景中仍有潜力，但在乘用车消费市场，纯电动电池技术仍然是目前更合理可行的清洁出行方案。 ## Atmosphere & style 整期视频呈现出严谨、客观且极具说服力的硬核工程科普风格，主持人的叙事冷静清晰、逻辑层层推进。从开篇引人入胜的纸面参数反差，到逐步剖析全流程“Well-to-Wheel”的能量折损，观感如同在黑板前拆解一道复杂的系统工程账本。后半段更是自然过渡到频道视觉改版的幕后心得，平实亲切地分享了团队如何通过设计优化突破数据低谷的真实经历。 ## Bulletin - [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) 压缩氢气的比能量高达约 40,000 Wh/kg，是常规锂离子电池的 236 倍，使氢燃料电池车摆脱了电池增重带来的恶性循环，且加氢时间不足 5 分钟。 - [02:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=166s) 实际使用中丰田 Mirai 的每公里补能成本高达 17.7 美分，是特斯拉 Model 3（2.0-2.4 美分/km）的约 8 倍，主要原因在于高昂的制氢、压缩储运能耗以及加氢基础设施建设成本。 - [10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=613s) 即便利基在站内就地电解制氢的最理想情景下，氢能全链条综合能量利用效率仍不及动力电池纯电动车的一半。 - [11:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=679s) 受限于低下的电能转化效率与庞大的加氢网络改造成本，氢燃料电池更适合用于离网独立供能或对能量密度极度敏感的民用航空领域，而非大众乘用消费车。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=0s) 全球脱碳背景下，零排放汽车动力路线分裂为特斯拉代表的动力电池阵营与日本政府大力推进的氢燃料电池阵营。 - [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) 压缩氢气比能量约为 40,000 Wh/kg，远超主流锂电池的 167-278 Wh/kg，能彻底避免纯电车因电池自重导致的“重量复利”续航恶性循环。 - [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) 补能速度上，氢能车单次加注仅需不到 5 分钟，而同等级纯电动车充满电需耗费数小时以上。 - [02:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=166s) 氢气并非一次能源，工业主流的天然气蒸汽重整法能耗极高且伴随碳排放，背离了清洁能源初衷。 - [02:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=166s) 电解水制氢的初始电能损失达 20% 至 30%，远逊于锂电池高达 99% 的充电库仑效率。 - [05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) 氢气储运难度极大，高压压缩至 790 个大气压需耗费其自身 13% 的能量，低温液化损失甚至高达 40%，长途输送还会额外产生 10% 到 40% 的损耗。 - [05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) 从能源输入到进入车辆储存（Well-to-Tank），氢能系统最少损耗 33%，而非理想状态损耗高达 56%，相比之下纯电车电网与充电损耗仅约 6%。 - [08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=528s) 在车载转化（Tank-to-Wheel）环节中，PEM 燃料电池的发电效率最高仅 60% 左右，其余大部分作为废热耗散。 - [08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=528s) 纯电动车从电网端交直流整流、逆变到电池循环，全流程电气转换效率约为 75%，交流驱动电机效率则可达 90% 至 95%。 - [10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=613s) 经全链条各环节效率相乘计算，即便利基在最理想假设下，氢燃料电池的端到端系统效率仍不及动力电池路线的一半。 - [11:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=679s) 加氢站高昂的建设维护成本和零售利润诉求，使现实中氢能车补能花费达到纯电车的 8 倍，超出单纯物理损耗推算的 3.5 倍差距。 - [11:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=679s) 随着电池快充和续航技术快速演进，氢能在乘用车市场的核心优势正被抹平，其未来更适合于航空交通或离网独立作业等高门槛场景。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=0s) 电动汽车的两种路线：燃料电池与动力电池之争 随着全球积极摆脱化石燃料在能源结构中的主导地位，电动汽车在过去几年迎来了爆发式增长。仅在去年，全球电动汽车销量就突破了 100 万辆；如今在世界各地道路上行驶的日产 Leaf、特斯拉等各类电动车总量已超过 300 万辆。尽管市场上品牌繁多，但在驱动电动机的核心技术上，实质上只有两种选择：燃料电池（Fuel Cells）或动力电池（Batteries）。这两者都能消除传统内燃机的污染与低效问题，而且制氢所需的电力与电池充电所需的电力均可来自太阳能、风能等低碳或零碳可再生能源。 围绕这两种技术的前景，业内爆发了极其激烈的论战。特斯拉首席执行官 Elon Musk 对氢燃料电池技术不屑一顾，直言其为营销噱头，主持人 Brian McManus 引用他的原话： > “Elon Musk has called hydrogen fuel cell technology ‘incredibly dumb,’ claiming they’re more of a marketing ploy for automakers than a long-term solution.” 与此同时，日本政府却坚定地下注氢能，宣布要打造全球首个“氢能社会”。日本政府正与本土汽车工业深度联手，目标是在 2021 年 3 月前建成 160 座加氢站，并推动 40,000 辆燃料电池汽车上路。 ### [01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=84s) 能量密度与补能速度：氢能的表面优势 乍看之下，氢能似乎是驱动车辆极其精妙的解决方案。压缩氢气的比能量（即单位质量的能量）高达近 40,000 Wh/kg。相比之下，主流锂离子电池的比能量通常仅在 167 Wh/kg 左右，即便达到顶尖水准也不过 278 Wh/kg。这意味着压缩氢气的单位质量能量是锂离子电池的 236 倍之多。极高的能量密度和轻量化特性，使得氢燃料电池汽车可以在不大幅增加车重的前提下实现长续航，这完美避开了航空工业整合电气化技术时面临的重大瓶颈。 纯电动汽车设计师则始终深陷在能量密度与续航里程的“第二十二条军规”（Catch-22）恶性循环中：为了增加续航，就必须增加电池重量；多出来的电池重量迫使车辆必须采用更重的基础结构、更厚重的制动系统、更大扭矩的电机；而为了搬运这些额外的死重，车辆又不得不搭载更多电池。这种“重量复利”（weight compounding）极大地限制了纯电动汽车的续航上限。氢燃料电池车则完全没有这种重量叠加困扰。此外，在补能体验上，氢燃料电池车加满气仅需不到 5 分钟，而像特斯拉 Model S 这样的纯电动车完全充满电通常需要超过 3 个小时。从纸面参数、续航与补能速度来看，氢能无疑是绝对的赢家。 - **压缩氢气比能量**：约 40,000 Wh/kg - **锂离子电池比能量**：常规约 167 Wh/kg，最优可达 278 Wh/kg（氢气为其 236 倍） - **补能时长对比**：加氢小于 5 分钟 vs 特斯拉 Model S 充满需 3 小时以上 ### [02:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=166s) 悬殊的使用成本与氢气的制备困境 然而，一旦将考察范围拉长到端到端的能量生产与转化全过程，氢能的优势便开始崩塌。尽管动力电池和氢燃料电池本质上都是电能储存的形式，但它们的使用成本存在天壤之别。 以配备 75 kWh 电池的特斯拉 Model 3 为例，充满一次电的花费根据居住地电价不同，仅需 10 至 12 美元。按照其 500 公里的标称续航计算，每公里行驶成本大约只有 2 至 2.4 美分。而在 Brian McManus 曾实地探访的一座设有现场制氢设施的加油站中，站方利用低谷电价现场制氢，为丰田 Mirai 加满 5 千克氢气罐却需要花费 85 美元；该车续航里程为 480 公里，折合每公里成本高达 17.7 美分——足足是纯电动汽车的 8 倍。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 每公里行驶成本对比 accDescr: 对比特斯拉 Model 3 与丰田 Mirai 的百公里/每公里能源成本差异 subgraph BEV["电池纯电动 (Tesla Model 3)"] A["75 kWh 电池"] --> B["电费: $10 - $12"] B --> C["续航: 500 km"] C --> D["成本: 2.0 - 2.4 美分/km"] end subgraph FCEV["氢燃料电池 (Toyota Mirai)"] E["5 kg 储氢罐"] --> F["加氢花费: $85"] F --> G["续航: 480 km"] G --> H["成本: 17.7 美分/km (约8倍)"] end ``` 这种巨大成本差距的核心症结在于：氢气需要消耗巨大的能量才能生产出来。氢虽然是宇宙中储量最丰富的元素，但它并非可以直接开采的初级能源，而是牢牢锁定在水、碳氢化合物（如甲烷）及其他有机物中。 在美国，绝大多数工业氢气是通过“蒸汽重整”（Steam Reforming）生产的，即通过高温蒸汽与天然气结合提取氢气。这种工业主流工艺需要巨大的热能，极其低效，最终产出氢气所蕴含的能量甚至低于初始投入的天然气能量；更严重的是，该过程会排放大量温室气体，违背了零碳排放的初衷。 另一种低碳方式是利用电流分解水的“电解水制氢”（Electrolysis）。尽管电解所需的电能可以来自可再生能源，但它需要比蒸汽重整更多的能量输入。传统电解水过程中，初始可再生能源电力的 30% 会直接损失掉，在车辆甚至还没启动前，其能源效率就已经跌至 70%。若采用稍微先进的质子交换膜（PEM）电解技术，制氢效率可提升至 80% 左右（专家预计到 2030 年前有望提升至 82%-86%），但这仍意味着初始电能有 20% 白白损耗，根本无法与电池高达 99% 的充电库仑效率相提并论。 ### [05:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=356s) 储运难题与全流程能量损耗（Well-to-Tank） 制备出氢气后，接下来的严峻挑战是纯氢的储存与运输。即便在加氢站就地生产以消除一部分运输能耗，储存本身的能耗和成本同样十分棘手。由于氢气无论在气态还是液态下密度都极低，必须通过人为手段提高其密度以满足车载体积要求： 1. **高压压缩**：将其压缩到 790 个大气压，这需要消耗相当于氢气自身总能量 13% 的电力； 2. **低温液化**：将温度降至 -253°C 使其液化。液氢低温储罐比高压气罐更轻，但由于物理特性的限制，氢是除氦气外最难液化的气体。加上制冷系统运转及设备增重的能耗，液化过程的效率损失高达 40%。 因此，压缩是更现实的选择（能量损失约 13%）。但在更广泛的基础设施落地前，氢气还必须从工厂运往终端。集中式大型制氢厂虽有规模效应，但远距离运送成本和能耗高昂；分布式现场制氢省去了运费，却因规模小而推高了单位制备成本。若通过卡车或管道长途输送氢气，运输途中的能耗损失在 10% 到 40% 不等。 反观纯电动汽车，可再生电力在电网传输中的平均网损（以美国电网为例）仅为 5% 左右。做个横向汇总：在最理想的氢能情景下（现场 PEM 电解损失 20% + 高压压缩储存损失 13%），累计损失已达 33%，其他非理想系统损耗甚至高达 56%；而纯电动汽车在送达车辆端时，电网与充电损耗总计仅约 6%。两者的系统效率差距在车辆启动前就已经拉开了 27% 到 50%。 ### [08:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=528s) 车载转化效率与电池系统损耗（Tank-to-Wheel） 车辆获得能源后，进入了“从油箱/电池到车轮”（Tank-to-Wheel）的转换阶段。对于氢燃料电池车，储存在罐中的氢气必须在车载燃料电池中重新转化为电能。PEM 燃料电池的工作机制本质上是 PEM 电解槽的逆向反应：氢气流经阳极通道，在催化剂作用下分解为质子和电子；质子穿过电解质薄膜，而电子被迫经由外电路流向阴极，形成驱动电动机的电流。即便使用纯氢驱动，燃料电池的电能转化效率最高也仅在 60% 左右，其余大部分能量都以废热形式散失。 纯电动汽车从电池到电机的转化同样伴随机械与电气损耗： - **交直流转换（充电端）**：电网输出交流电（AC），电池储存直流电（DC），车载充电机负责整流。以特斯拉 Model S 为例，其充电机峰值转换效率约为 92%。 - **直流交流转换（驱动端）**：Model S 搭载交流感应电机，行驶时必须通过逆变器将电池的直流电逆变为交流电，逆变器效率约为 90%。 - **电池本体损耗**：锂离子电池自身存在漏电及内阻损耗，充放电循环效率约为 90%。 综合这三项电气转换环节，纯电动汽车从充入电网电能到最终驱动电机的综合效率大约在 75% 左右。 ### [10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=613s) 氢燃料电池与纯电动车的全链条效率对比 氢燃料电池汽车在能量转换路径上也存在诸多固有损耗。任何形式的电解水制氢都需要直流电（DC），因此必须使用整流器将电网传输的交流电（AC）转化为直流电，该环节的转换效率约为 92%。不仅如此，燃料电池反应生成的也是直流电，必须通过逆变器将其重新逆变为交流电以驱动电机，此处的逆变效率约为 90%。最终，驱动电机的效率在燃料电池车和电池纯电动车之间基本一致，目前两者都能达到 90% 到 95% 之间。相比汽油内燃机仅有 20% 至 30% 左右的极低热效率，电驱动系统的动力表现无疑极其惊人。 然而，将整个生命链条的所有环节层层相乘后，当前一代电池技术与氢能路线的差距便暴露无遗。即便在最理想的氢能情景下——假设氢气完全在加氢站现场制备从而免去运输损耗，同时给电解水赋予高达 80% 的理论效率、给燃料电池也赋予高达 80% 的工作效率——氢能全流程的综合能量利用效率依然不及纯电动车的一半。若采用最糟糕的实际应用情景，氢能的表现还要更加惨淡。Brian McManus 针锋相对地指出：“So while you may be able to go further on one fill-up of hydrogen in your fuel cell vehicle over a battery powered electric vehicle, the cost that is needed to deliver that one fill up would be astronomically higher compared to charging batteries due to these energy losses and efficiencies.” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 纯电动汽车与氢燃料电池汽车能量转换链条对比 accDescr: 对比电网电能转化为车辆驱动动力的两条路径及其效率损耗 subgraph BEV["纯电动汽车路径 (BEV)"] Grid1["电网电能"] --> Charger["车载充电机 / 充电桩"] Charger --> Batt["车载动力电池"] Batt --> Motor1["交流驱动电机 (90-95%)"] end subgraph FCEV["氢燃料电池路径 (FCEV)"] Grid2["电网电能"] --> Rectifier["整流器 AC-DC (92%)"] Rectifier --> Hydro["电解水制氢 (约80%)"] Hydro --> Storage["储运与压缩"] Storage --> FuelCell["车载燃料电池 (约80%)"] FuelCell --> Inverter["逆变器 DC-AC (90%)"] Inverter --> Motor2["交流驱动电机 (90-95%)"] end ``` - 电网交流电转电解槽直流电整流效率：92% - 燃料电池直流电转电机交流电逆变效率：90% - 两类车型采用的交流电机工作效率：90% - 95% - 传统汽油内燃机热效率基准：20% - 30% - 氢能最佳模型假定：站内就地制氢（无运输环节）、电解效率 80%、燃料电池效率 80% - 综合效率结果：即便在最乐观的理论假设下，氢能的全链条效率仍不足动力电池的一半 --- ### [11:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=679s) 运行成本与市场前景：氢能车为何难以战胜纯电动？ 综合能耗链条的断崖式跌落直接反映在消费者的使用成本上。单从系统能量损耗的最坏情景推算，氢燃料电池车每公里的用能成本应当约为纯电动车的 3.5 倍；但在现实中，加注氢气的实际价格却是充电费用的 8 倍之多。这表明在单纯的物理效率损耗之外，还有沉重的外部附加成本在起作用，其中包括加氢站极端昂贵的建设与维护成本，以及加氢零售网点必须榨取的商业利润空间。正因效率与成本的巨大鸿沟，当前的全球资本和科研力量几乎全面倒向了电池动力纯电动车。 在两者优劣势的全面审视中，若同样采用可再生清洁能源，二者对环境保护的贡献不分伯仲。燃料电池的核心杀手锏在于极快的加注速度和长续航里程，但这一护城河正在被快速追赶——等到社会建立起足够密集的加氢网络使燃料电池车具备现实普及性时，电池纯电动车的续航能力和快充表现很可能早已抹平了差距。燃料电池虽优于内燃机，但在电能利用率上无法同电池抗衡，它们更适合用于远离电网的独立能源作业场景，或者在民航客机等航空领域发挥潜力。Brian McManus 总结道：“For now, battery powered electric vehicles seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport.” - 理论预测差距：按效率最差场景计算，氢能车每公里能耗成本应为纯电车的 3.5 倍左右 - 现实市场差距：实际加氢成本达到给电池充电费用的 8 倍 - 额外成本推手：加氢基础设施的高昂建造成本、站点的商业运营利润加成 - 燃料电池的核心优势：补能速度极快、单次加注续航里程更长 - 潜在更优应用领域：离网式离岸独立作业系统、高能量密度需求的氢动力民航飞机 --- ### [12:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=765s) 自动化时代的技能学习与频道幕后演变 随着电动汽车在市场中的渗透率持续攀升，自动驾驶技术的普及也在同步推进。当驾驶任务逐步被自动化系统接管，消费者将拥有大量解放出来的闲暇时间去阅读或浏览在线视频，而将这些时间用于投资新技能便成为极具价值的选择。对于 Real Engineering 频道本身而言，设计类软件的学习就曾发挥过生死攸关的作用。 Brian McManus 分享了团队近期遭遇的一段频道危机：在过去两个月里，尽管团队付出了巨大的精力提升视频制作水准，频道的播放量却出现了持续下滑的反常趋势。团队被迫反思整体的视觉品牌定位，并意识到长期使用的“工程蓝图”封面虽然具有极高的个人识别度，但由于每一期样式过于雷同，观众很难一眼辨认出这是否是一期新发布的视频。为此，团队利用 Photoshop 将标志性的经典蓝图风格与写实渲染画面相结合，设计出一种“从草图走向现实”的过渡特效。这一改版带来了立竿见影的成果，频道上一期视频的播放量相比前两个月的平均数据暴涨了 80%。McManus 借此鼓励观众在技能学习平台上打磨自己的生产力工具，并宣布将在 Instagram 快拍上就本次视频的氢能议题展开互动答疑。Brian McManus 感慨道：“This is the power of illustration and you can learn how to use software like Photoshop and Illustrator on Skillshare.” - 频道运营波折：此前连续 2 个月即便加大制作成本投入，视频播放量依然呈现下滑趋势 - 封面改版逻辑：保留原有工程蓝图风格的辨识度，引入过渡渲染效果以打破审美疲劳并凸显“设计落地为现实”的主题 - 视觉调整成效：采用新封面后的首个视频播放量比前两个月的平均水平跃升了 80% - 赞助商平台权益：Skillshare 提供超过 20,000 门技能课程，高级会员正常月费约 10 美元，前 1,000 名注册用户可获得 2 个月免费试用期 - 互动结尾：视频完结后在 Instagram 快拍（Stories）针对氢能主题开设专属 Q&A 问答通道 ## Notable quotes > [11:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=679s) For now, battery powered electric vehicles seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport. — Brian McManus ## Mentioned Brian McManus, Elon Musk, Tesla, Tesla Model S, Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf, Toyota Mirai, Skillshare, Photoshop, Illustrator, Real Engineering, Instagram ## Video description Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: https://skl.sh/realengineering13 Errors: I made an off hand comment about adding efficiencies in the video without thinking. This is obviously incorrect, but the final calculation does in fact multiply the efficiencies. Credits: Director: Stephanie Sammann (https://www.stephanie-sammann.com/) Narrator/Co-Director: Brian McManus Animations: Mike Ridolfi (https://www.moboxgraphics.com/) Sound: Graham Haerther (https://haerther.net/) Get your Real Engineering merch at: https://standard.tv/collections/real-engineering Editing Laptop: http://amzn.to/2GKXqb7 Camera: http://amzn.to/2oyVNp9 Microphone: http://amzn.to/2HOxVXu Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2825050&ty=h Facebook: http://facebook.com/realengineering1 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brianjamesmcmanus Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebrianmcmanus Discord: https://discord.gg/s8BhkmN My Patreon Expense Report: https://goo.gl/ZB7kvK Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Henning Basma, Mark Govea, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Kedar Deshpande [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY)

Source quotes

[11:19] Brian McManus: For now, battery powered electric vehicles seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport.

Source quotes

[10:52] Brian McManus: For now, battery powered electric vehicles seem to be the sensible choice going forward in the quest for pollution free consumer transport. [3:47] Brian McManus: Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually has less energy than the natural gas that the steam reforming began with.

Original transcript

[0:00] This episode of Real Engineering is brought to you by Skillshare, home to over twenty [0:04] thousand classes that could teach you a new life skill. [0:07] As the world grapples to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy diet, electric cars [0:12] have seen an incredible boom over the past few years. [0:15] Last year, over one million electric cars were sold around the world. [0:19] The number of Nissan Leafs, Teslas, and other electric vehicles in circulation worldwide [0:24] is now more than three million. [0:26] And while there are many brands of electric car to choose from, there are only two choices [0:30] when it comes to powering electric vehicles: fuel cells or batteries. [0:34] Both produce electricity to drive electric motors, eliminating the pollution and inefficiencies [0:39] of the fossil fuel powered internal combustion engine. [0:42] Both hydrogen and electricity for batteries can be produced from low­ or zero ­carbon [0:46] sources, including renewable energy like solar and wind, and therefore both are being pursued [0:51] by car manufacturers and researchers as the possible future of electric vehicles. [0:55] However, a great debate is being waged by supporters of each technology. [0:59] Elon Musk has called hydrogen fuel cell technology “incredibly dumb,” claiming they’re [1:04] more of a marketing ploy for automakers than a long-term solution. [1:08] In contrast, Japan has announced its intention to become the world's first hydrogen society, [1:13] with the Japanese government and the auto industry working together to introduce 160 [1:18] hydrogen stations and 40,000 fuel-cell vehicles by March 2021. [1:22] So which is actually better? [1:24] At first glance, hydrogen seems like an extremely clever way to power a car. [1:29] Compressed hydrogen has a specific energy (aka energy per unit mass) of neary 40,000 [1:32] watt hours per kilogram. [1:34] Lithium ion batteries at best have a specific energy of just 278 wh/kg, but most fall around [1:41] 167 wh / kg. [1:42] That's 236 times as much energy per kg for hydrogen. [1:46] And because of its energy density and lightweight nature, compressed hydrogen and fuel cells [1:51] can power cars for extended ranges without adding much weight, which as we saw in our [1:55] last video is a gigantic road block for incorporating the technology into the aviation industry. [2:02] The designers of electric vehicles are caught in a catch 22 with energy density and range. [2:07] Each extra kilogram of battery weight to increase range requires extra structural weight, heavier [2:12] brakes, a higher torque motor, and in turn more batteries to carry around this extra [2:17] mass, This weight compounding limits how far a battery powered vehicle can travel, until [2:22] new technology can help reduce the weight of the batteries. [2:25] For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, this weight compounding is not an issue. [2:29] Additionally, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle can be refueled in under 5 minutes, where [2:33] a battery powered electric vehicle, like the Tesla model S, takes over 3 hours to fully [2:38] recharge. [2:39] When looking at the range and refuel times hydrogen can offer, you can see why some car [2:43] manufacturers are investing in this technology. [2:46] On the face of it. [2:47] Hydrogen is a clear winner, but it falls behind when we start considering the end-to-end production [2:52] process. [2:53] While both batteries and hydrogen fuel cells are both forms of electricity storage, the [2:57] cost differ drastically. [2:59] Fully charging a Tesla Model 3 with a 75 kiloWatt hour battery, costs between 10-12 dollars [3:05] depending where you live. [3:07] With a rated range of 500 kilometers, that’s between 2 and 2.4 cent per kilometer. [3:12] A great price. [3:13] In a previous video, I visited a petrol station that introduced a hydrogen pump, fed by its [3:18] own on-site production facility. [3:20] which used off-peak electricity to produce hydrogen. [3:23] The hydrogen from this station cost $85 dollars to fill the 5 kg tank of the Toyota Mirais [3:29] on site, which had a range of 480 kms. [3:32] That’s 17.7 cent per kilometer, 8 times the price. [3:36] And here lies the problem, Hydrogen simply requires more energy to produce. [3:41] To understand the economic viability of hydrogen let’s dig deeper into the production process. [3:47] Before any hydrogen vehicle can hit the road, you first need to produce the hydrogen, but [3:51] hydrogen is not a readily available energy source. [3:54] Even though hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it is usually stored [3:58] in water, hydrocarbons, such as methane, and other organic matter. [4:02] One of the challenges of using hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism comes from being [4:07] able to efficiently extract it from these compounds. [4:10] In the US, the majority of hydrogen is produced through a process called steam reforming. [4:15] Steam reforming is the process of combining high-temperature steam with natural gas to [4:19] extract hydrogen. [4:21] While steam reforming is the most common method of industrial hydrogen production, it requires [4:25] a good deal of heat and is wildly inefficient. [4:29] Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually has less energy than the natural gas that [4:34] the steam reforming began with. [4:36] And while hydrogen fuel cells themselves don’t produce pollution, this process does. [4:41] So if we want to assume a future scenario with as little carbon emission as possible, [4:45] this method won’t cut it. [4:47] Another method to produce hydrogen is electrolysis - separating the hydrogen out of water using [4:52] an electric current. [4:53] While the electricity needed for this process can be provided from renewable sources, it [4:58] requires even more energy input than steam reforming. [5:01] You end up losing 30% of the energy from the original energy put in from the renewables [5:07] when you carry out electrolysis. [5:09] So we are sitting at 70% energy efficiency from hydrogen fuel cells if traditional electrolysis [5:15] is used, before the car even starts its engine. [5:18] A slightly more efficient method of producing hydrogen is polymer exchange membrane electrolysis. [5:24] Using this method, energy efficiencies can reach up to 80%, with the added benefit of [5:28] being produced on site, which we will get to in a moment. [5:32] But this is still a 20% loss of energy from the original electricity from the renewables. [5:37] Some experts say the efficiency of PEM electrolysis is expected to reach 82-86% before 2030, which [5:44] is a great improvement, but still well short of batteries charging efficiency at 99%. [5:48] [1] A 19% difference in production costs doesn’t explain the difference in costs yet, so where [5:54] else are we losing energy. [5:56] The next hurdle in getting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road is the transport and [6:00] storage of the pure hydrogen. [6:02] If we assume the hydrogen is produced on site, like it was for this petrol station, then [6:06] we eliminate one energy sink, but the cost of storage is just as problematic. [6:11] Hydrogen is extremely low density as a gas and liquid, and so in order to achieve adequate [6:16] energy density, we have to increase its actual density. [6:20] We can do this in two ways. [6:21] We can compress the hydrogen to 790 times atmospheric pressure, but that takes energy, [6:27] about 13% of the total energy content of the hydrogen itself. [6:32] Alternatively we can turn hydrogen into liquid, cryogenically. [6:36] The advantage of hydrogen liquefaction is that a cryogenic hydrogen tank is much lighter [6:40] than a tank that can hold pressurized hydrogen. [6:43] But again, hydrogen's physical properties means hydrogen is harder to liquefy than any [6:47] other gas except helium. [6:49] Hydrogen is liquified by reducing its temperature to -253°C, with an efficiency loss of 40%, [6:57] once you factor in the added weight of the refrigerators and the refrigeration itself. [7:01] So pressurisation is a better option at a 13% energy loss. [7:06] Once the hydrogen is produced and compressed to a liquid or gas, a viable hydrogen infrastructure [7:11] requires that hydrogen be able to be delivered from where it's produced to the point of end-use, [7:16] such as a vehicle refueling station. [7:18] Where the hydrogen is produced can have a big impact on the cost and best method of [7:23] delivery. [7:24] For example, a large, centrally located hydrogen production facility can produce hydrogen at [7:28] a lower cost because it is producing more, but it costs more to deliver the hydrogen [7:33] because the point of use is farther away. [7:35] In comparison, distributed production facilities produce hydrogen on site so delivery costs [7:40] are relatively low, but the cost to produce the hydrogen is likely to be higher because [7:45] production volumes are less. [7:47] While there are some small-scale, on-site hydrogen production facilities being installed [7:51] at refuelling pumps, such as the station mentioned in the last hydrogen video. [7:56] until this infrastructure is widespread, we have to assume that the majority of hydrogen [8:00] is being transported by truck or pipeline, where we know that energy losses can range [8:04] from 10% up to 40%. [8:07] In comparison, assuming that the electricity that we use for charging the batteries comes [8:11] completely from renewable resources (like solar or wind), we just have to consider the [8:14] transmission losses in the grid. [8:16] Using the United States grid as a reference for typical grid losses, the average loss [8:20] is only 5%. [8:22] So in the best case scenario for hydrogen, using the most efficient means of production [8:26] and transport, we lose 20% of energy during PEM electrolysis, and around 13% for compression [8:32] and storage, amounting to a 33% loss. [8:35] In other systems, this could be as much as 56%. [8:38] For battery power, up to this point, we have lost just 6% to the grid and recharging. [8:43] Bringing our best case efficiency difference to 27% and our worst case to 50%. [8:48] The next stage of powering electric vehicles is what is called the tank to wheel conversion [8:52] efficiency. [8:53] For hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, once the hydrogen is in the tank, it must be re-converted [8:57] into electric power. [8:59] This is done via a fuel cell, which essentially works like a PEM electrolyser, but in reverse. [9:04] In a PEM fuel cell, hydrogen gas flows through channels to the anode, where a catalyst causes [9:08] the hydrogen molecules to separate into protons and electrons. [9:12] Once again the membrane only allows protons to pass through it, while electrons flow through [9:16] an external circuit to the cathode.This flow of electrons is the electricity that is used [9:21] to power the vehicles electric motors. [9:24] If the fuel cell is powered with pure hydrogen, it has the potential to be up to around 60% [9:29] efficient, with most of the wasted energy lost to heat. [9:32] Like hydrogen fuel cells, batteries also come with inefficiencies and energy losses. [9:36] The grid provides AC current while the batteries store the charge in DC. [9:40] So to convert AC to DC, we need a charger. [9:44] Using the Tesla Model S as an example, its peak charger efficiency is around 92%. [9:49] The Tesla model S runs on AC motors; therefore, to convert the DC current supplied by the [9:54] batteries into AC current, an inverter has to be used with an efficiency of roughly 90%. [9:59] Additionally, lithium ion batteries can lose energy due to leakage. [10:03] A good estimate for the charging efficiency of a lithium ion battery is 90%. [10:08] All of these factors combined lead to a total efficiency of around 75%. [10:13] However, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also have some of these same inefficiencies. [10:17] Any kind of electrolysis requires DC current, and therefore, a rectifier will be required [10:22] to convert the AC current from the grid to DC. [10:25] The conversion efficiency here is 92%. [10:28] We also need to convert the DC current produced by the fuel cell to AC to power the motor [10:32] through an inverter with an efficiency of 90%. [10:35] Finally, the efficiency of the motor must be considered for both fuel cell and battery [10:40] powered vehicles. [10:41] Currently, this is around 90-95% for both of them, which is amazing when you consider [10:46] that internal combustion engines running on petrol have an efficiency of only around 20-30%. [10:52] If we add up all these inefficiencies and compare current generation batteries, to the [10:56] best and worst case scenario of current gen hydrogen. [10:59] We can see how they measure up. [11:01] Even with the BEST case scenario. [11:03] Not taking into account any transport due to onsite production, and assuming very high [11:08] electrolysis efficiency of 80%, and assuming a HIGH fuel cell efficiency of 80%, hydrogen [11:14] still comes out at less than half the efficiency. [11:17] The worst case scenario is even worse off. [11:19] So while you may be able to go further on one fill-up of hydrogen in your fuel cell [11:24] vehicle over a battery powered electric vehicle, the cost that is needed to deliver that one [11:29] fill up would be astronomically higher compared to charging batteries due to these energy [11:33] losses and efficiencies. [11:34] Based on our worst case scenario, we would expect the cost per kilometre to be about [11:39] 3.5 times greater for hydrogen, but as we saw earlier it’s actual 8 times the price. [11:45] So additional costs of production unrelated to efficiencies are obviously at play. [11:49] The cost of construction of the facility is one and the profit the station will take from [11:53] sale is another. [11:55] For now, these inefficiencies and costs are driving the market, where most investment [11:59] and research is going into battery powered electric vehicles. [12:03] So which wins? [12:04] Both are equally more green than internal combustion engines, assuming equal renewable [12:08] resources are used to power them. [12:11] Fuel cells allow for fast fill up times and long ranges; a big advantage. [12:14] But battery powered vehicles might catch up in range by the time there are enough hydrogen [12:19] stations to ever make fuel cell vehicles viable. [12:22] While fuel cells are efficient relative to combustion engines, they are not as efficient [12:26] as batteries. [12:27] They may make more sense for operation disconnected from the grid or as we saw in our last video [12:32] using hydrogen for planes actually could make a lot of sense, but once again that’s a [12:36] topic for another video. [12:37] For now, battery powered electric vehicles seem to be the sensible choice going forward [12:42] in the quest for pollution free consumer transport. [12:45] As battery-powered cars become more common, we’re also starting to see self-driving [12:48] cars become the norm. [12:50] If the job of driver is slowly automated away and consumers have a bunch of free time to [12:54] read or watch online video, it may be wise to use that opportunity to start learning [12:59] new skills and Skillshare is great place to do it. [13:02] You could take this course on Photoshop for beginners and learn a skill that has helped [13:05] this channel immensely. [13:07] You may have noticed that we introduced a new thumbnail design the channel. [13:11] This done in part because the channels views we trending downwards for past 2 months, despite [13:15] putting extra effort into production quality. [13:18] We needed to rethink our strategy for branding, and I felt the blueprints strength was that [13:22] it was easily recognisable as mine, but they all also look so similar it’s difficult [13:27] to tell when there is a new video. [13:29] So we got to work in photoshop to use the strengths of blueprint design and build on [13:33] its weaknesses and we can up with this transitioning effect. [13:37] Taking designs to reality, which I think fits the theme channel perfectly. [13:41] We saw immediate effects with the views on our last video jumping 80% compared on our [13:46] 2 month average. [13:48] This is the power of illustration and you can learn how to use software like Photoshop [13:52] and Illustrator on Skillshare [13:54] These days you can teach yourself pretty much any skill online and Skillshare is a fantastic [13:58] place to do it. [13:59] With over 20,000 classes ranging from animation, electronics, programming and much more. [14:05] The classes follow a clear learning curve, so you just click and watch without having [14:08] to curate your own learning experience. [14:11] A Premium Membership begins around $10 a month for unlimited access to all courses, but the [14:17] first 1000 people to sign up with this link will get their first 2 months for free. [14:21] So ask yourself right now. [14:23] What skill have you been putting off learning. [14:25] What project have you been dreaming of completing, but you aren’t sure if you have the skills [14:28] to do it. [14:29] Why not start right now and sign up to Skillshare using the link below to get your first 2 months [14:34] free. [14:35] You have nothing to lose and a valuable life skill to gain. [14:38] As usual thanks for watching and thank you to all my Patreon supporters. [14:42] If you would like to see more from me, the links to my twitter, facebook, discord server, [14:46] subreddit and instagram pages are below. [14:48] I’m about to do a Q&A on the subject matter of this video on my instagram stories, so [14:53] if you are interested in having some questions answered the link for that is belo