9 ms·
Hydrogen follow up: Toyota's future
- skrause 11y agoDiscussion on the previous blog posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9090525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9090525
- vvanders 11y agoYikes 60kWh = 1kg of H2. I knew it was expensive to generate H2 but that's very high. 3-4x worse than BEV depending on your efficiency. Given that we're going to see sub 30k BEVs in the not distant future it's a shame to see Toyota back Fuel Cells.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoWe've known fuel cells are a terrible tech for cars for a while. http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-are-mind-boggingly-stupid/ http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-cell-... "Where does hydrogen sit in this equation? Currently, filling up hydrogen costs $12/kg at the moment in California. This is roughly in line with the actual cost of hydrogen - a bit on the low side if you want to commercially exploit one of those expensive filling stations, but we can safely assume that if hydrogen were ubiquitous, the price is roughly in this order. This will get you about 60 miles, so your cost is about $0.20/mi. An electric car costs about $0.06/kWh to fill up, and drives 4-6 miles on that charge. That's about a cent per mile. Yes. A 20-to-1 difference in running costs. This isn't percents change, this is orders of magnitude." http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/12292/hydrogen-follow-up-toyotas-future http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/12292/hydrogen-follow-u...
- addicted 11y agoI'm assuming Toyota and it's engineers aren't stupid. So why were they pushing for Hydrogen if it is apparently so unsuited to powering cars?
- ju-st 11y agoI was asking myself the same question since some years, too. I just googled for some minutes and the only realistic reasons why they prefer hydrogen over elctric I found were: more range than electric and quicker refueling than electric. And both points are highly questionable in my opinion. So unfortunately I didn't found any rational explanation why they prefer hydrogen.
- addicted 11y agoWith the assumption that hydrogen is indeed "Fool cells", some possibilities for why Toyota may still be pursuing it (not necessarily in any order. Largely listing for discussion and for thinking about later in more depth). 1) Japanese govt. incentives are sufficient to push Toyota and other Japanese companies to try and make Hydrogen work. 2) It's a conspiracy between car companies and oil companies (I don't see how this can work because I don't see how car companies benefit.) 3) Car companies don't like the fact that EVs have lower maintenance, because a large chunk of their profits comes from maintenance and repairs. 4) Car companies are basically behaving like Blackberry after the iPhone. Their current model works, and being incumbents, they find it hard to imagine a world that does not work like the current one. 5) EVs would be too much of a revolution and they would essentially lose all their incumbent advantages. FCV basically follow the same model and so they allow incumbent car companies to better fend off new entrants than if EVs became popular (I find it interesting that all the new entrants are EV manufacturers or rumored to be making EVs (Apple)). Any other ideas? Personally, I think #s 4 and 5 (both of which are basically blindness caused by incumbency) are the biggest factors. This is bolstered by this Toyota quote in the article: “You may think 35 years is a long time,” Senior Managing Officer Kiyotaka Ise told reporters. “But for an automaker to envision all combustion engines as gone is pretty extraordinary.” The way Japanese manufacturers seem to be the only ones who are so uniquely focused on hydrogen, however, seems to indicate that Japanese policy is also playing a large role.
- petra 11y agoAlso: even if fuel cells won't be needed for most vehicles, i could see how it would fit heavy equipment, trucks, etc . And maybe that all that will be left from their industry and they're just preparing for that?
- sliverstorm 11y agoCompared to gasoline though- $12 will get you about 3 gallons, which in many vehicles will get you about 60 miles...
- dyladan 11y agoBut this is more of a comparison of next-generation fuels. Gasoline is only included in the post to provide a baseline comparison that people can easily understand.
- sliverstorm 11y agoSure, but IMO they are most interesting to compare in a context of what they each offer over conventional (gasoline) fuel, rather than versus eachother. Otherwise we leave out the context of where we are coming from today.
- RodericDay 11y agoI've worked on hydrogen fuel-cells, and I wasn't particularly enthused by them. However, passing off a competitor (Tesla's Elon Musk) trashing the competition as a factual "we've known" reeks of fanboyism and idol worship.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIts not fanboyism at all. How many Model S vehicles are in the wild? They can charge almost anywhere, have range above 250 miles per charge, and have a Supercharger network that's fully operational. (And that's only the Model S, I neglect the Leaf for the moment even though there are for more in the wild, regardless of their range) How many fuel cell vehicles are in consumer hands? Can they charge at home? Do they have a nationwide refueling network?
- avmich 11y agoPointing to existing state of affairs as an argument why this is ever more efficient is to deny the existence of progress, which is clearly wrong. Current advantage of electromobiles on the market over hydrogen cars is not important.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIt may be in general case, but Musk earned the trust for being precise and honest - so it's more like listening to the opinion of a proven specialist in the field (with a staff full of experts behind him to call him on his mistakes).
- toomuchtodo 11y agoNailed it.
- avmich 11y ago
- dragonwriter 11y agoThe comparison made here is misleading -- both hydrogen and electricity have heavy storage systems that make up a larger fraction of vehicle weight the larger the range of the vehicle is, which is a problem both have compared to gasoline. So, comparing how much distance per unit of the energy source a vehicle gets based on a vehicle that only has storage to get a single-digit number of miles on a fill-up for one source vs. one that has storage for an order of magnitude more for the other source is not an apples to apples comparison. Scaling up to similar range would make the comparison substantially worse for electric. That's not to say that Hydrogen isn't more expensive than electricity for the utility provided when you consider actual use in powering motor vehicles, but the comparison made here is quite poor and can only be seen as deliberately misleading (since Musk clearly is not innocently ignorant of the scaling issue it ignores.)
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI appreciate the polite response! Let's assume weight isn't an issue, as it drastically contributes to vehicle stability due to having such a low center of gravity (From what I've heard from Model X engineers, its damn near impossible to roll). * Distribution network: Hydrogen filling stations are expensive. Very expensive. There are very few of them. Electric vehicles can be charged from any 120V outlet, although 220V+ is preferable (Model S owners in a pinch can charge at RV campsites for a few bucks when there are no superchargers around). Tesla's Supercharge network covers almost the entire US (they will complete their buildout in 2016). * Conversion efficiency: Hydrogen, unless produced from methane/natural gas, will never be as efficient as straight charging an electric vehicle. You can charge your electric car with solar panels on your roof, or an electrical grid that gets cleaner by the day as coal is phased out (and natural gas will phase out as wind and solar begin to dominate generation). * Range: Batteries are getting cheaper stupid fast. We're already ~5 years ahead of the curve. The failure scenarios are very safe (I'm using Tesla's titanium plate armored pack as the example) compared to a Hydrogen storage failure. Could charging happen faster? Sure. But needing a ~5-10 minute turnaround on your vehicle's fueling is an edge case; the vast majority of owners are going to charge at home overnight, at their workplace, or at Superchargers (or other non-Tesla high current charging stations). Hydrogen is dead on arrival for mobility.
- IanCal 11y ago> Guess where we are now? I'll calculate this for you. Tesla announced that their replacement batteries cost $12000 for the 85kWh version. That is $140/kWh. Right now, in 2015, we are to the left of this entire diagram already. Does the Tesla do 240 Wh/mile? I searched quickly and saw 480 from someone, is there an official figure for this?
- harpastum 11y agoTesla claims [1] that the 85kWh pack will get 270 miles of range on the 85D (265mi on the 85). 85kWh/270mi = 315Wh/mi. [1] http://www.teslamotors.com/models http://www.teslamotors.com/models
- vvanders 11y agoThat's pretty in-line with real-world usage. I think my lifetime usage is 311 Wh/mi over ~16k miles.
- greglindahl 11y agoIn addition to the official figure, which is measured over the EPA test, any Tesla owner can tell you what their actual average is. Mine's 305 over 27k miles.
- shifter 11y agoI tend to average around 400 Wh/mi.
- bsdetector 11y agoThe actual replacement cost of a new 85 kWh battery is $25k, over twice as much as the blog uses to justify its conclusions. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/45988-Model-S-battery-replacement-12-000 http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/45988-Model-S-... I couldn't find the original source for the $12k claim, but some articles mention this is the price after 8 years. They had a deal where you prepay $12k now and get your battery in 8 years, which sounds too similar to be a different deal and can't be used to support a $/kWh claim.
- SCAQTony 11y agoOkay, not to be obtuse, but isn't water a green gas gas? (The wiki article is noted as controversial.)
- CarVac 11y agoIf you mean "greenhouse gas" yes, but it also falls out of the sky naturally unlike other greenhouse gases.
- SCAQTony 11y agoThank you, I appreciate the response. Presuming we create a low cost process to produce hydrogen and all our cars and power plants were burning hydrogen as fuel, it would not be an extreme statement to say we would have more rain and snow? I kind of like that idea.
- ceejayoz 11y agoWater is used to produce hydrogen, so it'd get cancelled out.
- abfan1127 11y agonot necessarily, right? Aren't hydrocarbons (gasoline) used as well?
- ceejayoz 11y agoInteresting, looks like you're right. I'd guess that's unsustainable if consumption ramps up with a bunch of cars on the road, though.
- ars 11y agoThere actually is more water in the environment now because of all the hydrogen from mined hydrocarbons is now water. But it's probably a pretty minimal amount relatively speaking.
- amalag 11y agoWhat about hydrogen fuel cells for planes? Planes need that extra energy density.
- ju-st 11y agoHydrogen is stored in pressurised tanks which are heavy. And pressurised tanks are tube-shaped, so you can't really use the wings as fuel tanks.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoPut people inside wings and hydrogen in the fuselage? Could work for a big enough plane.
- dyladan 11y agoI'm imagining a plane this big and it's awesome. I can already see the Michael Bay film. A little impractical right now though I think we can all agree. I think by the time hydrogen becomes feasible for planes, the landscape will likely be wildly different.
- csours 11y agoSource of Battery Graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/12/as-battery-prices-drop-will-electric-cars-finally-catch-on/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/12... Naughty Mux - link your sources!
- bischofs 11y agoIt is incredibly frustrating to not have more options outside of California (from Michigan) over IC engines. Modern gas engines are getting more and more complex in order to meet stricter emissions standards while still delivering fuel economy and power. I have no interest in direct injected engines that make 200hp/liter, they are far more complex and unreliable than engines from 10 years ago. The IC engine is far past its prime and yet the political and market forces are keeping it around because of legacy costs.
- Johnny555 11y agoWhat would be a viable option for you? For many people, an 80 mile range EV is already viable for a daily commute car.
- sandworm101 11y ago> Personal cars are going the way of the dodo. I have to laugh every time I read such statements. It's like the man who invented the apartment claiming houses now obsolete. Price is not always the driving force. If it were, SUVs would not exist, nor would BMW, Merc, Ferrari any every other performance car brand. Cars are as much personal statements as houses, probably more so. Relatively few people see you in your house, but everyone sees which car you drive. Setting aside the robot driver debates, these are fashion items. Society isn't going to abandon such vanities simply to better leverage a new technology.
- arebop 11y agoAlexander the Great had a very personal relationship with his horse [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucephalus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucephalus].
- superuser2 11y agoMost people who own cars can't afford fun or fashionable ones, or don't choose to allocate their budgets that way. SF is a distorted perspective: car ownership is unnecessary, so the only cars you see are those owned voluntarily. I was struck by how new and expensive all the cars on the road looked when I lived there this summer. In Chicago, the overwhelming majority of the cars I walk by are 10-year-old beige econoboxes. Luxury cars may be around for the long haul, but I suspect cars of necessity will not.
- Swizec 11y ago> I was struck by how new and expensive all the cars on the road looked when I lived there this summer. That has less to do with "we don't need a car so we're only going to buy fancy" but with how affluent SF is. The quality of cars on the road directly correlates to how wealthy a neighbourhood or town or country is. I was in Luxemburg two years ago. A brand new BMW 3 series was downright pedestrian. I don't think I've ever seen so many fancy cars in one area as I did there. SF by comparison, is a shitshow of crappy cars. You can see this effect if you drive down the peninsula. SF has normal cars, south SF has old beat up cars, then the fanciness of cars waxes and wanes, until you reach the general Palo Alto area where there's a shitload of Teslas and other fancy cars. Even Maseratis are relatively normal. And then you go further south and the quality of cars starts dropping again. But what you will see rarely in the Bay Area are supercars like Lamborghini, Ferrari and such. I don't know why, but I would venture it's got to do with the fact that most people use their cars for commuting and supercars are terrible commuters. Or maybe the Bay Area just isn't affluent enough for those kinds of cars.
- ZeroGravitas 11y agoWhat does the author mean when he says: "Toyota has gone, to put it midly, full macintosh." I assume the fuel cell stuff is mostly running on inertia at this point, as full electric vehicles and battery tech advances they'll be first to go except for a few tiny niches.
- OrwellianChild 11y agoMan, this guy needs to cite his sources... It is interesting to read a thorough refutation of the legitimacy of hydrogen fuel cells, specifically because I thought this was a known quantity... It feels like reading about how wood-burning stoves just aren't going to work out for central heating.
- upofadown 11y agoIf someone comes up with a cheap practical H2 fuel cell then we will have widespread H2 powered vehicles. If someone comes up with a cheap practical battery then we will have widespread battery powered vehicles. That's pretty much it. The two things are not exclusive. We can and probably will have both.