4 ms·

Toyota is definitely an interesting case. They clearly think BEVs aren’t fit because batteries slowly charge a fixed capacity. They think hydrogen fuel cells ar

by ianai 7y ago

Toyota is definitely an interesting case. They clearly think BEVs aren’t fit because batteries slowly charge a fixed capacity. They think hydrogen fuel cells are a better drop in replacement. In that sense, they’re in a better position to replace ICEs with hydrogen FCs in their hybrids. They could side step the whole BEV generation that way. Or, BEVs could fall in price so dramatically that a full charge is more range than any driver wants to drive in a day - say measured in MW of capacity instead of KW. Interesting times for sure.

Robotbeat 7y ago
Unfortunately, hydrogen is just fundamentally not as compelling. Fundamentally much less efficient (round-trip), volumetric energy density basically identical with state of the art batteries (which are improving), much more complexity, greater safety concerns (really high pressure plus the most flammable gas there is), material constraints... You still need a lithium battery. You cannot charge at home. The fueling infrastructure is more expensive than gasoline pumps or electric charging stations (and sometimes not even faster than Tesla's 250kW v3 charging... i.e. if you have two cars fueling, often the second car takes much longer as the station's buffer tank is emptied... to get the 5 minute fueling speeds, the hydrogen must be compressed to extremely high pressure... 5000psi... and cooled to cryogenic temperatures otherwise it will heat up the existing hydrogen gas inside the car's tank). The fuel is more expensive than gasoline. In fact, a high end long range Model 3 has more range (322miles) than the Toyota Mirai (312mi) but costs less ($49k vs $59k). Is dramatically faster (4.4 seconds 0-60mph vs 9 seconds). Also has vastly greater number of charging stations (and can slow charge from any 120V outlet). Fuel cells themselves are expensive. Estimates are about $11,000 or so for the Mirai fuel cell stack (not counting the secondary systems like the lithium battery or even the hydrogen tank), or about the same as what the 75kWh Tesla Model 3 Long Range's pack which has greater range. So fuel cell cars will be fundamentally more expensive up front, more expensive to run, more maintenance, with less convenient charging. To me, a plug-in hybrid (even if using synthesized carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuel) is much more compelling if you wanted a technological alternative to pure electric. You're not going to be stranded due to lack of charging infrastructure, can charge at home, don't require super high pressure tanks, can fuel fast, etc. At least they have that going with the plug-in version of the Prius. But hydrogen just doesn't make sense for cars. Maybe on very large vehicles (ships, maybe airplanes) that can use liquid hydrogen (much denser than compressed hydrogen and doesn't require ultra-heavy high pressure tanks).
- Kirby64 7y ago
  I think hydrogen starts to make sense if we ever live in a world where energy becomes free. You can replace the dino oil with hydrogen, since you can create hydrogen for 'free' using electrolysis. Then it becomes a way to store gasoline-like energy... but I still think all your points are valid for cars. Maybe, but batteries definitely seem better near-term. Given we've got quite a few other hurdles before the utopia of free energy... well, batteries are for sure the better option now.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    Electrolytically produced hydrogen is super expensive... not because the energy is expensive but because the electrolysis equipment is expensive (particularly if you decide to run it only when there's "free" electricity). Hopefully that changes, but it'll ironically probably require batteries to get super cheap so you can run the electrolysis equipment 24/7.
gpapilion 7y ago
I think Toyota is right, but they would need to take the lead and build a hydrogen refill network and stop relying on others for it. Similarly BEVs other than Tesla make the drive between Sf and LA impractical at best, because refueling is difficult. The real genius of Tesla is the vertical integration of the super charger.
- ianai 7y ago
  They might have reason to suspect governmental support to deploy hydrogen infrastructure. It might be there following the Fukushima disaster.

by ianai 7y ago

Robotbeat 7y ago

Unfortunately, hydrogen is just fundamentally not as compelling. Fundamentally much less efficient (round-trip), volumetric energy density basically identical with state of the art batteries (which are improving), much more complexity, greater safety concerns (really high pressure plus the most flammable gas there is), material constraints... You still need a lithium battery. You cannot charge at home. The fueling infrastructure is more expensive than gasoline pumps or electric charging stations (and sometimes not even faster than Tesla's 250kW v3 charging... i.e. if you have two cars fueling, often the second car takes much longer as the station's buffer tank is emptied... to get the 5 minute fueling speeds, the hydrogen must be compressed to extremely high pressure... 5000psi... and cooled to cryogenic temperatures otherwise it will heat up the existing hydrogen gas inside the car's tank). The fuel is more expensive than gasoline. In fact, a high end long range Model 3 has more range (322miles) than the Toyota Mirai (312mi) but costs less ($49k vs $59k). Is dramatically faster (4.4 seconds 0-60mph vs 9 seconds). Also has vastly greater number of charging stations (and can slow charge from any 120V outlet). Fuel cells themselves are expensive. Estimates are about $11,000 or so for the Mirai fuel cell stack (not counting the secondary systems like the lithium battery or even the hydrogen tank), or about the same as what the 75kWh Tesla Model 3 Long Range's pack which has greater range. So fuel cell cars will be fundamentally more expensive up front, more expensive to run, more maintenance, with less convenient charging. To me, a plug-in hybrid (even if using synthesized carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuel) is much more compelling if you wanted a technological alternative to pure electric. You're not going to be stranded due to lack of charging infrastructure, can charge at home, don't require super high pressure tanks, can fuel fast, etc. At least they have that going with the plug-in version of the Prius. But hydrogen just doesn't make sense for cars. Maybe on very large vehicles (ships, maybe airplanes) that can use liquid hydrogen (much denser than compressed hydrogen and doesn't require ultra-heavy high pressure tanks).

Kirby64 7y ago
I think hydrogen starts to make sense if we ever live in a world where energy becomes free. You can replace the dino oil with hydrogen, since you can create hydrogen for 'free' using electrolysis. Then it becomes a way to store gasoline-like energy... but I still think all your points are valid for cars. Maybe, but batteries definitely seem better near-term. Given we've got quite a few other hurdles before the utopia of free energy... well, batteries are for sure the better option now.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Electrolytically produced hydrogen is super expensive... not because the energy is expensive but because the electrolysis equipment is expensive (particularly if you decide to run it only when there's "free" electricity). Hopefully that changes, but it'll ironically probably require batteries to get super cheap so you can run the electrolysis equipment 24/7.

gpapilion 7y ago

I think Toyota is right, but they would need to take the lead and build a hydrogen refill network and stop relying on others for it. Similarly BEVs other than Tesla make the drive between Sf and LA impractical at best, because refueling is difficult. The real genius of Tesla is the vertical integration of the super charger.

ianai 7y ago
They might have reason to suspect governmental support to deploy hydrogen infrastructure. It might be there following the Fukushima disaster.