11 ms·

I feel like Toyota is wasting its money. Maybe I'm missing something. I don't ever see hydrogen fuel cells gaining traction for a few reasons: * For transport,

• KSteffensen 6y ago
  For cars you are probably right. How does it look for planes, ships and even trains? Also, home heating. When can I buy something based on a fuel cell that will let me replace my oil furnace? And there's the potential for buffering excess renewable energy. for now this problem can largely be solved by improving the electricity transmission infrastructure between countries, but it's unclear to me that this is sufficient in the long run. I dream of the Star Trek like future where the Earths energy is supplied from solar panels in the Sahara, generating hydrogen which is then shipped around the world.
  • PhantomGremlin 6y ago
    solar panels in the Sahara Given the inefficiency of photovoltaic -> hydrogen -> liquid hydrogen? transport (how, not easy) It would probably be easier to create and ship LNG. At least we know how to do that. But you're much better off just putting 2x or 3x the number of solar panels in countries that don't have as high a solar irradiance as the Sahara does. Or even do HVDC from the Sahara to Europe. That is probably much higher efficiency than trying to use hydrogen or natural gas. BTW in case anyone is interested, here is a map of solar irradiance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
    • glogla 6y ago
      It would work with Antimatter though! Even better to make it on Mercury than on Sahara.
      • TeMPOraL 6y ago
        On top of antimatter generation, we can also collect it in space, as it gets trapped in planetary magnetosphere. Antimatter harvesting works best in places with strong magnetic fields, which makes Jupiter and Saturn much better candidates ([0] claims Saturn is the best). Not sure how much we could capture in terms of mass/energy; the impression I get is that it may be worthwhile for space missions, but I'm not sure if it's enough to power a civilization. -- [0] - https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2016/08/03/antimatter-production-harvesting-in-space/ https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2016/08/03/antimatter-produc...
  • pjc50 6y ago
    The standard answer for home heating is electrical-driven heat pumps.
    • dzhiurgis 6y ago
      He makes a good point - fuel cell extra heat can go into house. Especially useful in places with no grid electricity.
    • davewritescode 6y ago
      The problem is that solution doesn't scale to places where it's very cold. One reason electrical demand spiked in Texas was the fuel pumps stop working as efficiently as temperatures drop below freezing and most fuel pumps have coil backups which demand an order of magnitude more energy.
      • burmanm 6y ago
        Well, heat pumps extracting from air would function until -35C (at least some models), but obviously the efficiency goes down a bit. But most do a fine job until -20/-25C. For even colder climates, one can use ground source heat pumps. So this should not be a problem for heating purposes. Cheaper cooling designed heat pumps do not obviously function to so low temperatures, but all Nordic models for example will function just fine.
        • tzs 6y ago
          To put some specific numbers on it, Mitsubishi's "Hyper-Heating" heat pumps claim 100% capacity down to 23℉ (-5℃), and 76% capacity down to -13℉ (-25℃). This is for their ductless mini-split systems. Fujitsu is similar. Mr Cool makes the claim [1] that theirs "can heat at 100% capacity at –5 degrees Fahrenheit, even with outdoor temperatures as low as -22 degrees Fahrenheit". I think Mr Cool is talking about a central system, and so they are claiming 100% with the outdoor unit at -22℉ (-30℃) and the indoor unit, presumably in your unheated crawlspace, is at -5℉ (-21℃). Mr Cool also claims cooling with an outdoor temperature up to 115℉ (46℃), which so far is under the max for much of Texas, so heat pumps are a good choice still in Texas as long as you get one of the newer models with the good low temperature performance. [1] https://mrcool.com/blog/introducing-mrcool-universal/ https://mrcool.com/blog/introducing-mrcool-universal/
  • nickik 6y ago
    > And there's the potential for buffering excess renewable energy. for now this problem can largely be solved by improving the electricity transmission infrastructure between countries, but it's unclear to me that this is sufficient in the long run. Well that is just another way to say 'battery'. If hydrogen is the 'right' solution for this is also highly questionable. Storing large amounts of hydrogen is not easy. Hydrogen fuel-cells and electrolysers are not very cheap and you need to scale vertically if you want to be able to consume high amounts of power in both directions. In addition, that whole stack makes it overall very inefficient. The only real benefit compared to a battery is that its easier to scale hydrogen tank then battery materials. However, there are other potential solution. A 'liquid air' battery, meaning liquidity air and on demand drive turbine, has better energy efficiency is more proven technology at large scale and has the same advantage of making bigger tanks result in larger storage. Flow batteries potentially can do the same thing as well. All that said, it seems to me that LFP (Iron Phosphate) based batteries will beat all of them once the production is fully going. LFP has very low material cost, and has a very long life and is very safe. One of the issues with chemical storage from 'leftover' renewable is that your energy consumers will have very low utility and your plant will run at very low overall utilisation. This is less of a problem with a LFP based chemical battery.
• mrtksn 6y ago
  > Electric batteries are getting better faster Are they? Any sources on that? Besides, the issue with batteries is that you carry dead weight all the time regardless of how much energy they have stored in and that weight is very high, making the driving experience "not for everyone". I guess, the weight also would mean higher asphalt and tire consumption, which as I read recently is the prime polluter of the driving activity. I don't know if fuel cells actually have a promising feature or not, but I like seeing people working on alternatives to batteries. Light vehicle propulsion is something to be desired, it opens up possibility for aviation too.
  • nickik 6y ago
    Structural battery, where the battery is part of the structure is actually making the weight very competitive. We are only in the start of how batteries are integrated and eventually all manufactures will move to structural packs. The driving experience is already really good, a heavier feeling is actually prefer by most people.
    • mrtksn 6y ago
      >heavier feeling is actually prefer by most people Any sources on that? Is this coming from a poll or questionnaire or is it your opinion(because Tesla?)? Some people like pineapple on their pizza, others eat marmite at breakfast but the heavy car likers is a first for me.
      • pjc50 6y ago
        People keep buying heavier cars and the average weight goes up over time. It's the market version of "preference"; people might say they prefer it but they choose more features most of the time.
        • mrtksn 6y ago
          This claim also needs sources but even if true Are they buying heavier cars because of the weight or they are accepting a trade off in exchange for more features like larger carrying capacity? Are there instances of people installing ballast to their light cars in order to make them heavier?
• Hypx 6y ago
  This is such a bland take these days. Basically every EV owner says the exact same thing. Do any EV owners ever ask themselves "What if I were wrong?" Or better yet, ask themselves "What is the scenario where I am wrong?" The answers to those questions will be much more interesting.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• stubish 6y ago
  > * For transport, electric car infrastructure is already growing and hydrogen is exceedingly unlikely to be able to keep up. There are markets (like Australia) where electric car infrastructure is almost non-existent. If someone puts hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market at the right price point, the electric car infrastructure may never be built.
  • _ph_ 6y ago
    An electric car can be recharged at any wall socket. That is the beauty, some very basic infrastructure is already available in a lot of places on this planet.
  • baybal2 6y ago
    Even if it were, I doubt it would make much difference. Even most petrol cars can't get across Australia's distances in between major cities on a single refuel. It's much more likely to become customary to just have it transported by a diesel truck to the destination, and then travel by plane yourself. None of the "new mobility" is suitable for long range travel. Japan is a tiny island on other hand.
• hulitu 6y ago
  The electrical grid is not designed for electric cars.
• dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I feel like Toyota is wasting its money. I think Toyota is effectively leveraging government subsidies; part of that is putting some of the technology in cars, but that's not necessarily where the big win for the tech is. > Maybe I'm missing something. I don't ever see hydrogen fuel cells gaining traction for a few reasons: Fuel cells already have traction in larger and stationary applications (less so much in autos, but Toyota has another solution for that market), and while less efficient than pumped hydroelectric, hydrogen is already the most cost effective energy storage medium for the electrical grid. For cars, Toyota is plans to introduce a solid-state battery prototype this year and have them in general use early this decade (VW and Nissan have similar plans, but are a few years behind.) The numbers being tossed around for these are something like 50%-100% higher energy density than current batteries, and vehicle charge times in the 15-minute range. Toyota is a big enough company to have been doing more than one thing at a time.
  • justin66 6y ago
    And if the fuel cell is as good as some people say it is (I think Sandy Munro raved about the tech in the Mirai as potentially being useful for an electric plane or something), Toyota can just sell it or license it.
• rdedev 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/f7MzFfuNOtY https://youtu.be/f7MzFfuNOtY This video gives a good breakdown on how the inefficiencies in hydrogen fuel cell based cars add up. The best case scenario for hydrogen based land transport I can think of is probably in the trucking industry where engine weight, range and refuelling time are important factors
• throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >I feel like Toyota is wasting its money. Maybe I'm missing something Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to get any idea of what's going on. It's impossible to get good analysis of whatever any Toyota is doing because they have so much upper middle class mind-share and fanboys that you get analysts/journalists pandering to them for confirmation bias clicks with "look how Toyota is doing everything right" content and fishing for rage clicks with "Toyota is doing X and it will never work" content and the noise drowns out any real analysis and the comments are no better.
• adev_ 6y ago
  That is a pretty narrow view. The world does not stop only to cars. Even for Toyota. Fuel cells do not break through in the car industry (because battery do the job there) but do everywhere else. - We now have datacenters and hospitals that dump their old diesel generators for fuel cells for emergency power supply [^1] - Non-nuclear submarines have run commonly on fuel cells in Germany for decades. - Fuel cells start to be evaluated with ammonia usage for rural co-generation Heat & Power. [^2] - Several Boat experiments use Fuel Cell [^3] [^5] - With the current power density level of battery and for the next decade, there is no way you can make a "green" long range commercial plane without a fuel cell technically [^4] Yes. Hydrogen storage is a pain and yes Hydrogen electrolysis is inefficient. But it does not change it is already a working solution for High Power & High Density electricity generation and will probably remain there for decades. [^1]: https://techhq.com/2020/07/hydrogen-fuel-cells-the-future-of-clean-data-centers/ https://techhq.com/2020/07/hydrogen-fuel-cells-the-future-of... [^2]: https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/on-the-ground-in-japan-residential-fuel-cells/ https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/on-the-ground-in-japa... [^3]: https://techxplore.com/news/2021-03-world-high-temperature-ammonia-powered-fuel-cell.html https://techxplore.com/news/2021-03-world-high-temperature-a... [^4 ]: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2020/10/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cross-industry-collaboration-potential-for-aviation.html https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2020/10/hydrogen-fue... [^5]: https://new.abb.com/marine/systems-and-solutions/electric-solutions/fuel-cell https://new.abb.com/marine/systems-and-solutions/electric-so...
  • hosh 6y ago
    Would something like this change things? https://www.inceptivemind.com/powerpaste-high-density-safe-easily-transportable-hydrogen-energy-fuel/17468/ https://www.inceptivemind.com/powerpaste-high-density-safe-e...
  • rsj_hn 6y ago
    Indeed, it's a narrow view because the success (or failure) of something in the markeplace is not determined by theoretical superiority but the overall customer experience. And that customer experience is really hard to figure out, so it makes sense to invest in a lot of things to improve your chances of finding the winning solution. And there is always the possibility that there wont be a single winning solution anyways. Enough abstraction, let me throw out some examples: PEVs carry a huge battery that takes up a large chunk of the car's base. So one bump and that battery is now damaged. But a fuel cell is much smaller, can withstand a bigger fender bender. That may be 10x more important to customers than some theoretical optimum. Here is another: Batteries may not be as long lasting for customers that want their car to last 20 years (current expectations, barring getting run into). Exactly how long lasting on the road are the current batteries? Do we know what service costs they'll have compared to fuel cell service costs? Will they survive well in different climates/humidity/dust, etc? So maybe a model with a battery that is more serviceable and cheaper will outcompete a model with a battery that is more efficient, and a longer lasting fuel cell might outcompete both. Time to recharge is a lot more important than range. I can charge my gas tank in less than 60 seconds. If it takes an hour, then range doesn't mean the same thing. Who hangs out at a charging station for an hour? So being able to charge more conveniently may be a lot more important than range or the number of charging stations. What will win out? We don't know, so cover your bets. Yes, there is cool new battery tech coming out. I hope we get even more innovation in batteries, it is hugely important. But will the cool new battery tech be affordable, durable, long lasting, fast to charge, and able to operate reasonably well in a place with 4 seasons and lots of rains, in a car that drives for 10 years on lots of potholes and gets into a few fender benders? Not so clear. So don't put all your eggs in one basket. It makes perfect sense that Toyota is experimenting with lots of alt-drivetrains, even as it cranks out gas and diesel cars and they came up with a much better hybrid model as well. As far as I know, they have everything covered. Ultimately the consumer is going to decide what they want to buy, and the market will respond to that. The question is whether you will be able to respond or will it be someone else because the hot thing is X and all your R&D was sunk into Y. Toyota is trying to make sure that whatever customer preferences happen to be, that they will have solid contender in the mix. And in the end, whatever gives the customer the most convenience, performance, affordability, and durability will win, and Toyota wants to win.
• melomal 6y ago
  Wasn't this the same argument being made for EVs? Literally infrastructure, cost of production and the cheapness of oil were all major arguments for a lack of success and growth. Then economies of scale come into play to make things cheaper as per batteries. Plus it's Toyota and they are well known for industrial processes (they also own a part of Tesla, no?) What's the issue with having Hydrogen/EV's together? Diesel and petrol had no issues.
  • maxerickson 6y ago
    Diesel and gas are different fractions of petroleum, having a use for each makes both cheaper to use.
    • melomal 6y ago
      OK that makes sense. Could there not be an EV/hydrogen combo that potentially fixes range anxiety or another issue? Besides competition never hurt anyone, batteries will be developed faster, research conducting more often and so on.
• jfoster 6y ago
  Also, with new types of fuel there is a a chicken-egg problem to be solved. Electric vehicles worked around the chicken-egg problem by having home charging (with fallback to power socket whilst travelling), and then chargers got built. Which gas stations want to carry hydrogen to support just the first 10, 100, 1000 cars, and who wants to buy a car where you are 100% dependent on those gas stations carrying (and continuing to carry) the fuel that your car will need? What's the fallback option that short-circuits the chicken-egg problem for hydrogen? Maybe it'll work if the cars can also use conventional fuel, but it will still seem entirely pointless to have the hydrogen option until gas stations have hydrogen.
• pjc50 6y ago
  The thing about hydrogen as a "transition" fuel is that, while it can be made from carbon-free electricity, doing so is much more expensive than just making it from natural gas. And when it's made from natural gas, the spare carbon dioxide is nearly always dumped into the atmosphere anyway. So, for "hydrogen" think "natural gas". Then realise that natural gas is much easier to store, and if you're prepared to "pay" the carbon cost (not a real cost in most places, more of a .. moral cost), you should just use natural gas. And you can already buy LNG/CNG vehicles. If you want a hydrogen vehicle on zero-carbon hydrogen only, how much is that fuel going to cost you?
  • m12k 6y ago
    Whenever someone says that something is too expensive because it costs X, I can't help but think they have too static a view of the world. Solar was too expensive until it wasn't. Batteries in cars were too big and expensive until they weren't. The status quo of fossil fuels has more than a hundred years of research and infrastructure invested in it to drive prices down. New green tech doesn't. That makes the latter more expensive in many situations right now, sure, but it also means it has potentially many more low-hanging fruits to be picked, where the former has long since hit a plateau with diminishing returns, and is ripe for being overtaken. It doesn't mean all investments in green tech will pay off, but using the current prices as an argument against investing in reducing those prices is absurd.
• api 6y ago
  I can see fuel cells for aviation if they and the associated fuel storage can be made significantly lighter than Li-Ion batteries. If I pretend there is suddenly no oil I can see them for land transport in off-grid areas or long-haul trucking, but that's not going to happen. Instead what will happen is that electric vehicles will displace where they can displace and oil will continue to power vehicles in the niches that EVs can't displace yet. Transportation is collectively only about 25% of CO2 emissions too, and if EVs displace say 2/3 of that (most cars, buses, delivery vans, some trucking, some farm equipment) it will shrink to being an insignificant contributor. So yeah, I think Toyota is wasting their money.
• boringg 6y ago
  The EV vs Hydrogen debate is fundamentally flawed. It's pitting two technologies as the upstart against each other instead of against the internal combustion engines/traditional oil and gas infrastructure. Its the same thing as saying wind vs solar for electricity when both are needed. Let's move on from this false narrative. More details: It's flawed because EV and H2 work in so many different markets/use cases and that it isn't a zero sum world where it is an either or. We need both H2 and EVs to knock off traditional ICE and traditional fuel stocks for a cleaner future for future generations. Remember that they will be knocked off the pedestal in the future by something even better hopefully. As others have mentioned - the debate isn't around which is the most efficient technology though that does help. There are so many different variables involved - too many to put in a HN comment thread.
  • rio517 6y ago
    Good point.
• letitbeirie 6y ago
  > for transportation at least I think this is one of the big things fuel cell proponents are missing: the heat and water that come out the other end are liabilities in most transportation contexts, but can be side benefits in a different setting.
• w0mbat 6y ago
  Regenerative braking is a major saving in energy cost, and it's something that requires a battery component to store the recovered joules, and electric motors to put those joules to use. If you need a battery and electric motor anyway, the simplest solution is pure electric.
  • xyzzyz 6y ago
    You could also store the regenerated energy in a flywheel. That would be even simpler and cheaper than electric.
    • w0mbat 6y ago
      Flywheels are not silent and have unwanted gyroscopic effects. Getting even more impractical, you could store energy in a spring like a wind-up toy. A pure electric system is much simpler as the motors are the regenerators and there is one energy store.
    • swirepe 6y ago
      You're not going to want a flywheel in a car that's going to make any turns
      • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Mount it horizontally?
        • swirepe 6y ago
          Hills tho
• mzkply 6y ago
  Elon calling it stupid is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFPnT-DCBVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFPnT-DCBVs
• rstuart4133 6y ago
  > I feel like Toyota is wasting its money. Maybe I'm missing something. There looked to be two problems for hydrogen EV's. One was storing it, and the second was the platinum in the fuel cell. It's now looking like storing Hydrogen as a compound of some sort is going to be a thing. There are several compounds out there now, Ammonium making big strides recently. The platinum in the fuel cell's is still a thing, where "a thing" means we need more platinum to power the world's electricity needs than we have platinum, and not by a small factor. They've been reducing the amount needed but not by enough and there is no hint anyone's found another catalyst doing the job. Yet. Maybe Toyota's bet is there has to be one, surely? That sounds like a bit bet, but batteries aren't there yet either. They have to drop in cost by a factor of 2 of 3. We don't know how that will be done, but it's looking it will happen and these announcements of "we will only be making EV's in 2030" are essentially bets that will come to pass.