4 ms·

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 th

by 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.
- nickik 6y ago
  > can withstand a bigger fender bender. That may be 10x more important to customers than some theoretical optimum. Go actually look at the internal of a PHEV. They have literally every single part of a BEV but also have many, many additional parts. You actually end up with more parts that are single points of failures and more places where a impact can make the car not able to drive. A properly integrated structural battery that are now coming to the market already is gone be much safer overall then a PHEV and very likely more robust as well. > 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? So far all indications are that battery perform very well. Not 20 years at max capacity, but still very usable after a lot of that time. If you look at LFP batteries, you can already get 20 years with high retention. Batteries are also getting better and cheaper with every generation. The problem is, fuel cells have solved non of these problems. They have more parts to maintain overall. Fuel cells need to be replaced as or more often then batteries. > Will they survive well in different climates/humidity/dust, etc? There have been Tesla driving around the polar circle for 10 years now. EV are very popular in Norway. Dust has and humidity are not an issue, the battery and motor are ceiled of. These things are far more likely to be issues for PHEV as for those you need to take air from the outside and filter it, to then react it in the fuel cell. > Time to recharge is a lot more important than range. First of all, most people will either charge at home, or at work. There will be charging in most places where you stop to top up. If you are forced to go to a fast charging station, they are already filling up 80% of the battery in 20 min and next generation of battery are gone be considerably faster. > Yes, there is cool new battery tech coming out. Battery tech doesn't simply get invented and then sold in cars. If something goes into a car program it has gone threw years and years of testing already. We already have good evidence that for example silicon loading improves the battery. There are many such changes in the pipeline, and they wouldn't be considered if they were not cheaper and better. > It makes perfect sense that Toyota is experimenting with lots of alt-drivetrains There is a large amount of difference between 'experimenting' and having multiple billion $ program over 20+ years while totally neglecting the competing technology. And that is what Toyota has done. > Ultimately the consumer is going to decide what they want to buy Yes, and consumers so far have universally rejected PHEV unless massively insentivised to do so. > And in the end, whatever gives the customer the most convenience, performance, affordability, and durability will win, and Toyota wants to win. Toyota are the once pushing a technology that consumers are not demanding. Yet they continue to insist that it is 'the future' and their offering in EV are not very compelling as a result. Every company wants to 'win' but that doesn't mean every company will. I'm not saying Toyota is going bankrupt but you are simple making excuses. They have spend huge amount of money on the wrong horse and they have failed to invest the same on the right horse. Not only that they have continually insisted that EV were terrible and hybrids were better. Not only that put publish a lot of misleading 'studies' trying to confuse consumers for their own interest.
nickik 6y ago
Of course fuel cells have some applications but they are not exactly dominate in any of these. A large number of these are still small scale pilots and often mostly government financed. We have seen no massive adoption rate growth and we have seen no massive cost curve going down. We have also not seen a lot of gains in overall efficiency. Battery on the other hand are showing massive adoption, at the same time as falling price and a gigantic amount of private capital. And Toyota is making 10 million cars a year, they have not invested all that massive amount of money in the hope to sell fuel cells into submarine market. Trucks and cars are basically already clearly going battery and that is far bigger market then all the others together. Grid Battery also have not adopted fuel cell tech for the most part. LFP Chemistry seems like the most likely winner for grid batteries at the moment. > - 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 You can make simple produce a carbon based fuel out of hydrogen and use engines very much like the ones we use now instead of switching to fuel cells. Also, I disagree depending on your definition of 'long range', if you re-engineer planes from the ground up to be electric you can replace a huge number of flights that are domestic, or rather within a continent. That is the majority of flights.
- adev_ 6y ago
  > We have seen no massive adoption rate growth and we have seen no massive cost curve going down. We have also not seen a lot of gains in overall efficiency. It seems that data says the opposite [1]. I know several datacenters in my region that are currently running fuel cell or/and plan to do so. It was unthinkable 10 years ago. > And Toyota is making 10 million cars a year, they have not invested all that massive amount of money in the hope to sell fuel cells into submarine market. Telsa produces 0.5M car a year in 2020 and still they built their Giga-Factory to generalise Battery technology to other applications than car. The same is valid for fuel cell and Toyota with this move. The article is about 'product' usage, nor about 'car'. For instance, without too much imagination: Seeing luxury yachts switching from diesel generators to fuel cell in incoming decade to avoid a ban due to environmental concern from most touristic regions would not surprise me. This is an application. And it even seem very likely to me. Doing the same with current battery energy density is impossible. > Also, I disagree depending on your definition of 'long range', if you re-engineer planes from the ground up to be electric you can replace a huge number of flights that are domestic I said long range. Excepted if you live in Russia, domestic is NOT long range. Doing a Frankfurt-Tokyo or Paris-New York on an electrical plane today is unthinkable. And it will very likely stay like that for the next decade. But, don't get me wrong: Battery technology democratization is amazing and a proof of hope in our current climate change disaster scenario. However, hoping we can solve every high power usage with battery technology currently is completely illusory and we need to solve these use case too if we do not want to go full speed straight to disaster. [^1]: https://blog.ballard.com/fuel-cell-price-drop https://blog.ballard.com/fuel-cell-price-drop
letitbeirie 6y ago
> Hydrogen electrolysis is inefficient Hydrogen production is the real elephant in the room here. The inconvenient truth is nearly all of the hydrogen produced at any scale is made by steam reforming natural gas. Electrolysis is great for testing things out in a lab, but using electricity to make hydrogen which is then used to make electricity is a much less efficient process than taking the elecricity you already have and storing it in a battery. Direct solar splitting looks promising, but the tech we need (described here [1]) is still in its infancy, plus it uses the super-expensive easily-fouled platinum catalyst that anyone who's worked on PEM cells knows and loves. [1]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/04/novel-catalyst-produces-green-hydrogen-from-seawater-via-solar/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/04/novel-catalyst-produc...

by adev_ 6y ago

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.

nickik 6y ago
> can withstand a bigger fender bender. That may be 10x more important to customers than some theoretical optimum. Go actually look at the internal of a PHEV. They have literally every single part of a BEV but also have many, many additional parts. You actually end up with more parts that are single points of failures and more places where a impact can make the car not able to drive. A properly integrated structural battery that are now coming to the market already is gone be much safer overall then a PHEV and very likely more robust as well. > 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? So far all indications are that battery perform very well. Not 20 years at max capacity, but still very usable after a lot of that time. If you look at LFP batteries, you can already get 20 years with high retention. Batteries are also getting better and cheaper with every generation. The problem is, fuel cells have solved non of these problems. They have more parts to maintain overall. Fuel cells need to be replaced as or more often then batteries. > Will they survive well in different climates/humidity/dust, etc? There have been Tesla driving around the polar circle for 10 years now. EV are very popular in Norway. Dust has and humidity are not an issue, the battery and motor are ceiled of. These things are far more likely to be issues for PHEV as for those you need to take air from the outside and filter it, to then react it in the fuel cell. > Time to recharge is a lot more important than range. First of all, most people will either charge at home, or at work. There will be charging in most places where you stop to top up. If you are forced to go to a fast charging station, they are already filling up 80% of the battery in 20 min and next generation of battery are gone be considerably faster. > Yes, there is cool new battery tech coming out. Battery tech doesn't simply get invented and then sold in cars. If something goes into a car program it has gone threw years and years of testing already. We already have good evidence that for example silicon loading improves the battery. There are many such changes in the pipeline, and they wouldn't be considered if they were not cheaper and better. > It makes perfect sense that Toyota is experimenting with lots of alt-drivetrains There is a large amount of difference between 'experimenting' and having multiple billion $ program over 20+ years while totally neglecting the competing technology. And that is what Toyota has done. > Ultimately the consumer is going to decide what they want to buy Yes, and consumers so far have universally rejected PHEV unless massively insentivised to do so. > And in the end, whatever gives the customer the most convenience, performance, affordability, and durability will win, and Toyota wants to win. Toyota are the once pushing a technology that consumers are not demanding. Yet they continue to insist that it is 'the future' and their offering in EV are not very compelling as a result. Every company wants to 'win' but that doesn't mean every company will. I'm not saying Toyota is going bankrupt but you are simple making excuses. They have spend huge amount of money on the wrong horse and they have failed to invest the same on the right horse. Not only that they have continually insisted that EV were terrible and hybrids were better. Not only that put publish a lot of misleading 'studies' trying to confuse consumers for their own interest.

nickik 6y ago

Of course fuel cells have some applications but they are not exactly dominate in any of these. A large number of these are still small scale pilots and often mostly government financed. We have seen no massive adoption rate growth and we have seen no massive cost curve going down. We have also not seen a lot of gains in overall efficiency. Battery on the other hand are showing massive adoption, at the same time as falling price and a gigantic amount of private capital. And Toyota is making 10 million cars a year, they have not invested all that massive amount of money in the hope to sell fuel cells into submarine market. Trucks and cars are basically already clearly going battery and that is far bigger market then all the others together. Grid Battery also have not adopted fuel cell tech for the most part. LFP Chemistry seems like the most likely winner for grid batteries at the moment. > - 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 You can make simple produce a carbon based fuel out of hydrogen and use engines very much like the ones we use now instead of switching to fuel cells. Also, I disagree depending on your definition of 'long range', if you re-engineer planes from the ground up to be electric you can replace a huge number of flights that are domestic, or rather within a continent. That is the majority of flights.

adev_ 6y ago
> We have seen no massive adoption rate growth and we have seen no massive cost curve going down. We have also not seen a lot of gains in overall efficiency. It seems that data says the opposite [1]. I know several datacenters in my region that are currently running fuel cell or/and plan to do so. It was unthinkable 10 years ago. > And Toyota is making 10 million cars a year, they have not invested all that massive amount of money in the hope to sell fuel cells into submarine market. Telsa produces 0.5M car a year in 2020 and still they built their Giga-Factory to generalise Battery technology to other applications than car. The same is valid for fuel cell and Toyota with this move. The article is about 'product' usage, nor about 'car'. For instance, without too much imagination: Seeing luxury yachts switching from diesel generators to fuel cell in incoming decade to avoid a ban due to environmental concern from most touristic regions would not surprise me. This is an application. And it even seem very likely to me. Doing the same with current battery energy density is impossible. > Also, I disagree depending on your definition of 'long range', if you re-engineer planes from the ground up to be electric you can replace a huge number of flights that are domestic I said long range. Excepted if you live in Russia, domestic is NOT long range. Doing a Frankfurt-Tokyo or Paris-New York on an electrical plane today is unthinkable. And it will very likely stay like that for the next decade. But, don't get me wrong: Battery technology democratization is amazing and a proof of hope in our current climate change disaster scenario. However, hoping we can solve every high power usage with battery technology currently is completely illusory and we need to solve these use case too if we do not want to go full speed straight to disaster. [^1]: https://blog.ballard.com/fuel-cell-price-drop https://blog.ballard.com/fuel-cell-price-drop

letitbeirie 6y ago

> Hydrogen electrolysis is inefficient Hydrogen production is the real elephant in the room here. The inconvenient truth is nearly all of the hydrogen produced at any scale is made by steam reforming natural gas. Electrolysis is great for testing things out in a lab, but using electricity to make hydrogen which is then used to make electricity is a much less efficient process than taking the elecricity you already have and storing it in a battery. Direct solar splitting looks promising, but the tech we need (described here [1]) is still in its infancy, plus it uses the super-expensive easily-fouled platinum catalyst that anyone who's worked on PEM cells knows and loves. [1]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/04/novel-catalyst-produces-green-hydrogen-from-seawater-via-solar/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/04/novel-catalyst-produc...