24 ms·

Toyota’s prototype 'cartridge' is a way to make hydrogen portable

43 points by protomyth 4y ago

kogepathic 4y ago
> "one hydrogen cartridge is assumed to generate enough electricity to operate a typical household microwave for approximately 3-4 hours." So, let's oversimplify and say that a typical household microwave consumes 1200W continuously. That's about 4.8kWh over 4 hours. Given current Lithium battery energy densities (18650: 200Wh/kg) then you'd need 24kg of lithium batteries to supply the same amount of energy. The cartridge Toyota has developed manages to do this for 5.5kg. Not bad, but not a paradigm shift, considering you have to build a logistics network to refill the cartridges. > In its press release, Toyota acknowledges that most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels and so not exactly green. But it thinks that it'll be generated with low carbon emissions in the future, and that the cartridges could help with some of the infrastructure issues. If we could all stop shilling for "Green Hydrogen" that would be great. Batteries can be charged today from low-carbon sources, and the electric grid is already present in most places you'd drive an EV, and certainly more places than have a preexisting hydrogen cartridge distribution network. > However, Toyota seems to be pitching the cartridges for personal and home use, but it's not yet clear what you'd use them for. In a world where Lithium batteries exist and the technology has far more R&D investment, what would you use these for? Why is Toyota still throwing cash into the hydrogen money pit?
- ffggvv 4y ago
  can we stop shilling for green electricity? we know batteries are not charged from low carbon sources today
  - kogepathic 4y ago
    > we know batteries are not charged from low carbon sources today Have you got any grid-scale "green hydrogen" projects with a higher energy efficiency than existing grid-scale renewable energy projects (solar, wind)? Because unless you do, "green hydrogen" is dead on arrival in any market. > can we stop shilling for green electricity? No, because we already know how to make grid-scale low-carbon energy. Show me grid-scale "green hydrogen" and I'll retract my criticism.
    - davoneus 4y ago
      This might be one to watch: Massive green hydrogen hub in Utah wins $504M federal loan guarantee (*) Course this could end up like Concentrating Solar Power plants and end up on the wrong side of the cost-benefit equation, but I'd argue it is still worth a look. (*) https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/massive-green-hydrogen-hub-in-utah-wins-504m-federal-loan-guarantee https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/massive-green-...
      - avmich 4y ago
        It was interesting to read about efficient electrolyzer - https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electrolysis/ https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electr... .
  - wollsmoth 4y ago
    We have a number of hydroelectric dams around the country, so it depends on where you are I guess.
  - xeromal 4y ago
    You need to think of batteries/the electric network like an interface. We can eventually replace the electric backend with better and better sources over time without needing to change the cars, but gas will always be stuck being as polluting as it always has been. Retrofits for gas / diesel cars/trucks are few and far between.
    - gmm1990 4y ago
      Why can't this argument be made for hydrogen
      - xeromal 4y ago
        I think there's definitely room for hydrogen, but the interface analogy falls flat for hydrogen. It's not like you can just drop in another fuel type into a hydrogen car after it's produced? The strength of electricity is that the backend is agnostic. It can be hydro, nuclear, sun, or some other future fuel. Hell, you can could run electricity using hydrogen if you wanted.
        gmm1990 4y ago
        oh yeah, I meant the hydrogen production source could be changed from not green to green. Exactly if you have extra green energy you can just produce hydrogen with it.
        xeromal 4y ago
        Yeah, that's totally reasonable. I have a friend that has a Mirai and it's really really cool. We just need to build out more infrastructure.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - i80and 4y ago
    This is HIGHLY regional. In New Jersey, half of the power generated is nuclear, and in the west, hydroelectric dominates.
- jansan 4y ago
  If we could all stop shilling for "Green Hydrogen" that would be great. No, we cannot and should not, because that is part of a healthy discussion.
  - blkhawk 4y ago
    Yes, in a neutral environment everything can be discussed and its a "healthy". The problem is that hydrogen was used as a discussion poison. It uses up air and blocks talking about the important stuff. You cannot discuss every crackpot idea for everything always. I am tried of it. It only got traction in the first place because it was something that seemed to work "like people are used to" ie. tanking fuel at a fuel station and at the same time needed "development". This made it a nice way to show your car company was hip and with the times and at the same time didn't mean you actually had to build the things since more development was always needed. Battery powered cars were always too easy to create into whatever disapointing lackluster form they had at that time in history. For me unless you preface that you have an interesting use case for hydrogen or solved one of the fundamental inefficiencies in getting hydrogen and using it then I am not interested in hearing about it. Especially in combination with personal transportation. Oh and Green Hydrogen functionally does not exist. Ditto Blue Hydrogen (as in that CO2 sequestering probably doesn't work). That leaves grey Hydrogen from steam reforming and that how hydrogen is made from natural gas creating a lot of CO2. Shilling for Green Hydrogen basically means Shilling for grey hydrogen and that is the worst. I have some hope that pyrolyse will be used in the future instead of steam reforming because it seems you actually can sequester that carbon it creates but its less efficient by a lot vs steam reformation and emitting CO2.
    - jansan 4y ago
      ...every crackpot idea for everything--- Uh, yeah, ahm, I'm gonna go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.
      - gaganyaan 4y ago
        Yeah, it's crackpot at this point. Hydrogen is a dead end. Accept that and embrace the future that's already here: electric
- martythemaniak 4y ago
  1200W are the highest power ones. I'm gonna guess that when they say "common microwave", they mean 800-1000W, which is what food packaging uses (and what people actually have), so that cartridge is likely 3kWh. It doesn't include a fuel cell, so you can't just plug it in like a battery. So it's 5.5kg, plus a fuel cell vs 15kg for a battery that doesn't need extra parts to produce electricity. Also, can't recharge on common infrastructure, cost is not mentioned, etc. Overall a slight improvement that's practically useless. That's hydrogen in a nutshell for you.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Whenever something is measured in some strange unit that would make even the English system blush, you know it's not that great.
- wollsmoth 4y ago
  Batteries for electric cars need to be made of elements mined out of the earth which I hear is expensive and not great for the environment. Idk why hydrogen isn't practical as a fuel over gas.
  - api 4y ago
    Batteries are largely recyclable and lithium does not need to be consumed constantly by a battery. Most modern Li-Ion batteries in cars have useful lifespans of a decade or more and they're getting better. With this you need to make a ton of these cartridges and then have a big delivery infrastructure to ship them around that uses a ton of power, way more than is consumed by the power grid shipping energy from a power plant into a battery.
    - davoneus 4y ago
      EV Batteries can be recycled, but finding a place that WILL is an entirely different proposition. Granted California just recently started (*), but that doesn't do a hell of a lot of good to someone in Michigan, Missouri or New Mexico. As far as Batteries lasting 'decades', you won't get far with that argument when talking to Nissan Leaf owners who are having to replace their 9 year old batteries after 150K miles (**) I'm all for EV's, but proponents should remember EV's started somewhere too, with lots of the same skepticism thrown their way (expensive home systems to recharge their batteries, the cost of recharging networks, cold performance, etc...) As I see it, there's way too much of the same talk coming from the Battery EV crowd when they talk about Hydrogen. (*) https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/electric-vehicle-battery-recycling-california https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/electric-vehicle-battery-... (**) https://driving.ca/features/feature-story/the-big-looming-problem-with-old-evs-its-really-really-hard-to-change-the-battery https://driving.ca/features/feature-story/the-big-looming-pr...
      - vel0city 4y ago
        Nissan Leaf batteries have some of the worst designs for a car as they're air-cooled instead of liquid-cooled. There's really little comparison of the quality of those packs compared to practically every other EV out there. > expensive home systems to recharge their batteries It cost <$200 to install a NEMA 14-50 outlet in my garage and the charger was included. > the cost of recharging network I've spent ~$225 in charging cost to drive my EV ~8,200mi so far (8200mi / 3.5mi/kWh * $0.096/kWh). A 25mpg car (seems about normal for a crossover) going that distance would use 328 gallons of gas (8200mi / 25mpg * $3.50/gal). If we just say gas was ~$3.50 on average over the last year, that means I would have spent $1,148 in gas driving the same amount. Even if you were to amortize the entire cost of the outlet install in the first year of driving (which, I mean, you wouldn't, that plug will be fine practically until the house gets torn down), you're still talking ~$425 versus ~$1,148. And that's just the first year of ownership, this difference then compounds even more every year after. Tell me again about how expensive $225 is compared to $1,148.
- deelowe 4y ago
  > Why is Toyota still throwing cash into the hydrogen money pit? The cynic in me believes there are incentives for automakers not completely and immediately abandoning fossil fuels, but instead enabling a slow transition. Hydrogen allows for this while batteries do not. I'm not sure what these incentives might be, but a gradual transition off of fossil fuels always seems to come through in Toyota's marketing materials for hydrogen.
  - protomyth 4y ago
    Toyota and Honda are big into hydrogen. I get the feeling that both have some reservations about lithium batteries. Given the diverse power programs of both companies, it might just be hedging their bets.
    - jansan 4y ago
      It always puzzled me that Toyota was one of the pioneers in Hybrid engines, but were very hesitant to offer full electric cars. They are very good at making money (yearly net income of 20-25 bln US§), so I would really be interested on what calculations they made their decision.
      - protomyth 4y ago
        I'm in the same boat. I think they have made a very deliberate calculation and are one of the companies that has the data to make said calculation. I assume they aren't whimsical or stupid, so I would really like to know what Toyota is thinking. Honda is a bit more understandable since airplanes look to be going to hydrogen and they make airplanes too, but not that much more really. I assume they have some very good reasons.
  - api 4y ago
    It's more likely to come through government somehow. I recall reading something weird about Japan telling auto makers which tech to explore, but I forget where.
    - 4y ago
- ZetaZero 4y ago
  The average household uses 893 kWh per month. At your 4.8kWh per canister, that is 186 canisters per month, or six canisters per day. This is useless for typical home usage.
  - sithadmin 4y ago
    I don't think anybody is arguing that homes should run off hydrogen canisters that are clearly intended for use cases like light vehicles or perhaps a small generator, or that homes should run off hydrogen in general (though this could be useful in off-grid contexts with large supply tanks similar to the propane tanks used to supply heating and cooking gas in many rural American homes).
    - vel0city 4y ago
      What do you envision they meant by "household applications" then? Every large appliance in your house has its own hydrogen fuel cell and takes these cartridges to run for a few hours, then you drive to the hydrogen store in your ultralight car that goes a couple dozen miles on a cylinder?
  - chomp 4y ago
    In my home in the southern US, I'd need ~13 canisters per day due to cooling needs at my current consumption. I could probably ration them and use ~5 per day in case a hurricane hits, and then I'd have about 2ish days of emergency power, but who wants to store explosive gas in their home? I've bought propane cylinders at the store and gotten leaky ones. At least propane doesn't combust unless it hits an ignition source.
    - guicho271828 4y ago
      Please don't say you wear long sleeves in an air-conditioned room.
      - chomp 4y ago
        Ha no, at the office building yes, but we keep our A/C around 75F during the day. I'd go warmer but the interior humidity gets really bad if I let it go too high.
- vel0city 4y ago
  If a car gets 3.5mi/kWh, then to drive 200mi from these you'd need about a dozen of these. And that's assuming they're talking 1200W microwaves and not 800-1,000W, which IMO when people say "a typical household microwave" ~1kW is what I imagine.
- jayd16 4y ago
  >24kg of lithium batteries to supply the same amount of energy. [..] The cartridge Toyota has developed manages to do this for 5.5kg You'd also need to add the weight of the element that converts the hydrogen into electricity no?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  The problem with batteries is charging time. My sedan goes roughly 400 miles on a tank of gas, and filling up to go further takes in the region of 5 minutes. With an electric car, you're looking at maybe an hour to fill it up to that range, even with a supercharger. (Note that electric cars don't even go 400 miles on a full charge, so this will take multiple charges to do.) If you need to go further than a single charge, well, hydrogen may provide faster charging times than electric will.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    I spend a ton more time waiting to "recharge" my ICE than I do my EV, its not even close. If you're going to go by time waiting, my EV wins out by hours a year. Compounding that a several years and its essentially a day or two of my life saved by not having to pump gas every week and a half.
    - dham 4y ago
      That's just not true. That's just something EV owners say to themselves to justify purchase. I've seen a bunch of these longer drives on Youtube. They try to say, hey you can stop here and get lunch or wait 30 minutes and the kids can play a game. I watched a trip one person did and every time they stopped they went shopping in the Walmart (this was non Tesla chargers) or ate. That adds up. Plus you might not always be in the best part of town late at night. At the end of the day according to the Tesla trip planner it adds quite a bit of time on to basic trips. The other thing is these chargers might not be covered so you're out in the rain, or snow and the lots haven't been cleared. That just doesn't seem fun with 2 kids. You also have to think about the AC / heat, how you're driving, battery degrading after first year or so. It's an anxiety I don't need. Plus in my case I would have to get my Tesla towed 3 hours away with major issues. I now minor ones the traveling repair can deal with. A neighbor had a collision and didn't have his Tesla for 4 months. The facilities are so backed up. No one knows how to work on them except Tesla. Electric is the future, but it's like 4 to 5 years out. Hybrid is good enough right now. With ICE you literally pull of an exit, take 5 minutes to fill up and you're back.
      - 4y ago
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  > The cartridge Toyota has developed manages to do this for 5.5kg. Not bad, but not a paradigm shift, considering you have to build a logistics network to refill the cartridges. It may not a paradigm shift for cars but definitely a game-changer for aviation. Right now, there are a few experimental light aircraft powered by batteries can manage 20-30 minutes in the air. Quadruple that and you have something that's actually practical transportation.
  - protomyth 4y ago
    AirBus has already indicated that hydrogen is their future for sustainability. At least one startup has a plan to have off-site (somewhere other than the airport) filled containers that are plugged into the aircraft instead of a normal refueling.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Electric aircraft have demonstrated flying for over an hour, and several hours is feasible. No point in these compressed hydrogen things for airplanes. The weight is just too high. Hydrogen aviation only makes sense with cryogenic hydrogen storage IMHo, and only for very long duration
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      And yet aviation technology professionals who presumably know more than either of us have decided that hydrogen is the future for general commercial aviation, not electric craft.
      - Robotbeat 4y ago
        I am an aviation technology professional.
        gamblor956 4y ago
        Clearly not, if you believe that lithium-based batteries have anywhere near the energy capacity for large aircraft.
- andjd 4y ago
  This seems to be an effective distribution model for propane, and it would be a lot easier to make Hydrogen accessible by this model than building out a dedicated gas-station like network. It's also good to diversify the alternatives to fossil fuels. It's not clear that there are sufficient accessible deposits of lithium and other raw materials to meet the demands of electrification of everything via lithium batteries, and the vast majority of current lithium supply is controlled by Chinese businesses. So it's prudent for a company the size of Toyota to be investing in this, even if the technology is not currently competitive with batteries for automobiles. One area where I could see this being useful is in construction. Being able to swap out a fuel tank and just keep working seems would be a huge benefit over having to let heavy equipment sit idle for hours to charge, and that's assuming there's access to the electric grid onsite.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    > It's not clear that there are sufficient accessible deposits of lithium and other raw materials to meet the demands of electrification of everything via lithium batteries Yes, it is clear. It’s one of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust and is common in brines. Can also be extracted from seawater for less than current market spot prices.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      deposits in the earth != production capacity if the increase in demand outpaces the increase in supply, you'll see a price squeeze, regardless of how much salt remains in the oceans if someone goes and outlaws internal combustion engines, for instance, you may see demand increase quicker than supply can catch up
      - Robotbeat 4y ago
        Clearly, but that’s a short term constraint, not a medium to long term constraint. The short term constraints on hydrogen are way worse, and hydrogen already has massive industrial demand that is being met virtually entirely by fossil hydrogen. If green hydrogen production was a slam dunk and we just needed storage, etc, then we’d already been using massive amounts of green hydrogen industrially instead of, like, 1%. (Note that in the US, 41% of electricity is clean.)
- michael1999 4y ago
  It is a mystery. Theories: - Their engineers didn't think batteries were practical back in 1992 (reasonable). But by the early 2000s, batteries started to prove themselves, and fuel cells continued to struggle. But now those engineers from 1992 are in charge, and refuse to admit they've spent their career traveling a dead-end road. - They have some deep insight into other uses (trains, forklifts, jet-skis?) and need to build out the tech, and cars are their home. Germany is similarly stubborn about hydrogen trains too. My money is on face. Toyota has spent too much money, and can't change until some senior people retire.
- guicho271828 4y ago
  Cartridge distribution network is just like Amazon, right? It already exists. > Not bad, but not a paradigm shift, So P100D (100kWh) needs 20 cartridges, or 110kg, instead of nearly 500kg of Li-ion battery. 400kg savings. The comment means you probably know nothing about vehicle dynamics. Or too accustomed to dull handling of heavy pickup trucks.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Look at how huge those cylinders are. Sure you're saving some weight but now the entire cabin is full of these cylinders and you're strapping a few to the roof.
- natch 4y ago
  >Why … hydrogen money pit? Maybe because hydrogen is infamously corrosive. And that means they can build a huge maintenance business if consumers are gullible enough to adopt the technology.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  The 5kg is for a target prototype. They haven’t achieved that, and it doesn’t include the protector or valve. 5kg for 3.3kWh (they claim 3.3kWh per unit, not 4.8kWh) Meanwhile, the best prototype lithium ion cells are in the 400-650Wh/kg range, in other words identical on the high end. What’s the point of hydrogen again?
  - avmich 4y ago
    Hydrogen alone clearly has more energy density than batteries. The question is how much hydrogen containers would reduce that advantage. So far hydrogen at least has the benefit of speed of refilling. In some applications, like aviation, hydrogen could bring benefit of reducing mass with spent fuel, something which batteries don't do. I think 5kg containers for 3.3kWh is a good number, especially comparing with batteries, which had recent decades of targeted development. At least the technology is nowhere near of clearly losing to alternatives. "Green hydrogen" can definitely be obtained without generating CO2, the questions are elsewhere.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Hydrogen fuel cells were developed in the 1830s (concept developed in 1801), commercialized in the 1930s, and the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were developed in the 1950s. Was used in NASA’s Gemini program. Rechargeable Lithium ion is relatively new, having started development only in the 1960s and in modern form not until the 1980s, being used for practical applications only starting in the 1990s.
      - avmich 4y ago
        I know all of that and still would consider efforts which went into recent batteries technologies as more targeted and supported by industry, than similar for hydrogen-based power transformations.
- senectus1 4y ago
  >If we could all stop shilling for "Green Hydrogen" that would be great why? A Green Hydrogen company that builds infrastructure to make ship and sell GREEN Hydrogen is a good thing. Hiding your energy source under the guise of "clean energy electric cars" is the bullshit we should stop shilling. Any other color Hydrogen marketing is just the same bullshit shilling as well. Green Hydrogen goes a long long way towards fixing the institutional issues we have with greenwashing.
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  Batteries are anything but "green". The environment costs of extracting and recycling lithium would be astronomical if we ever get to the point where batteries are our primary energy source instead of oil.
wollsmoth 4y ago
I wonder if it would make any sense to put out floating barges on the ocean with solar panels that use electrolysis to fill h2 containers like this. I guess it probably wouldn't be very efficient...
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  Probably easier just to bring the electricity ashore by cable. Or just put everything on dry land: heavily insolated land with minimal other use isn't in very short supply: just ask Australia and half of Africa.
  - wollsmoth 4y ago
    Oh but trasmitting electricity is lossy. I think H2 in a tank is more stable. You could move it over a great distance without losing energy I think. I guess you could put the panels on land but you'd have to pipe in water. You could pull from the ground water I guess.
    - eropple 4y ago
      Long distance HV transmission has expected losses of a percent or less per hundred miles. That's not nothing, but compared to adding fully parallel infrastructure for a fuel source that doesn't seem to actually add up when you look at it? Eh.
      - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
        Also your have to fuel the tank logistic network: those H2 barges won't propel themselves (and a pipeline network of H2 is a nightmare for lots of reasons). Plus, distributed H2 generation is probably less efficient then a few massive refineries, and almost certainly would also consume more resources (worn out equipment, tanks, etc) which would take more energy to replace.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      > I think H2 in a tank is more stable. You could move it over a great distance without losing energy I think. How are you going to move it without using any energy? Is that massive barge just going to move to shore and back using zero-point energy? Is the gas going to compress itself using that same zero-point energy source? Are we just going to ignore the much higher maintenance costs of all the moving parts of the ship and compressors and tank repairs versus the lower maintenance costs of fixed and stable solid infrastructure?
pacbard 4y ago
So basically it's a gas canister filled with hydrogen instead of propane gas (which, by the way, is available almost everywhere at least in the US). It seems that they might have implemented a "quick" swap locking mechanism but that's pretty much it. What I am wondering is: 1. How is this different than just using H2 canisters that are already available for welding (for example)? I wouldn't want to do a "hot swap" for a gas tank in a car as there are a ton of things that can go wrong, but that's pretty much what these canisters are trying to do anyways. 2. For home use, big propane tanks are already commonly used in places where there is no municipal natural gas line, so why would someone use theses small canisters instead of just installing a big tank for hydrogen outside? 3. Isn't the energy density of H2 way lower than other gases that could be used for automotive purposes? For example, in Europe is common to have after market conversions to propane or natural gas. Both have more energy density than hydrogen, leading to either smaller/lighter tanks and/or higher range with the same volume of gas. I get that hydrogen has the potential to be green with electrolysis (but we are not there yet and most H2 available now is made from hydrocarbons anyways) but it seems to be trying to be solving a problem in a convoluted way and/or mimicking the "electric battery" hot swap technology but for hydrogen without getting complete tech parity with it.
- vel0city 4y ago
  The biggest difference between comparing storing H2 to LP is that LP is liquid at an otherwise pretty low pressure and common temperature. The most you're going to see an LP tank get to is ~200psi. Hydrogen gas for cars is often dispensed at around 5,000-10,000psi. That's a whole different level of requirements needed for safety and construction of the cylinders, they're practically not comparable in the slightest.
mrfusion 4y ago
Man, Toyota is totally pulling a Sears here. They’ve been the leader in hybrids for decades and it wouldn’t have taken much to gradually parlay that into EV’s. Instead they keep doing this bizarre hydrogen fixation.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  They had electric power trains in their hybrids, including regen etc. How they didn't go to a range extender electric vehicle and then full EV and own all that is mind boggling. Just the physics of "green" hydrogen seems so miserable. Take electricity? Use it to convert water at great cost to hydrogen. Then use more energy to compress it? Then lots of cost in shipping and handling (hydrogen is hard to handle). Then turn it back into electricity, then use that to run an electric motor.
  - p_l 4y ago
    Most sensible green hydrogen infrastructure involves electrolyzers at charging station (which for cars can easily double as charging station for BEV). It brings certain advantages in terms of charging speed and energy density scaling that can be problematic for batteries (and while there's considerable flexibility depending on users to just accept longer charging, that blocks you away from certain use cases beyond light car market)
  - robga 4y ago
    My local hydrogen station electrolyses water onsite using excess grid energy.
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Charge time. You can swap a cartridge in seconds, so it's essentially zero (if you have a handly supply chain of cartridges).
beefman 4y ago
Comparison with a Li-ion battery pack Toyota H2 5 kg (empty?) 10 L 3.5 kWh prototype Greenworks Li-ion[1] 3.6 kg 2 L 0.35 kWh retail $270 Greenworks vs Toyota Mass: 3.6 kg * 10 / 5 kg = 7x Volume: 2 L * 10 / 10 L = 2x Cost: ? A battery designed for 3.5 kWh could certainly do better than using 10 of these smaller batteries, with their redundant systems. Also we should include the balance of plant for the hydrogen system since this cartridge is apparently just a tank (?). Fuel cells have notoriously low power density, whereas the power density of these batteries is excellent. So the batteries could come out well ahead, depending on the power requirements. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Greenworks-PRO-Lithium-Battery-GBA80500/dp/B01ID88GDS/ https://www.amazon.com/Greenworks-PRO-Lithium-Battery-GBA805...

43 points by protomyth 4y ago

> "one hydrogen cartridge is assumed to generate enough electricity to operate a typical household microwave for approximately 3-4 hours." So, let's oversimplify and say that a typical household microwave consumes 1200W continuously. That's about 4.8kWh over 4 hours. Given current Lithium battery energy densities (18650: 200Wh/kg) then you'd need 24kg of lithium batteries to supply the same amount of energy. The cartridge Toyota has developed manages to do this for 5.5kg. Not bad, but not a paradigm shift, considering you have to build a logistics network to refill the cartridges. > In its press release, Toyota acknowledges that most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels and so not exactly green. But it thinks that it'll be generated with low carbon emissions in the future, and that the cartridges could help with some of the infrastructure issues. If we could all stop shilling for "Green Hydrogen" that would be great. Batteries can be charged today from low-carbon sources, and the electric grid is already present in most places you'd drive an EV, and certainly more places than have a preexisting hydrogen cartridge distribution network. > However, Toyota seems to be pitching the cartridges for personal and home use, but it's not yet clear what you'd use them for. In a world where Lithium batteries exist and the technology has far more R&D investment, what would you use these for? Why is Toyota still throwing cash into the hydrogen money pit?

ffggvv 4y ago
can we stop shilling for green electricity? we know batteries are not charged from low carbon sources today
- kogepathic 4y ago
  > we know batteries are not charged from low carbon sources today Have you got any grid-scale "green hydrogen" projects with a higher energy efficiency than existing grid-scale renewable energy projects (solar, wind)? Because unless you do, "green hydrogen" is dead on arrival in any market. > can we stop shilling for green electricity? No, because we already know how to make grid-scale low-carbon energy. Show me grid-scale "green hydrogen" and I'll retract my criticism.
  - davoneus 4y ago
    This might be one to watch: Massive green hydrogen hub in Utah wins $504M federal loan guarantee (*) Course this could end up like Concentrating Solar Power plants and end up on the wrong side of the cost-benefit equation, but I'd argue it is still worth a look. (*) https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/massive-green-hydrogen-hub-in-utah-wins-504m-federal-loan-guarantee https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/hydrogen/massive-green-...
    - avmich 4y ago
      It was interesting to read about efficient electrolyzer - https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electrolysis/ https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electr... .
- wollsmoth 4y ago
  We have a number of hydroelectric dams around the country, so it depends on where you are I guess.
- xeromal 4y ago
  You need to think of batteries/the electric network like an interface. We can eventually replace the electric backend with better and better sources over time without needing to change the cars, but gas will always be stuck being as polluting as it always has been. Retrofits for gas / diesel cars/trucks are few and far between.
  - gmm1990 4y ago
    Why can't this argument be made for hydrogen
    - xeromal 4y ago
      I think there's definitely room for hydrogen, but the interface analogy falls flat for hydrogen. It's not like you can just drop in another fuel type into a hydrogen car after it's produced? The strength of electricity is that the backend is agnostic. It can be hydro, nuclear, sun, or some other future fuel. Hell, you can could run electricity using hydrogen if you wanted.
      - gmm1990 4y ago
        oh yeah, I meant the hydrogen production source could be changed from not green to green. Exactly if you have extra green energy you can just produce hydrogen with it.
        xeromal 4y ago
        Yeah, that's totally reasonable. I have a friend that has a Mirai and it's really really cool. We just need to build out more infrastructure.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- i80and 4y ago
  This is HIGHLY regional. In New Jersey, half of the power generated is nuclear, and in the west, hydroelectric dominates.
jansan 4y ago
If we could all stop shilling for "Green Hydrogen" that would be great. No, we cannot and should not, because that is part of a healthy discussion.
- blkhawk 4y ago
  Yes, in a neutral environment everything can be discussed and its a "healthy". The problem is that hydrogen was used as a discussion poison. It uses up air and blocks talking about the important stuff. You cannot discuss every crackpot idea for everything always. I am tried of it. It only got traction in the first place because it was something that seemed to work "like people are used to" ie. tanking fuel at a fuel station and at the same time needed "development". This made it a nice way to show your car company was hip and with the times and at the same time didn't mean you actually had to build the things since more development was always needed. Battery powered cars were always too easy to create into whatever disapointing lackluster form they had at that time in history. For me unless you preface that you have an interesting use case for hydrogen or solved one of the fundamental inefficiencies in getting hydrogen and using it then I am not interested in hearing about it. Especially in combination with personal transportation. Oh and Green Hydrogen functionally does not exist. Ditto Blue Hydrogen (as in that CO2 sequestering probably doesn't work). That leaves grey Hydrogen from steam reforming and that how hydrogen is made from natural gas creating a lot of CO2. Shilling for Green Hydrogen basically means Shilling for grey hydrogen and that is the worst. I have some hope that pyrolyse will be used in the future instead of steam reforming because it seems you actually can sequester that carbon it creates but its less efficient by a lot vs steam reformation and emitting CO2.
  - jansan 4y ago
    ...every crackpot idea for everything--- Uh, yeah, ahm, I'm gonna go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.
    - gaganyaan 4y ago
      Yeah, it's crackpot at this point. Hydrogen is a dead end. Accept that and embrace the future that's already here: electric
martythemaniak 4y ago
1200W are the highest power ones. I'm gonna guess that when they say "common microwave", they mean 800-1000W, which is what food packaging uses (and what people actually have), so that cartridge is likely 3kWh. It doesn't include a fuel cell, so you can't just plug it in like a battery. So it's 5.5kg, plus a fuel cell vs 15kg for a battery that doesn't need extra parts to produce electricity. Also, can't recharge on common infrastructure, cost is not mentioned, etc. Overall a slight improvement that's practically useless. That's hydrogen in a nutshell for you.
bombcar 4y ago
Whenever something is measured in some strange unit that would make even the English system blush, you know it's not that great.
wollsmoth 4y ago
Batteries for electric cars need to be made of elements mined out of the earth which I hear is expensive and not great for the environment. Idk why hydrogen isn't practical as a fuel over gas.
- api 4y ago
  Batteries are largely recyclable and lithium does not need to be consumed constantly by a battery. Most modern Li-Ion batteries in cars have useful lifespans of a decade or more and they're getting better. With this you need to make a ton of these cartridges and then have a big delivery infrastructure to ship them around that uses a ton of power, way more than is consumed by the power grid shipping energy from a power plant into a battery.
  - davoneus 4y ago
    EV Batteries can be recycled, but finding a place that WILL is an entirely different proposition. Granted California just recently started (*), but that doesn't do a hell of a lot of good to someone in Michigan, Missouri or New Mexico. As far as Batteries lasting 'decades', you won't get far with that argument when talking to Nissan Leaf owners who are having to replace their 9 year old batteries after 150K miles (**) I'm all for EV's, but proponents should remember EV's started somewhere too, with lots of the same skepticism thrown their way (expensive home systems to recharge their batteries, the cost of recharging networks, cold performance, etc...) As I see it, there's way too much of the same talk coming from the Battery EV crowd when they talk about Hydrogen. (*) https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/electric-vehicle-battery-recycling-california https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/electric-vehicle-battery-... (**) https://driving.ca/features/feature-story/the-big-looming-problem-with-old-evs-its-really-really-hard-to-change-the-battery https://driving.ca/features/feature-story/the-big-looming-pr...
    - vel0city 4y ago
      Nissan Leaf batteries have some of the worst designs for a car as they're air-cooled instead of liquid-cooled. There's really little comparison of the quality of those packs compared to practically every other EV out there. > expensive home systems to recharge their batteries It cost <$200 to install a NEMA 14-50 outlet in my garage and the charger was included. > the cost of recharging network I've spent ~$225 in charging cost to drive my EV ~8,200mi so far (8200mi / 3.5mi/kWh * $0.096/kWh). A 25mpg car (seems about normal for a crossover) going that distance would use 328 gallons of gas (8200mi / 25mpg * $3.50/gal). If we just say gas was ~$3.50 on average over the last year, that means I would have spent $1,148 in gas driving the same amount. Even if you were to amortize the entire cost of the outlet install in the first year of driving (which, I mean, you wouldn't, that plug will be fine practically until the house gets torn down), you're still talking ~$425 versus ~$1,148. And that's just the first year of ownership, this difference then compounds even more every year after. Tell me again about how expensive $225 is compared to $1,148.
deelowe 4y ago
> Why is Toyota still throwing cash into the hydrogen money pit? The cynic in me believes there are incentives for automakers not completely and immediately abandoning fossil fuels, but instead enabling a slow transition. Hydrogen allows for this while batteries do not. I'm not sure what these incentives might be, but a gradual transition off of fossil fuels always seems to come through in Toyota's marketing materials for hydrogen.
- protomyth 4y ago
  Toyota and Honda are big into hydrogen. I get the feeling that both have some reservations about lithium batteries. Given the diverse power programs of both companies, it might just be hedging their bets.
  - jansan 4y ago
    It always puzzled me that Toyota was one of the pioneers in Hybrid engines, but were very hesitant to offer full electric cars. They are very good at making money (yearly net income of 20-25 bln US§), so I would really be interested on what calculations they made their decision.
    - protomyth 4y ago
      I'm in the same boat. I think they have made a very deliberate calculation and are one of the companies that has the data to make said calculation. I assume they aren't whimsical or stupid, so I would really like to know what Toyota is thinking. Honda is a bit more understandable since airplanes look to be going to hydrogen and they make airplanes too, but not that much more really. I assume they have some very good reasons.
- api 4y ago
  It's more likely to come through government somehow. I recall reading something weird about Japan telling auto makers which tech to explore, but I forget where.
  - 4y ago
ZetaZero 4y ago
The average household uses 893 kWh per month. At your 4.8kWh per canister, that is 186 canisters per month, or six canisters per day. This is useless for typical home usage.
- sithadmin 4y ago
  I don't think anybody is arguing that homes should run off hydrogen canisters that are clearly intended for use cases like light vehicles or perhaps a small generator, or that homes should run off hydrogen in general (though this could be useful in off-grid contexts with large supply tanks similar to the propane tanks used to supply heating and cooking gas in many rural American homes).
  - vel0city 4y ago
    What do you envision they meant by "household applications" then? Every large appliance in your house has its own hydrogen fuel cell and takes these cartridges to run for a few hours, then you drive to the hydrogen store in your ultralight car that goes a couple dozen miles on a cylinder?
- chomp 4y ago
  In my home in the southern US, I'd need ~13 canisters per day due to cooling needs at my current consumption. I could probably ration them and use ~5 per day in case a hurricane hits, and then I'd have about 2ish days of emergency power, but who wants to store explosive gas in their home? I've bought propane cylinders at the store and gotten leaky ones. At least propane doesn't combust unless it hits an ignition source.
  - guicho271828 4y ago
    Please don't say you wear long sleeves in an air-conditioned room.
    - chomp 4y ago
      Ha no, at the office building yes, but we keep our A/C around 75F during the day. I'd go warmer but the interior humidity gets really bad if I let it go too high.
vel0city 4y ago
If a car gets 3.5mi/kWh, then to drive 200mi from these you'd need about a dozen of these. And that's assuming they're talking 1200W microwaves and not 800-1,000W, which IMO when people say "a typical household microwave" ~1kW is what I imagine.
jayd16 4y ago
>24kg of lithium batteries to supply the same amount of energy. [..] The cartridge Toyota has developed manages to do this for 5.5kg You'd also need to add the weight of the element that converts the hydrogen into electricity no?
jcranmer 4y ago
The problem with batteries is charging time. My sedan goes roughly 400 miles on a tank of gas, and filling up to go further takes in the region of 5 minutes. With an electric car, you're looking at maybe an hour to fill it up to that range, even with a supercharger. (Note that electric cars don't even go 400 miles on a full charge, so this will take multiple charges to do.) If you need to go further than a single charge, well, hydrogen may provide faster charging times than electric will.
- vel0city 4y ago
  I spend a ton more time waiting to "recharge" my ICE than I do my EV, its not even close. If you're going to go by time waiting, my EV wins out by hours a year. Compounding that a several years and its essentially a day or two of my life saved by not having to pump gas every week and a half.
  - dham 4y ago
    That's just not true. That's just something EV owners say to themselves to justify purchase. I've seen a bunch of these longer drives on Youtube. They try to say, hey you can stop here and get lunch or wait 30 minutes and the kids can play a game. I watched a trip one person did and every time they stopped they went shopping in the Walmart (this was non Tesla chargers) or ate. That adds up. Plus you might not always be in the best part of town late at night. At the end of the day according to the Tesla trip planner it adds quite a bit of time on to basic trips. The other thing is these chargers might not be covered so you're out in the rain, or snow and the lots haven't been cleared. That just doesn't seem fun with 2 kids. You also have to think about the AC / heat, how you're driving, battery degrading after first year or so. It's an anxiety I don't need. Plus in my case I would have to get my Tesla towed 3 hours away with major issues. I now minor ones the traveling repair can deal with. A neighbor had a collision and didn't have his Tesla for 4 months. The facilities are so backed up. No one knows how to work on them except Tesla. Electric is the future, but it's like 4 to 5 years out. Hybrid is good enough right now. With ICE you literally pull of an exit, take 5 minutes to fill up and you're back.
    - 4y ago
oceanplexian 4y ago
> The cartridge Toyota has developed manages to do this for 5.5kg. Not bad, but not a paradigm shift, considering you have to build a logistics network to refill the cartridges. It may not a paradigm shift for cars but definitely a game-changer for aviation. Right now, there are a few experimental light aircraft powered by batteries can manage 20-30 minutes in the air. Quadruple that and you have something that's actually practical transportation.
- protomyth 4y ago
  AirBus has already indicated that hydrogen is their future for sustainability. At least one startup has a plan to have off-site (somewhere other than the airport) filled containers that are plugged into the aircraft instead of a normal refueling.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Electric aircraft have demonstrated flying for over an hour, and several hours is feasible. No point in these compressed hydrogen things for airplanes. The weight is just too high. Hydrogen aviation only makes sense with cryogenic hydrogen storage IMHo, and only for very long duration
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    And yet aviation technology professionals who presumably know more than either of us have decided that hydrogen is the future for general commercial aviation, not electric craft.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      I am an aviation technology professional.
      - gamblor956 4y ago
        Clearly not, if you believe that lithium-based batteries have anywhere near the energy capacity for large aircraft.
andjd 4y ago
This seems to be an effective distribution model for propane, and it would be a lot easier to make Hydrogen accessible by this model than building out a dedicated gas-station like network. It's also good to diversify the alternatives to fossil fuels. It's not clear that there are sufficient accessible deposits of lithium and other raw materials to meet the demands of electrification of everything via lithium batteries, and the vast majority of current lithium supply is controlled by Chinese businesses. So it's prudent for a company the size of Toyota to be investing in this, even if the technology is not currently competitive with batteries for automobiles. One area where I could see this being useful is in construction. Being able to swap out a fuel tank and just keep working seems would be a huge benefit over having to let heavy equipment sit idle for hours to charge, and that's assuming there's access to the electric grid onsite.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  > It's not clear that there are sufficient accessible deposits of lithium and other raw materials to meet the demands of electrification of everything via lithium batteries Yes, it is clear. It’s one of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust and is common in brines. Can also be extracted from seawater for less than current market spot prices.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    deposits in the earth != production capacity if the increase in demand outpaces the increase in supply, you'll see a price squeeze, regardless of how much salt remains in the oceans if someone goes and outlaws internal combustion engines, for instance, you may see demand increase quicker than supply can catch up
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Clearly, but that’s a short term constraint, not a medium to long term constraint. The short term constraints on hydrogen are way worse, and hydrogen already has massive industrial demand that is being met virtually entirely by fossil hydrogen. If green hydrogen production was a slam dunk and we just needed storage, etc, then we’d already been using massive amounts of green hydrogen industrially instead of, like, 1%. (Note that in the US, 41% of electricity is clean.)
michael1999 4y ago
It is a mystery. Theories: - Their engineers didn't think batteries were practical back in 1992 (reasonable). But by the early 2000s, batteries started to prove themselves, and fuel cells continued to struggle. But now those engineers from 1992 are in charge, and refuse to admit they've spent their career traveling a dead-end road. - They have some deep insight into other uses (trains, forklifts, jet-skis?) and need to build out the tech, and cars are their home. Germany is similarly stubborn about hydrogen trains too. My money is on face. Toyota has spent too much money, and can't change until some senior people retire.
guicho271828 4y ago
Cartridge distribution network is just like Amazon, right? It already exists. > Not bad, but not a paradigm shift, So P100D (100kWh) needs 20 cartridges, or 110kg, instead of nearly 500kg of Li-ion battery. 400kg savings. The comment means you probably know nothing about vehicle dynamics. Or too accustomed to dull handling of heavy pickup trucks.
- vel0city 4y ago
  Look at how huge those cylinders are. Sure you're saving some weight but now the entire cabin is full of these cylinders and you're strapping a few to the roof.
natch 4y ago
>Why … hydrogen money pit? Maybe because hydrogen is infamously corrosive. And that means they can build a huge maintenance business if consumers are gullible enough to adopt the technology.
Robotbeat 4y ago
The 5kg is for a target prototype. They haven’t achieved that, and it doesn’t include the protector or valve. 5kg for 3.3kWh (they claim 3.3kWh per unit, not 4.8kWh) Meanwhile, the best prototype lithium ion cells are in the 400-650Wh/kg range, in other words identical on the high end. What’s the point of hydrogen again?
- avmich 4y ago
  Hydrogen alone clearly has more energy density than batteries. The question is how much hydrogen containers would reduce that advantage. So far hydrogen at least has the benefit of speed of refilling. In some applications, like aviation, hydrogen could bring benefit of reducing mass with spent fuel, something which batteries don't do. I think 5kg containers for 3.3kWh is a good number, especially comparing with batteries, which had recent decades of targeted development. At least the technology is nowhere near of clearly losing to alternatives. "Green hydrogen" can definitely be obtained without generating CO2, the questions are elsewhere.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Hydrogen fuel cells were developed in the 1830s (concept developed in 1801), commercialized in the 1930s, and the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were developed in the 1950s. Was used in NASA’s Gemini program. Rechargeable Lithium ion is relatively new, having started development only in the 1960s and in modern form not until the 1980s, being used for practical applications only starting in the 1990s.
    - avmich 4y ago
      I know all of that and still would consider efforts which went into recent batteries technologies as more targeted and supported by industry, than similar for hydrogen-based power transformations.
senectus1 4y ago
>If we could all stop shilling for "Green Hydrogen" that would be great why? A Green Hydrogen company that builds infrastructure to make ship and sell GREEN Hydrogen is a good thing. Hiding your energy source under the guise of "clean energy electric cars" is the bullshit we should stop shilling. Any other color Hydrogen marketing is just the same bullshit shilling as well. Green Hydrogen goes a long long way towards fixing the institutional issues we have with greenwashing.
otabdeveloper4 4y ago
Batteries are anything but "green". The environment costs of extracting and recycling lithium would be astronomical if we ever get to the point where batteries are our primary energy source instead of oil.

wollsmoth 4y ago

I wonder if it would make any sense to put out floating barges on the ocean with solar panels that use electrolysis to fill h2 containers like this. I guess it probably wouldn't be very efficient...

adhesive_wombat 4y ago
Probably easier just to bring the electricity ashore by cable. Or just put everything on dry land: heavily insolated land with minimal other use isn't in very short supply: just ask Australia and half of Africa.
- wollsmoth 4y ago
  Oh but trasmitting electricity is lossy. I think H2 in a tank is more stable. You could move it over a great distance without losing energy I think. I guess you could put the panels on land but you'd have to pipe in water. You could pull from the ground water I guess.
  - eropple 4y ago
    Long distance HV transmission has expected losses of a percent or less per hundred miles. That's not nothing, but compared to adding fully parallel infrastructure for a fuel source that doesn't seem to actually add up when you look at it? Eh.
    - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
      Also your have to fuel the tank logistic network: those H2 barges won't propel themselves (and a pipeline network of H2 is a nightmare for lots of reasons). Plus, distributed H2 generation is probably less efficient then a few massive refineries, and almost certainly would also consume more resources (worn out equipment, tanks, etc) which would take more energy to replace.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    > I think H2 in a tank is more stable. You could move it over a great distance without losing energy I think. How are you going to move it without using any energy? Is that massive barge just going to move to shore and back using zero-point energy? Is the gas going to compress itself using that same zero-point energy source? Are we just going to ignore the much higher maintenance costs of all the moving parts of the ship and compressors and tank repairs versus the lower maintenance costs of fixed and stable solid infrastructure?

pacbard 4y ago

So basically it's a gas canister filled with hydrogen instead of propane gas (which, by the way, is available almost everywhere at least in the US). It seems that they might have implemented a "quick" swap locking mechanism but that's pretty much it. What I am wondering is: 1. How is this different than just using H2 canisters that are already available for welding (for example)? I wouldn't want to do a "hot swap" for a gas tank in a car as there are a ton of things that can go wrong, but that's pretty much what these canisters are trying to do anyways. 2. For home use, big propane tanks are already commonly used in places where there is no municipal natural gas line, so why would someone use theses small canisters instead of just installing a big tank for hydrogen outside? 3. Isn't the energy density of H2 way lower than other gases that could be used for automotive purposes? For example, in Europe is common to have after market conversions to propane or natural gas. Both have more energy density than hydrogen, leading to either smaller/lighter tanks and/or higher range with the same volume of gas. I get that hydrogen has the potential to be green with electrolysis (but we are not there yet and most H2 available now is made from hydrocarbons anyways) but it seems to be trying to be solving a problem in a convoluted way and/or mimicking the "electric battery" hot swap technology but for hydrogen without getting complete tech parity with it.

vel0city 4y ago
The biggest difference between comparing storing H2 to LP is that LP is liquid at an otherwise pretty low pressure and common temperature. The most you're going to see an LP tank get to is ~200psi. Hydrogen gas for cars is often dispensed at around 5,000-10,000psi. That's a whole different level of requirements needed for safety and construction of the cylinders, they're practically not comparable in the slightest.

mrfusion 4y ago

Man, Toyota is totally pulling a Sears here. They’ve been the leader in hybrids for decades and it wouldn’t have taken much to gradually parlay that into EV’s. Instead they keep doing this bizarre hydrogen fixation.

onphonenow 4y ago
They had electric power trains in their hybrids, including regen etc. How they didn't go to a range extender electric vehicle and then full EV and own all that is mind boggling. Just the physics of "green" hydrogen seems so miserable. Take electricity? Use it to convert water at great cost to hydrogen. Then use more energy to compress it? Then lots of cost in shipping and handling (hydrogen is hard to handle). Then turn it back into electricity, then use that to run an electric motor.
- p_l 4y ago
  Most sensible green hydrogen infrastructure involves electrolyzers at charging station (which for cars can easily double as charging station for BEV). It brings certain advantages in terms of charging speed and energy density scaling that can be problematic for batteries (and while there's considerable flexibility depending on users to just accept longer charging, that blocks you away from certain use cases beyond light car market)
- robga 4y ago
  My local hydrogen station electrolyses water onsite using excess grid energy.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Charge time. You can swap a cartridge in seconds, so it's essentially zero (if you have a handly supply chain of cartridges).

beefman 4y ago

Comparison with a Li-ion battery pack Toyota H2 5 kg (empty?) 10 L 3.5 kWh prototype Greenworks Li-ion[1] 3.6 kg 2 L 0.35 kWh retail $270 Greenworks vs Toyota Mass: 3.6 kg * 10 / 5 kg = 7x Volume: 2 L * 10 / 10 L = 2x Cost: ? A battery designed for 3.5 kWh could certainly do better than using 10 of these smaller batteries, with their redundant systems. Also we should include the balance of plant for the hydrogen system since this cartridge is apparently just a tank (?). Fuel cells have notoriously low power density, whereas the power density of these batteries is excellent. So the batteries could come out well ahead, depending on the power requirements. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Greenworks-PRO-Lithium-Battery-GBA80500/dp/B01ID88GDS/ https://www.amazon.com/Greenworks-PRO-Lithium-Battery-GBA805...