5 ms·

Agreed. I think Toyota embraced H2 not because they wanted to replace a complex ICE with a complex PEMFC, but because a) Japan has no oil or mineral reserves t

Agreed. I think Toyota embraced H2 not because they wanted to replace a complex ICE with a complex PEMFC, but because a) Japan has no oil or mineral reserves to speak of, and b) when they started down that path, battery tech was woefully inadequate. Now that we've seen that batteries can power passenger vehicles just fine, I think Toyota and the Japanese government are both stubbornly engaging in the sunk cost fallacy. But the writing's on the wall: H2 is dead tech for passenger vehicles.

_hypx 4y ago
Wrong. All cars will eventually have to move to hydrogen. This is due to the unsustainability of battery cars. A lot of the anti-Japan rhetoric here is bordering on racism. They are actually planning ahead. Western carmakers are short-sighted and not thinking past the next few quarters.
- somewhat_drunk 4y ago
  Why is it so easy to spot the right winger these days? Oh that's right, it's because you all parrot the same nonsense. The valuable materials in EV batteries don't get used up - they're still in the battery, and can be recycled. We haven't figured out the particulars, but there's no reason why it can't be done. In fact, the biggest issue that battery recyclers are facing right now is a lack of batteries to recycle. Stop swallowing propaganda wholesale. Start thinking for yourself.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    And what is hydrogen but fuel made from water? Far less raw materials than could ever be achieved with batteries. And you'll never have to mine it even once. Seriously, the battery people act exactly like climate change deniers. An entire argument based on denying or obfuscating the problem, and pretending nothing better could ever exist. Seriously, your whole post is projection.
    - somewhat_drunk 4y ago
      >And what is hydrogen but fuel made from water? 98% of H2 is made from fossil fuels. You know why, right?
      - _hypx 4y ago
        So is the vast majority of electricity. Take away hydropower and nuclear, and it's something like 85%. Use to be 99% at one point.
        somewhat_drunk 4y ago
        98% of H2 is made from fossil fuels because cracking water is very expensive. H2 is already expensive when reformed from natural gas - you can expect to pay 20-30 cents per mile to travel in the most advanced, fuel efficient H2 vehicle out there. https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/exclusive-fresh-blow-for-hydrogen-vehicles-as-average-pump-prices-in-california-rise-by-a-third-to-all-time-high/2-1-1351675 https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/exclusive-fresh-bl... H2 made via electrolysis is a bit more than 3x that cost. Are you ready to pay $1 per mile to drive? Of course, price generally declines with volume, so we could expect those numbers to come down if H2 were more widely adopted. But there is a thermodynamic floor on the cost of H2, which means that it will never be cost-competitive with pure electric vehicles. https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7ac1095 https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7a... And then there's the complexity issue. As a former fuel cell engineer, I understand better than most how complex and finicky proton exchange membrane fuel cell systems are. They are easily poisoned, they're prone to freezing, they have long startup times, they require high-speed, expensive electric air compressors, and they have complex valving and sensors to ensure safe operation. Purely electric vehicles simply do not have these problems. A battery and a motor is about as simple as a drivetrain can possibly be. EVs will always be fundamentally far simpler than FCEVs, which translates into a lower upfront vehicle cost. You have no answer to these problems. I suggest you stop furiously responding here and instead consider your biases, and reevaluate your position. Batteries are so much better than H2 for transportation on just about all fronts that the two are not even close to comparable. H2 at this point is a malicious distraction being foisted on the general public by oil companies attempting to stay relevant, and governments engaging in sunk cost fallacious thinking. The sooner fuel cells for transport (and H2 for heating) are relegated to history's dustbin, the better. Oh, and as for your assertion that electricity sans nuclear and hydro is 85% fossil fuels... that's true... and irrelevant. 40% of electricity generated in the US today is renewable, and that number grows steadily each year. We would be absolutely foolish to use that electricity to crack water, compress the H2, transport the H2, and convert it back to electricity in fuel cells, losing 65% of the energy in the process, than simply using it directly via batteries. Come on man! Discard the propaganda, separate your emotions from your positions, and think for yourself!

_hypx 4y ago

Wrong. All cars will eventually have to move to hydrogen. This is due to the unsustainability of battery cars. A lot of the anti-Japan rhetoric here is bordering on racism. They are actually planning ahead. Western carmakers are short-sighted and not thinking past the next few quarters.

somewhat_drunk 4y ago
Why is it so easy to spot the right winger these days? Oh that's right, it's because you all parrot the same nonsense. The valuable materials in EV batteries don't get used up - they're still in the battery, and can be recycled. We haven't figured out the particulars, but there's no reason why it can't be done. In fact, the biggest issue that battery recyclers are facing right now is a lack of batteries to recycle. Stop swallowing propaganda wholesale. Start thinking for yourself.
- _hypx 4y ago
  And what is hydrogen but fuel made from water? Far less raw materials than could ever be achieved with batteries. And you'll never have to mine it even once. Seriously, the battery people act exactly like climate change deniers. An entire argument based on denying or obfuscating the problem, and pretending nothing better could ever exist. Seriously, your whole post is projection.
  - somewhat_drunk 4y ago
    >And what is hydrogen but fuel made from water? 98% of H2 is made from fossil fuels. You know why, right?
    - _hypx 4y ago
      So is the vast majority of electricity. Take away hydropower and nuclear, and it's something like 85%. Use to be 99% at one point.
      - somewhat_drunk 4y ago
        98% of H2 is made from fossil fuels because cracking water is very expensive. H2 is already expensive when reformed from natural gas - you can expect to pay 20-30 cents per mile to travel in the most advanced, fuel efficient H2 vehicle out there. https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/exclusive-fresh-blow-for-hydrogen-vehicles-as-average-pump-prices-in-california-rise-by-a-third-to-all-time-high/2-1-1351675 https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/exclusive-fresh-bl... H2 made via electrolysis is a bit more than 3x that cost. Are you ready to pay $1 per mile to drive? Of course, price generally declines with volume, so we could expect those numbers to come down if H2 were more widely adopted. But there is a thermodynamic floor on the cost of H2, which means that it will never be cost-competitive with pure electric vehicles. https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7ac1095 https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7a... And then there's the complexity issue. As a former fuel cell engineer, I understand better than most how complex and finicky proton exchange membrane fuel cell systems are. They are easily poisoned, they're prone to freezing, they have long startup times, they require high-speed, expensive electric air compressors, and they have complex valving and sensors to ensure safe operation. Purely electric vehicles simply do not have these problems. A battery and a motor is about as simple as a drivetrain can possibly be. EVs will always be fundamentally far simpler than FCEVs, which translates into a lower upfront vehicle cost. You have no answer to these problems. I suggest you stop furiously responding here and instead consider your biases, and reevaluate your position. Batteries are so much better than H2 for transportation on just about all fronts that the two are not even close to comparable. H2 at this point is a malicious distraction being foisted on the general public by oil companies attempting to stay relevant, and governments engaging in sunk cost fallacious thinking. The sooner fuel cells for transport (and H2 for heating) are relegated to history's dustbin, the better. Oh, and as for your assertion that electricity sans nuclear and hydro is 85% fossil fuels... that's true... and irrelevant. 40% of electricity generated in the US today is renewable, and that number grows steadily each year. We would be absolutely foolish to use that electricity to crack water, compress the H2, transport the H2, and convert it back to electricity in fuel cells, losing 65% of the energy in the process, than simply using it directly via batteries. Come on man! Discard the propaganda, separate your emotions from your positions, and think for yourself!