7 ms·

Seeing Future in Fuel Cells, Toyota Ends Tesla Deal

24 points by jbae29 12y ago

cLeEOGPw 12y ago
Electric car with battery pros: * Can deliver full power instantly * Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities) * Lesser moving parts Electric car with battery cons: * Range too small with current designs * No charging stations (infrastructure problem) * Battery needs to be replaced every several years * Requires lithium, which reserves are very limited on earth * Carbon tube based battery doesn't seem to be reality any time soon Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements and also doesn't pollute environment at the time of energy release. Only downsides are it is more difficult to store as of now? How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks that are already widely used? I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. What is the problem with hydrogen then?
- xionon 12y ago
  Gasoline is not actually explosive - the fumes are flammable, but not the liquid itself. Hydrogen is much more flammable, and will ignite from a much smaller spark than gasoline will. Cars catch fire in accidents all the time, it's not that hart to imagine that the problem might get worse if we switched to an even more flammable fuel.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Compressed hydrogen would diffuse so quickly that the chance of a dangerous explosion is quite low. Fuel cell vehicles would actually be much safer than gasoline vehicles in this regard. As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish.
    - tbrownaw 12y ago
      As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish. You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere. The bottles can be designed so they don't explode when damaged, but it would take a non-zero amount of time for the hydrogen to escape. For however long that takes, you have a jet of escaping pure hydrogen that would make an excellent blowtorch if anything resembling a flame or spark gets too close.
      - protomyth 12y ago
        "You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere." http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml shows another option for storage (Materials-based storage) that will probably be safer.
- IanDrake 12y ago
  >Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements Don't fuel cells need platinum?
  - outworlder 12y ago
    Currently they do, they might not in the future. The best commercially available battery tech requires lithium, it might not in the future.
- neon_electro 12y ago
  > * No charging stations (infrastructure problem) Pardon me if I don't understand your point there, but you can't really say there aren't charging stations available, can you? I can agree that bringing electric car charging infrastructure to par with gas refueling infrastructure is still a challenge.
- mikeash 12y ago
  The downsides of hydrogen are that it's less efficient than batteries, it's considerably more expensive than electricity (because it's less efficient, and because you have to pay for additional infrastructure to produce, distribute, and store it), and it's generally not available for purchase. Give me a Tesla and I can charge it anywhere there's electricity. If there's no dedicated charging station, then I can still charge it from a regular wall socket, albeit slowly. There are also a ton of charging stations around here. Give me a fuel cell vehicle and I can't refuel it anywhere near here. According to the Department of Energy, there are 11 public hydrogen filling stations in the US: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html You list "no charging stations" as a con for batteries, but it's really not bad at all, and the hydrogen situation is vastly worse, and I don't see it getting better with any kind of speed.
- mikestew 12y ago
  > I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. Ford Pinto isn't ringing any bells? I mean, it's not as common as TV and movies would have you believe, but yeesh, you've never heard of this happening? EDIT: forgot this one... > No charging stations (infrastructure problem) There are infinitely more electric car charging stations between my house and work than there are hydrogen stations. I understand that it's different in other parts of the country, but in the Seattle area you'd have to really put in some effort to run out before you find a charging station. My only complaint is that aren't enough fast charging stations.
- yetihehe 12y ago
  > Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements Only when you think that platinum is more commong than lithium. Platinum is used as a catalyst in fuel cells. Lithium is a rather abundand element (comparing to platinum) and much cheaper. > How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks Storing hydrogen is MUCH harder. It requires much lower temperatures (-162C for LNG, -253C for H). LPG can be stored liquefied at room temperature. Natural gas cars use CNG (compressed, not liquefied gas).
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities) 1. Hydrogen (as opposed to (L|C)NG / gasoline / other hydrocarbons) wouldn't either. 2. I don't think the where matters for CO2? Sure it's supposed to melt the ice caps and put us all underwater, but I don't think there are any local effects?
  - greglindahl 12y ago
    The reason California has all these ZEV (zero emission vehicle) regulations is because of smog. It's better to burn stuff at a power plant than on a highway in the middle of LA or the Bay Area. (And you're right, CO2 isn't the issue, it's the other stuff.) In this respect, batteries and fuel cells are similar.
hnnewguy 12y ago
First we got to hear the ICE proponents spreading FUD about Electric Vehicles, now we'll get to hear Electric Vehicle proponents spreading FUD about fuel cells.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Fuel cell vehicles have never made any sense. It's still being turned into electricity anyway, so it's still an electric vehicle. There happens to already be a distribution infrastructure for electricity almost everywhere. The same can't be said for hydrogen. According to the US Department of Energy, there are eleven public hydrogen stations in the US, almost all in Los Angeles. There are more compressed natural gas stations in my state alone.
  - jimmyjazz14 12y ago
    I think the real question to me is about how much energy can be stored in a fuel cell vs the current available batteries.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      The upcoming models will have the same ~200-250 mile range as the Tesla Model S.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    "Fuel cell vehicles have never made any sense." They have in the sense that I go to a station and fill up then leave in a reasonable amount of time. I don't have to alter my driving habits from the last 50+ years.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      You go to what station? The one a thousand miles away in California? With an EV, you can "fill up" in your own garage every night, or even while parked at work.
protomyth 12y ago
I would love to hear what the tipping point was for fuel cells. I suspect Toyota doesn't believe that battery technology will get the point that recharging gets close to normal gas station stops where hydrogen might. Last I heard Hydrogen was still problematic in winter cold just like batteries.
revelation 12y ago
The RAV4 ev is a pure compliance car. It's only sold in California, it's a 3rd party drivetrain and battery bolted onto the frame for a gas guzzler SUV. So of course it's a terrible product. The only thing it excels at is getting Toyota enough ZEV credits. They recently changed the credit scheme, so now Toyota is switching to that: http://insideevs.com/carb-zev-program-changes-tesla-takes-largest-hit/ http://insideevs.com/carb-zev-program-changes-tesla-takes-la...
- makomk 12y ago
  Interesting - if I'm reading that correctly, Tesla's battery-swap technology substantially boosted the amount of ZEV credits they obtained and could resell by allowing them to claim "fast recharging", despite the facilities to actually swap batteries never actually being available to customers.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Correct. The vehicle only needs to be able to swap, without the need to deploy the expensive ($~500K/each) battery swap stations.
  - revelation 12y ago
    Yes, but to get the extra credits they only had to demonstrate battery swap with a bunch of technicians. The large automated demo they did later on wasn't for the ZEV credits.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  the frame for a gas guzzler SUV 31mpg highway is what counts for gas guzzler these days?
_Adam 12y ago
This is really surprising. What are they thinking? Hydrogen fuel cells STILL have not been proven to be a viable power source for cars. Electricity has been validated time and time again - even before Tesla, there was the EV1. And now the technology is really starting to scale in production volume and performance, along with the infrastructure. Even if they can make a hydrogen vehicle with equal, or even slightly greater performance than an electric of the same cost, then they still need to solve the problem of the hydrogen infrastructure. That's really hard. You can generate it on site, but the equipment to do so is expensive and complex. I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla.
- cgh 12y ago
  Forgive me if I misread your post, but hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles as discussed in the article run on electricity. So when you say "electricity has been validated", you really mean batteries as used in Teslas have been validated, correct? Or are you referring to hydrogen internal combustion engines? I don't think those are in development at Toyota but maybe I'm wrong.
- threeseed 12y ago
  > I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla. Yes. I am sure Toyota is just terrified by a company that is haemorrhaging money and only sells in a few countries.
  - outworlder 12y ago
    Is it? Source?
    - greglindahl 12y ago
      Just like politics, you can read anything you want into Tesla's financials. They make a 25% margin building cars, which is excellent. They are a small car company expanding their factory and designing a new model, which means they lose money.
NorthGuy1 12y ago
Honda has been saying the same thing for years and has yet to produce a product. It's cool tech but right now it's just vapourware.
wil421 12y ago
Electric cars IMHO are missing the point, which is to get off fossil fuels. When you switch to an electric vehicle you are just shifting from Gas to Coal. The US still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power the grid. My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes? Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?
- hueyp 12y ago
  Hydrogen is no different then what you spell out as downsides for electric vehicles. The best source of hydrogen is natural gas. In order to get hydrogen from non-fossil fuel sources you need cheap non-fossil fuel electricity. If you have that ... whats the problem with electric cars again?
- outworlder 12y ago
  > Electric cars IMHO are missing the point, which is to get off fossil fuels. When you switch to an electric vehicle you are just shifting from Gas to Coal. The US still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power the grid. Yes, because the whole world has the same reliance on fossil fuels as the US. Homework: what's quicker to replace? A few power stations, or the whole vehicle fleet? Also notice that electric engines are way more efficient than gas engines. > My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes? Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from. If you are that worried, power your EV yourself at home with solar/wind/whatever power. > Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen? If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable. If it is from water electrolysis, then you'll be using the same fossil fuel power plants to split water. Do not forget that electric cars have WAY less parts (the simplest conceptual car is a battery and engine) and require much less environmentally unfriendly stuff, such as lubricants, additives, etc.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
outworlder 12y ago
So, instead of using the ubiquitous power grid, we'll need: - Hydrogen "manufacturing". Guess where most of it come from? Fossil fuels. If you use water, you require a lot of energy input. Actually, in either case you need energy input, so hydrogen is more like a battery, not an energy source. - Hydrogen distribution/storage. At the refinery, between that and the 'gas' stations, etc. Not all containers are suitable for that (hydrogen is quite difficult to store) and no matter if liquid or gas, the tanks need to be much bigger than a comparable gasoline tank (by energy). - Actually using the hydrogen. You are using fuel cells to generate electricity, which will power electric engines. Why not skip the middle man? You are using a much more complicated battery, really. And that just to make the 'charging' faster? How long would it take to cover a country the size of the US with hydrogen stations? I'd put all that infrastructure money on battery research. This is just Toyota giving up on EVs completely. They just don't want to say it outright. Green companies and all that.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  What about range? Hydrogen might be less energy dense than gasoline, but what about compared to batteries? Range is the #1 crippling factor for EVs to most people I talk to.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    Most hydrogen vehicles (of which there aren't really any you can buy) have the same 200-250 mile range of a Model S.
  - outworlder 12y ago
    Range is a valid concern, but hydrogen has poor energy density per volume (if compressed). If you want compact hydrogen, hydrocarbons are your best bet.
    - drited 12y ago
      Hydrogen is better than batteries in this respect though, so when comparing zero emission options it still appears to be a good bet for Toyota, if it can be implemented on a large scale.
mrfusion 12y ago
Just curious. Instead of having to build a hydrogen infrastructure couldn't we use electricity to run the fuel cells in reverse to turn water into h20? I saw it at a science fair once.
- mfwarren 12y ago
  Right, so you can use electricity to make h2 at less than 100% efficiency then lay pipes all around the city to move the h2 to the stations, or build giant trucks that can transport the h2 on the roads (and pay drivers). On the other hand you can transport the electricity directly into the car using copper wires that are already in place
  - mrfusion 12y ago
    No, I mean connect your fuel cell car to a hose, and an electrical outlet at the end of the day, and run the fuel cell in reverse to regenerate the H2. I saw it in a science fair, they could switch directions of the fuel cell to go either way.

24 points by jbae29 12y ago

Electric car with battery pros: * Can deliver full power instantly * Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities) * Lesser moving parts Electric car with battery cons: * Range too small with current designs * No charging stations (infrastructure problem) * Battery needs to be replaced every several years * Requires lithium, which reserves are very limited on earth * Carbon tube based battery doesn't seem to be reality any time soon Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements and also doesn't pollute environment at the time of energy release. Only downsides are it is more difficult to store as of now? How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks that are already widely used? I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. What is the problem with hydrogen then?

xionon 12y ago
Gasoline is not actually explosive - the fumes are flammable, but not the liquid itself. Hydrogen is much more flammable, and will ignite from a much smaller spark than gasoline will. Cars catch fire in accidents all the time, it's not that hart to imagine that the problem might get worse if we switched to an even more flammable fuel.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Compressed hydrogen would diffuse so quickly that the chance of a dangerous explosion is quite low. Fuel cell vehicles would actually be much safer than gasoline vehicles in this regard. As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish. You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere. The bottles can be designed so they don't explode when damaged, but it would take a non-zero amount of time for the hydrogen to escape. For however long that takes, you have a jet of escaping pure hydrogen that would make an excellent blowtorch if anything resembling a flame or spark gets too close.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      "You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere." http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml shows another option for storage (Materials-based storage) that will probably be safer.
IanDrake 12y ago
>Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements Don't fuel cells need platinum?
- outworlder 12y ago
  Currently they do, they might not in the future. The best commercially available battery tech requires lithium, it might not in the future.
neon_electro 12y ago
> * No charging stations (infrastructure problem) Pardon me if I don't understand your point there, but you can't really say there aren't charging stations available, can you? I can agree that bringing electric car charging infrastructure to par with gas refueling infrastructure is still a challenge.
mikeash 12y ago
The downsides of hydrogen are that it's less efficient than batteries, it's considerably more expensive than electricity (because it's less efficient, and because you have to pay for additional infrastructure to produce, distribute, and store it), and it's generally not available for purchase. Give me a Tesla and I can charge it anywhere there's electricity. If there's no dedicated charging station, then I can still charge it from a regular wall socket, albeit slowly. There are also a ton of charging stations around here. Give me a fuel cell vehicle and I can't refuel it anywhere near here. According to the Department of Energy, there are 11 public hydrogen filling stations in the US: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html You list "no charging stations" as a con for batteries, but it's really not bad at all, and the hydrogen situation is vastly worse, and I don't see it getting better with any kind of speed.
mikestew 12y ago
> I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. Ford Pinto isn't ringing any bells? I mean, it's not as common as TV and movies would have you believe, but yeesh, you've never heard of this happening? EDIT: forgot this one... > No charging stations (infrastructure problem) There are infinitely more electric car charging stations between my house and work than there are hydrogen stations. I understand that it's different in other parts of the country, but in the Seattle area you'd have to really put in some effort to run out before you find a charging station. My only complaint is that aren't enough fast charging stations.
yetihehe 12y ago
> Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements Only when you think that platinum is more commong than lithium. Platinum is used as a catalyst in fuel cells. Lithium is a rather abundand element (comparing to platinum) and much cheaper. > How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks Storing hydrogen is MUCH harder. It requires much lower temperatures (-162C for LNG, -253C for H). LPG can be stored liquefied at room temperature. Natural gas cars use CNG (compressed, not liquefied gas).
tbrownaw 12y ago
Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities) 1. Hydrogen (as opposed to (L|C)NG / gasoline / other hydrocarbons) wouldn't either. 2. I don't think the where matters for CO2? Sure it's supposed to melt the ice caps and put us all underwater, but I don't think there are any local effects?
- greglindahl 12y ago
  The reason California has all these ZEV (zero emission vehicle) regulations is because of smog. It's better to burn stuff at a power plant than on a highway in the middle of LA or the Bay Area. (And you're right, CO2 isn't the issue, it's the other stuff.) In this respect, batteries and fuel cells are similar.

hnnewguy 12y ago

First we got to hear the ICE proponents spreading FUD about Electric Vehicles, now we'll get to hear Electric Vehicle proponents spreading FUD about fuel cells.

dublinben 12y ago
Fuel cell vehicles have never made any sense. It's still being turned into electricity anyway, so it's still an electric vehicle. There happens to already be a distribution infrastructure for electricity almost everywhere. The same can't be said for hydrogen. According to the US Department of Energy, there are eleven public hydrogen stations in the US, almost all in Los Angeles. There are more compressed natural gas stations in my state alone.
- jimmyjazz14 12y ago
  I think the real question to me is about how much energy can be stored in a fuel cell vs the current available batteries.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    The upcoming models will have the same ~200-250 mile range as the Tesla Model S.
- protomyth 12y ago
  "Fuel cell vehicles have never made any sense." They have in the sense that I go to a station and fill up then leave in a reasonable amount of time. I don't have to alter my driving habits from the last 50+ years.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    You go to what station? The one a thousand miles away in California? With an EV, you can "fill up" in your own garage every night, or even while parked at work.

protomyth 12y ago

I would love to hear what the tipping point was for fuel cells. I suspect Toyota doesn't believe that battery technology will get the point that recharging gets close to normal gas station stops where hydrogen might. Last I heard Hydrogen was still problematic in winter cold just like batteries.

revelation 12y ago

The RAV4 ev is a pure compliance car. It's only sold in California, it's a 3rd party drivetrain and battery bolted onto the frame for a gas guzzler SUV. So of course it's a terrible product. The only thing it excels at is getting Toyota enough ZEV credits. They recently changed the credit scheme, so now Toyota is switching to that: http://insideevs.com/carb-zev-program-changes-tesla-takes-largest-hit/ http://insideevs.com/carb-zev-program-changes-tesla-takes-la...

makomk 12y ago
Interesting - if I'm reading that correctly, Tesla's battery-swap technology substantially boosted the amount of ZEV credits they obtained and could resell by allowing them to claim "fast recharging", despite the facilities to actually swap batteries never actually being available to customers.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Correct. The vehicle only needs to be able to swap, without the need to deploy the expensive ($~500K/each) battery swap stations.
- revelation 12y ago
  Yes, but to get the extra credits they only had to demonstrate battery swap with a bunch of technicians. The large automated demo they did later on wasn't for the ZEV credits.
sliverstorm 12y ago
the frame for a gas guzzler SUV 31mpg highway is what counts for gas guzzler these days?

_Adam 12y ago

This is really surprising. What are they thinking? Hydrogen fuel cells STILL have not been proven to be a viable power source for cars. Electricity has been validated time and time again - even before Tesla, there was the EV1. And now the technology is really starting to scale in production volume and performance, along with the infrastructure. Even if they can make a hydrogen vehicle with equal, or even slightly greater performance than an electric of the same cost, then they still need to solve the problem of the hydrogen infrastructure. That's really hard. You can generate it on site, but the equipment to do so is expensive and complex. I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla.

cgh 12y ago
Forgive me if I misread your post, but hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles as discussed in the article run on electricity. So when you say "electricity has been validated", you really mean batteries as used in Teslas have been validated, correct? Or are you referring to hydrogen internal combustion engines? I don't think those are in development at Toyota but maybe I'm wrong.
threeseed 12y ago
> I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla. Yes. I am sure Toyota is just terrified by a company that is haemorrhaging money and only sells in a few countries.
- outworlder 12y ago
  Is it? Source?
  - greglindahl 12y ago
    Just like politics, you can read anything you want into Tesla's financials. They make a 25% margin building cars, which is excellent. They are a small car company expanding their factory and designing a new model, which means they lose money.

NorthGuy1 12y ago

Honda has been saying the same thing for years and has yet to produce a product. It's cool tech but right now it's just vapourware.

wil421 12y ago

Electric cars IMHO are missing the point, which is to get off fossil fuels. When you switch to an electric vehicle you are just shifting from Gas to Coal. The US still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power the grid. My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes? Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?

hueyp 12y ago
Hydrogen is no different then what you spell out as downsides for electric vehicles. The best source of hydrogen is natural gas. In order to get hydrogen from non-fossil fuel sources you need cheap non-fossil fuel electricity. If you have that ... whats the problem with electric cars again?
outworlder 12y ago
> Electric cars IMHO are missing the point, which is to get off fossil fuels. When you switch to an electric vehicle you are just shifting from Gas to Coal. The US still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power the grid. Yes, because the whole world has the same reliance on fossil fuels as the US. Homework: what's quicker to replace? A few power stations, or the whole vehicle fleet? Also notice that electric engines are way more efficient than gas engines. > My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes? Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from. If you are that worried, power your EV yourself at home with solar/wind/whatever power. > Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen? If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable. If it is from water electrolysis, then you'll be using the same fossil fuel power plants to split water. Do not forget that electric cars have WAY less parts (the simplest conceptual car is a battery and engine) and require much less environmentally unfriendly stuff, such as lubricants, additives, etc.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago

outworlder 12y ago

So, instead of using the ubiquitous power grid, we'll need: - Hydrogen "manufacturing". Guess where most of it come from? Fossil fuels. If you use water, you require a lot of energy input. Actually, in either case you need energy input, so hydrogen is more like a battery, not an energy source. - Hydrogen distribution/storage. At the refinery, between that and the 'gas' stations, etc. Not all containers are suitable for that (hydrogen is quite difficult to store) and no matter if liquid or gas, the tanks need to be much bigger than a comparable gasoline tank (by energy). - Actually using the hydrogen. You are using fuel cells to generate electricity, which will power electric engines. Why not skip the middle man? You are using a much more complicated battery, really. And that just to make the 'charging' faster? How long would it take to cover a country the size of the US with hydrogen stations? I'd put all that infrastructure money on battery research. This is just Toyota giving up on EVs completely. They just don't want to say it outright. Green companies and all that.

sliverstorm 12y ago
What about range? Hydrogen might be less energy dense than gasoline, but what about compared to batteries? Range is the #1 crippling factor for EVs to most people I talk to.
- dublinben 12y ago
  Most hydrogen vehicles (of which there aren't really any you can buy) have the same 200-250 mile range of a Model S.
- outworlder 12y ago
  Range is a valid concern, but hydrogen has poor energy density per volume (if compressed). If you want compact hydrogen, hydrocarbons are your best bet.
  - drited 12y ago
    Hydrogen is better than batteries in this respect though, so when comparing zero emission options it still appears to be a good bet for Toyota, if it can be implemented on a large scale.

mrfusion 12y ago

Just curious. Instead of having to build a hydrogen infrastructure couldn't we use electricity to run the fuel cells in reverse to turn water into h20? I saw it at a science fair once.

mfwarren 12y ago
Right, so you can use electricity to make h2 at less than 100% efficiency then lay pipes all around the city to move the h2 to the stations, or build giant trucks that can transport the h2 on the roads (and pay drivers). On the other hand you can transport the electricity directly into the car using copper wires that are already in place
- mrfusion 12y ago
  No, I mean connect your fuel cell car to a hose, and an electrical outlet at the end of the day, and run the fuel cell in reverse to regenerate the H2. I saw it in a science fair, they could switch directions of the fuel cell to go either way.