Toyota Mirai? Fuel Cell Vehicle
Discussion
Toaster said:
rscott said:
A bunch of prototype hydrogen trucks with a claimed range of 300 miles - in what aspect are they an advance on the Tesla Semi?
Running costs of the Mirai don't look great either - they say fuelling costs the same as a conventional petrol car. So £70 or so for 300 miles..
Many People now live in apartments with limited parking and no Hookup's either because they are renting or the landlord won't invest. This is a viable alternative (as this section says EV and alternatives) Some people use Petrol, some diesel, some use Gas, and a minority use battery tech (of which some are Tesla). Dont be blind sighted to alternatives being prototypes or not, some on these forums have said Hydrogen will never be viable, maybe, maybe not. Betamax was once the shining star of the video age. Running costs of the Mirai don't look great either - they say fuelling costs the same as a conventional petrol car. So £70 or so for 300 miles..
It's certainly an interesting demonstration of the technology, but isn't a sensible alternative at present.
A far better use of hydrogen is this - https://www.theengineer.co.uk/hydrogen-diesel-inje... . Use renewables to produce hydrogen and use that as one of two fuel sources for a ferry. That both avoids the difficult and expensive hydrogen distribution network and provides a way to maximise usage of wind energy (so even if the grid doesn't need it, it can be used to produce ferry fuel).
Toaster said:
Many People now live in apartments with limited parking and no Hookup's either because they are renting or the landlord won't invest.
The solution to that issue was invented 200 years ago with the advent of the first omnibuses. For hydrogen to be a viable alternative we do need to see a huge change in the cost of extraction as well as a huge change in the ability to store. At this moment, petrol & diesel ICE, hybrids and EVs are infinitely superior solutions whether in a car or a bus.
rscott said:
It what way is it a viable alternative at the moment? It costs about as much as a Tesla (and 2-3 times the price of some BEVs). Costs about the same per mile as an ICE vehicle and relies on a fuel which is both energy intensive to produce and has a tiny number of filling stations.
It's certainly an interesting demonstration of the technology, but isn't a sensible alternative at present.
A far better use of hydrogen is this - https://www.theengineer.co.uk/hydrogen-diesel-inje... . Use renewables to produce hydrogen and use that as one of two fuel sources for a ferry. That both avoids the difficult and expensive hydrogen distribution network and provides a way to maximise usage of wind energy (so even if the grid doesn't need it, it can be used to produce ferry fuel).
who would have thought hydrogen and diesel eh it goes to show just how divergent thinking comes up with such innovation, who knows what will transpire from such work.It's certainly an interesting demonstration of the technology, but isn't a sensible alternative at present.
A far better use of hydrogen is this - https://www.theengineer.co.uk/hydrogen-diesel-inje... . Use renewables to produce hydrogen and use that as one of two fuel sources for a ferry. That both avoids the difficult and expensive hydrogen distribution network and provides a way to maximise usage of wind energy (so even if the grid doesn't need it, it can be used to produce ferry fuel).
DonkeyApple said:
The solution to that issue was invented 200 years ago with the advent of the first omnibuses.
For hydrogen to be a viable alternative we do need to see a huge change in the cost of extraction as well as a huge change in the ability to store. At this moment, petrol & diesel ICE, hybrids and EVs are infinitely superior solutions whether in a car or a bus.
Maybe but it doesn't mean Hydrogen will never have a place, how it evolves will be interesting to watch, I do generate Hydrogen and store it in small quantities to generate electricity for a EV.For hydrogen to be a viable alternative we do need to see a huge change in the cost of extraction as well as a huge change in the ability to store. At this moment, petrol & diesel ICE, hybrids and EVs are infinitely superior solutions whether in a car or a bus.
Toaster said:
Maybe but it doesn't mean Hydrogen will never have a place, how it evolves will be interesting to watch, I do generate Hydrogen and store it in small quantities to generate electricity for a EV.
I also generate Hydrogen but it’s just not cost effective to separate it from the pesky carbon atom. 
I tend to agree though. It’s not a solution now because of cost and technology but that doesn’t categorically mean that it won’t be in the future, however, if we do mostly migrate to EVs over the next decade or so, it’s hard to imagine reverting to a complex mechanical system that burns a substance to throw some pistons around and run all that through a gearbox etc.
There’s no doubt that the Lithium battery won’t be surpassed by some superior means to run electric motors though and maybe that transpires to be a hydrogen system. It doesn’t seem likely but none of us know.
I think one of the issues is that we can view Toyota’s investment in two ways today. Either it’s a shrewd hedge by an enormous multinational, chucking a bit of money at several possibilities in case Lithium powered EVs fall flat. Or, it’s another case of stubborn, slow, Japanese thinking refusing to have the balls to admit they barked up the wrong tree and need to let something go. So many Japanese titans seem to be suffering from that disease that the latter explanation probably has more weight in reality.
Toaster said:
98elise said:
It only costs the same because it's not taxed like petrol. If we all switched to hydrogen tomorrow then it would be subject to fuel tax.
and so will EV's in one form of government tax or another once revenues from petrol and diesel drop significantlyThe one and only perceived benefit of hydrogen is being eroded as things move forward with charging and battery management. Hydrogens problems are basic physics, and that's not going to change ever.
98elise said:
You're missing the point. If EV's become mainstream and get taxed, they just go back to parity with Petrol. Hydrogen is already at a similar price to petrol before you consider taxing it.
The one and only perceived benefit of hydrogen is being eroded as things move forward with charging and battery management. Hydrogens problems are basic physics, and that's not going to change ever.
interesting apart from the equipment it doesn't cost me a bean to generate Hydrogen as I am using solar, I suspect that in time commercial Hydrogen production will get cheaper whether it will be the same cost as charging a battery (which also is not free) but he benefit is the speed of placing a Gas in to tank as apposed to having lunch whilst your car charges. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong but just like Space X who have produced re-usable boosters to cut the cost of launches an alternative may come along to make Hydrogen feasible and usable....never say never The one and only perceived benefit of hydrogen is being eroded as things move forward with charging and battery management. Hydrogens problems are basic physics, and that's not going to change ever.
I think that if you start to consider how you would then transport that hydrogen to where it is needed, the infrastructure changes to store it, the problems with storing it, the risks of allowing morons who are barely safe to use diesel near it and the fact that hydrogen tends to be made by extracting it from something that is already at least twice as efficient as a fuel then it really does look like a total non starter.
Compare that to electricity. It is ubiquitous. It is already there wherever there are humans. We are simply just never more than a few metres from a potential meter. Electricity can be generated by numerous different means, sun, thermal, tidal, wind, combustion, nuclear etc so no country is really beholden to another in quite the same way as is the case with an oil economy and would be also with hydrogen. We are also really efficient at protecting the most special of humans from licking wires.
In terms of the demand or need of finding a suitable fuel to directly replace the way fossil fuels work, do we need to? Hydrogen is hugely less efficient than diesel or petrol but just how many car owners regularly drive such enormous distances that replacing the fossil fuel network with a highly inefficient and costly direct replacement doesn’t seem to be a need.
It’s much more efficient and cleaner to utilise elements of the existing fossil fuel network to facilitate inter-city, long distance travel while allowing the entire urban and suburban environment where the vast majority of people live and work and drive and drive such short distances to switch gracefully and steadily to EVs and where viable, more sensible modes of transport.
The companies who are building EVs now have the advantage of absolutely vast amounts of data from millions upon millions of their ICE products over years and years. Service departments have been collecting data on how consumers really use their cars and the reality is that this use is nearly all short journeys from one plug socket to another where at no point is the car any kind of distance away from electricity. They know that cars with around 200 miles of range will work for the majority of consumers. They also know that within a decade 500 miles will be an affordable range.
I really don’t think that we will see legions of car users desperately hopping from one motorway charging point to the other and being trapped at the hell holes that are motorway services for hours on end. By the time most of us get round to buying an EV the product will have more than enough range even for a 24/7 travelling salesman and the charging rates will be so quick that you’ll be able to grab a full charge for the week at Tesco’s while doing the weekly shop or at the restaurant while enjoying your Sunday lunch out etc etc.
I just don’t see how hydrogen will become efficient enough and quickly enough to compete against electricity in any way and as the market share for ICE declines, so will the infrastructure and that will make hydrogen even less efficient as the network that it would need for distribution and sale will be disappearing.
Compare that to electricity. It is ubiquitous. It is already there wherever there are humans. We are simply just never more than a few metres from a potential meter. Electricity can be generated by numerous different means, sun, thermal, tidal, wind, combustion, nuclear etc so no country is really beholden to another in quite the same way as is the case with an oil economy and would be also with hydrogen. We are also really efficient at protecting the most special of humans from licking wires.
In terms of the demand or need of finding a suitable fuel to directly replace the way fossil fuels work, do we need to? Hydrogen is hugely less efficient than diesel or petrol but just how many car owners regularly drive such enormous distances that replacing the fossil fuel network with a highly inefficient and costly direct replacement doesn’t seem to be a need.
It’s much more efficient and cleaner to utilise elements of the existing fossil fuel network to facilitate inter-city, long distance travel while allowing the entire urban and suburban environment where the vast majority of people live and work and drive and drive such short distances to switch gracefully and steadily to EVs and where viable, more sensible modes of transport.
The companies who are building EVs now have the advantage of absolutely vast amounts of data from millions upon millions of their ICE products over years and years. Service departments have been collecting data on how consumers really use their cars and the reality is that this use is nearly all short journeys from one plug socket to another where at no point is the car any kind of distance away from electricity. They know that cars with around 200 miles of range will work for the majority of consumers. They also know that within a decade 500 miles will be an affordable range.
I really don’t think that we will see legions of car users desperately hopping from one motorway charging point to the other and being trapped at the hell holes that are motorway services for hours on end. By the time most of us get round to buying an EV the product will have more than enough range even for a 24/7 travelling salesman and the charging rates will be so quick that you’ll be able to grab a full charge for the week at Tesco’s while doing the weekly shop or at the restaurant while enjoying your Sunday lunch out etc etc.
I just don’t see how hydrogen will become efficient enough and quickly enough to compete against electricity in any way and as the market share for ICE declines, so will the infrastructure and that will make hydrogen even less efficient as the network that it would need for distribution and sale will be disappearing.
DonkeyApple said:
I think that if you start to consider how you would then transport that hydrogen to where it is needed, the infrastructure changes to store it, the problems with storing it, the risks of allowing morons who are barely safe to use diesel near it and the fact that hydrogen tends to be made by extracting it from something that is already at least twice as efficient as a fuel then it really does look like a total non starter.
Compare that to electricity. It is ubiquitous. It is already there wherever there are humans. We are simply just never more than a few metres from a potential meter. Electricity can be generated by numerous different means, sun, thermal, tidal, wind, combustion, nuclear etc so no country is really beholden to another in quite the same way as is the case with an oil economy and would be also with hydrogen. We are also really efficient at protecting the most special of humans from licking wires.
In terms of the demand or need of finding a suitable fuel to directly replace the way fossil fuels work, do we need to? Hydrogen is hugely less efficient than diesel or petrol but just how many car owners regularly drive such enormous distances that replacing the fossil fuel network with a highly inefficient and costly direct replacement doesn’t seem to be a need.
It’s much more efficient and cleaner to utilise elements of the existing fossil fuel network to facilitate inter-city, long distance travel while allowing the entire urban and suburban environment where the vast majority of people live and work and drive and drive such short distances to switch gracefully and steadily to EVs and where viable, more sensible modes of transport.
The companies who are building EVs now have the advantage of absolutely vast amounts of data from millions upon millions of their ICE products over years and years. Service departments have been collecting data on how consumers really use their cars and the reality is that this use is nearly all short journeys from one plug socket to another where at no point is the car any kind of distance away from electricity. They know that cars with around 200 miles of range will work for the majority of consumers. They also know that within a decade 500 miles will be an affordable range.
I really don’t think that we will see legions of car users desperately hopping from one motorway charging point to the other and being trapped at the hell holes that are motorway services for hours on end. By the time most of us get round to buying an EV the product will have more than enough range even for a 24/7 travelling salesman and the charging rates will be so quick that you’ll be able to grab a full charge for the week at Tesco’s while doing the weekly shop or at the restaurant while enjoying your Sunday lunch out etc etc.
I just don’t see how hydrogen will become efficient enough and quickly enough to compete against electricity in any way and as the market share for ICE declines, so will the infrastructure and that will make hydrogen even less efficient as the network that it would need for distribution and sale will be disappearing.
You dont have to convince me that a move away from ICE is a good thing, but conversely there are challenges that the power network has. In addition the charging network has to get its act together with regards to the varying plug and charging rates.Compare that to electricity. It is ubiquitous. It is already there wherever there are humans. We are simply just never more than a few metres from a potential meter. Electricity can be generated by numerous different means, sun, thermal, tidal, wind, combustion, nuclear etc so no country is really beholden to another in quite the same way as is the case with an oil economy and would be also with hydrogen. We are also really efficient at protecting the most special of humans from licking wires.
In terms of the demand or need of finding a suitable fuel to directly replace the way fossil fuels work, do we need to? Hydrogen is hugely less efficient than diesel or petrol but just how many car owners regularly drive such enormous distances that replacing the fossil fuel network with a highly inefficient and costly direct replacement doesn’t seem to be a need.
It’s much more efficient and cleaner to utilise elements of the existing fossil fuel network to facilitate inter-city, long distance travel while allowing the entire urban and suburban environment where the vast majority of people live and work and drive and drive such short distances to switch gracefully and steadily to EVs and where viable, more sensible modes of transport.
The companies who are building EVs now have the advantage of absolutely vast amounts of data from millions upon millions of their ICE products over years and years. Service departments have been collecting data on how consumers really use their cars and the reality is that this use is nearly all short journeys from one plug socket to another where at no point is the car any kind of distance away from electricity. They know that cars with around 200 miles of range will work for the majority of consumers. They also know that within a decade 500 miles will be an affordable range.
I really don’t think that we will see legions of car users desperately hopping from one motorway charging point to the other and being trapped at the hell holes that are motorway services for hours on end. By the time most of us get round to buying an EV the product will have more than enough range even for a 24/7 travelling salesman and the charging rates will be so quick that you’ll be able to grab a full charge for the week at Tesco’s while doing the weekly shop or at the restaurant while enjoying your Sunday lunch out etc etc.
I just don’t see how hydrogen will become efficient enough and quickly enough to compete against electricity in any way and as the market share for ICE declines, so will the infrastructure and that will make hydrogen even less efficient as the network that it would need for distribution and sale will be disappearing.
Regrading distribution for Hydrogen, if you consider you can run a car on LPG so gas distribution is possible and viable. Its not impossible and its good for the consumer to have alternatives.
I agree with the logic but as EVs become more common place we are going to see the garages that sell fuel decline in number as the network contracts. That alone makes it extremely difficult to start trying to sell a new fuel that requires a distribution and sales network that is in contraction.
Conversely, a charger can be fitted absolutely anywhere where there is a car and over time the big shift we will see with EVs is smaller charge requirements as consumers get to grips with the reality of just how little power storage they really need. This can be seen by the sheer number of ICE owners who while owning a fuel tank capable of holding tens of gallons typically drive around with just a few and top up small amounts at a time. It won’t be long before our EVs can be charged anywhere that we park them and then battery sizes will shrinknto for wallets and power usage will spread out evenly which will arguably make the grid more efficient.
What I also see is fringe fuel types such as LPG contracting not expanding and that makes it a very unviable environment to try and launch consumer based hydrogen products into which is why I don’t think anyone will.
Conversely, a charger can be fitted absolutely anywhere where there is a car and over time the big shift we will see with EVs is smaller charge requirements as consumers get to grips with the reality of just how little power storage they really need. This can be seen by the sheer number of ICE owners who while owning a fuel tank capable of holding tens of gallons typically drive around with just a few and top up small amounts at a time. It won’t be long before our EVs can be charged anywhere that we park them and then battery sizes will shrinknto for wallets and power usage will spread out evenly which will arguably make the grid more efficient.
What I also see is fringe fuel types such as LPG contracting not expanding and that makes it a very unviable environment to try and launch consumer based hydrogen products into which is why I don’t think anyone will.
Toaster said:
You dont have to convince me that a move away from ICE is a good thing, but conversely there are challenges that the power network has. In addition the charging network has to get its act together with regards to the varying plug and charging rates.
Regrading distribution for Hydrogen, if you consider you can run a car on LPG so gas distribution is possible and viable. Its not impossible and its good for the consumer to have alternatives.
LPG is far easier to store and distribute than hydrogen though. It's also considerably cheaper.Regrading distribution for Hydrogen, if you consider you can run a car on LPG so gas distribution is possible and viable. Its not impossible and its good for the consumer to have alternatives.
I'm all for alternative options, as long as they make financial sense. Hydrogen simply doesn't at present.
Toaster said:
DonkeyApple said:
I think that if you start to consider how you would then transport that hydrogen to where it is needed, the infrastructure changes to store it, the problems with storing it, the risks of allowing morons who are barely safe to use diesel near it and the fact that hydrogen tends to be made by extracting it from something that is already at least twice as efficient as a fuel then it really does look like a total non starter.
Compare that to electricity. It is ubiquitous. It is already there wherever there are humans. We are simply just never more than a few metres from a potential meter. Electricity can be generated by numerous different means, sun, thermal, tidal, wind, combustion, nuclear etc so no country is really beholden to another in quite the same way as is the case with an oil economy and would be also with hydrogen. We are also really efficient at protecting the most special of humans from licking wires.
In terms of the demand or need of finding a suitable fuel to directly replace the way fossil fuels work, do we need to? Hydrogen is hugely less efficient than diesel or petrol but just how many car owners regularly drive such enormous distances that replacing the fossil fuel network with a highly inefficient and costly direct replacement doesn’t seem to be a need.
It’s much more efficient and cleaner to utilise elements of the existing fossil fuel network to facilitate inter-city, long distance travel while allowing the entire urban and suburban environment where the vast majority of people live and work and drive and drive such short distances to switch gracefully and steadily to EVs and where viable, more sensible modes of transport.
The companies who are building EVs now have the advantage of absolutely vast amounts of data from millions upon millions of their ICE products over years and years. Service departments have been collecting data on how consumers really use their cars and the reality is that this use is nearly all short journeys from one plug socket to another where at no point is the car any kind of distance away from electricity. They know that cars with around 200 miles of range will work for the majority of consumers. They also know that within a decade 500 miles will be an affordable range.
I really don’t think that we will see legions of car users desperately hopping from one motorway charging point to the other and being trapped at the hell holes that are motorway services for hours on end. By the time most of us get round to buying an EV the product will have more than enough range even for a 24/7 travelling salesman and the charging rates will be so quick that you’ll be able to grab a full charge for the week at Tesco’s while doing the weekly shop or at the restaurant while enjoying your Sunday lunch out etc etc.
I just don’t see how hydrogen will become efficient enough and quickly enough to compete against electricity in any way and as the market share for ICE declines, so will the infrastructure and that will make hydrogen even less efficient as the network that it would need for distribution and sale will be disappearing.
You dont have to convince me that a move away from ICE is a good thing, but conversely there are challenges that the power network has. In addition the charging network has to get its act together with regards to the varying plug and charging rates.Compare that to electricity. It is ubiquitous. It is already there wherever there are humans. We are simply just never more than a few metres from a potential meter. Electricity can be generated by numerous different means, sun, thermal, tidal, wind, combustion, nuclear etc so no country is really beholden to another in quite the same way as is the case with an oil economy and would be also with hydrogen. We are also really efficient at protecting the most special of humans from licking wires.
In terms of the demand or need of finding a suitable fuel to directly replace the way fossil fuels work, do we need to? Hydrogen is hugely less efficient than diesel or petrol but just how many car owners regularly drive such enormous distances that replacing the fossil fuel network with a highly inefficient and costly direct replacement doesn’t seem to be a need.
It’s much more efficient and cleaner to utilise elements of the existing fossil fuel network to facilitate inter-city, long distance travel while allowing the entire urban and suburban environment where the vast majority of people live and work and drive and drive such short distances to switch gracefully and steadily to EVs and where viable, more sensible modes of transport.
The companies who are building EVs now have the advantage of absolutely vast amounts of data from millions upon millions of their ICE products over years and years. Service departments have been collecting data on how consumers really use their cars and the reality is that this use is nearly all short journeys from one plug socket to another where at no point is the car any kind of distance away from electricity. They know that cars with around 200 miles of range will work for the majority of consumers. They also know that within a decade 500 miles will be an affordable range.
I really don’t think that we will see legions of car users desperately hopping from one motorway charging point to the other and being trapped at the hell holes that are motorway services for hours on end. By the time most of us get round to buying an EV the product will have more than enough range even for a 24/7 travelling salesman and the charging rates will be so quick that you’ll be able to grab a full charge for the week at Tesco’s while doing the weekly shop or at the restaurant while enjoying your Sunday lunch out etc etc.
I just don’t see how hydrogen will become efficient enough and quickly enough to compete against electricity in any way and as the market share for ICE declines, so will the infrastructure and that will make hydrogen even less efficient as the network that it would need for distribution and sale will be disappearing.
Regrading distribution for Hydrogen, if you consider you can run a car on LPG so gas distribution is possible and viable. Its not impossible and its good for the consumer to have alternatives.
The EV drivetrain is perfectly suited for cars, hydrogen fuel cell drivetrain is not. Fuel cells don't work very well when you need a sudden demand, so you also need a battery system.
Everything is a compromise with Hydrogen, and even it's fill time is not as fast as you might think.
Toaster said:
apart from the equipment it doesn't cost me a bean to generate Hydrogen as I am using solar,
er?All energy is "Free" except for the cost of the equipment required to leverage that energy!
ie oil itself costs nothing, it's just lying around waiting for someone to come dig it out of the ground.
The difference is that for any given investment (the cost of the bits 'n bobs necessary to leverage that energy) the more efficient the end users and process, the more useful work you get from any given investment. It's irrelevant (mostly) if that is amortisation of a single fixed upfront cost or a direct, per mile cost.
For example, you spend money on solar panels and a means to utilise that power:
option a) you charge your EV directly with the solar electricity.
option b) you use the electricity to make hydrogen to fill a HFC vehicle
Here, the laws of physics step in, and you hydrogen car will only be able to travel roughly one third as far as your EV for any given energy harvested (because changing the state of matter (ie electrolysing water to hydrogen) takes energy and is not possible at 100% efficiency) so the EV has a 3 x "lower cost per mile" than the HCV option, irrespective.
Then there is the fact that your hydrogen car MUST actually have a battery anyway, both to load level (HFC's are not particularly responsive, and fitting one big enough to provide the peak power requirement of a car as opposed to the cars average power requirement which is typically 10 or more times less) and to enable energy re-capture (regen braking, again important, because passenger cars are typically driven in a very dynamic way, rather than an a constant speed).
So now you have a hydrogen powered EV, and when you do the math, it's far better to just remove the HFC and fit a bigger battery, both economically and in terms of total energy consumption per mile travelled!
rscott said:
LPG is far easier to store and distribute than hydrogen though. It's also considerably cheaper.
Ok so you say its more expensive a quick look on an analysis:"At $53 per kW, the Mirai’s 114 kW fuel cell system would cost just over $6000. The high pressure storage for 5 kg H₂ is probably around $3000. So the capital cost of the Mirai’s energy delivery system with longer range looks to be roughly half that of the battery pack for the Model S."
However you are right in saying there are costs in production and storage of Hydrogen but if you are going to have a service station such as BP Shell etc that are mini marts serving food and coffee with Electric points could have the same site serving hydrogen, the estate is there its just a question of putting local generation and storage in.
According to this link the forecourts that have Hydrogen generate it on site as "ITM’s technology uses surplus renewable energy to separate hydrogen from water via electrolysis, producing the fuel on-site and removing the need to have regular deliveries. The company has a station operating in Rotherham and plans to deploy eight more across London, five of which will be open this year, and three of those will be on forecourts" https://fleetworld.co.uk/uk-to-get-fuel-stations-w...
http://www.itm-power.com/h2-stations
Its early days will Hydrogen become Viable, who knows but its rather neat that companies are spending R&D budgets on alternatives...
Just a thought if you own a Camper van you may have Calor Gas (LPG) some have opted for a Gas Low system which is 1/2 the price of Calor and you fill up at a service station and can do so across Europe except....Finland as they us LNP. What I am trying to say is that technology and perspectives can all lead to differing solutions, Batteries clearly have a place in the future but i wouldn't totally dismiss ICE or Hydrogen or other alternatives.
Max_Torque said:
er?
All energy is "Free" except for the cost of the equipment required to leverage that energy!
ie oil itself costs nothing, it's just lying around waiting for someone to come dig it out of the ground.
The difference is that for any given investment (the cost of the bits 'n bobs necessary to leverage that energy) the more efficient the end users and process, the more useful work you get from any given investment. It's irrelevant (mostly) if that is amortisation of a single fixed upfront cost or a direct, per mile cost.
For example, you spend money on solar panels and a means to utilise that power:
option a) you charge your EV directly with the solar electricity.
option b) you use the electricity to make hydrogen to fill a HFC vehicle
Here, the laws of physics step in, and you hydrogen car will only be able to travel roughly one third as far as your EV for any given energy harvested (because changing the state of matter (ie electrolysing water to hydrogen) takes energy and is not possible at 100% efficiency) so the EV has a 3 x "lower cost per mile" than the HCV option, irrespective.
Then there is the fact that your hydrogen car MUST actually have a battery anyway, both to load level (HFC's are not particularly responsive, and fitting one big enough to provide the peak power requirement of a car as opposed to the cars average power requirement which is typically 10 or more times less) and to enable energy re-capture (regen braking, again important, because passenger cars are typically driven in a very dynamic way, rather than an a constant speed).
So now you have a hydrogen powered EV, and when you do the math, it's far better to just remove the HFC and fit a bigger battery, both economically and in terms of total energy consumption per mile travelled!
I am not arguing the physics and doubt if many here can actually do the math required. My Hydrogen Car does not have a battery I can assure you of that, so you're not quite correct in the MUST stakes in this instance.All energy is "Free" except for the cost of the equipment required to leverage that energy!
ie oil itself costs nothing, it's just lying around waiting for someone to come dig it out of the ground.
The difference is that for any given investment (the cost of the bits 'n bobs necessary to leverage that energy) the more efficient the end users and process, the more useful work you get from any given investment. It's irrelevant (mostly) if that is amortisation of a single fixed upfront cost or a direct, per mile cost.
For example, you spend money on solar panels and a means to utilise that power:
option a) you charge your EV directly with the solar electricity.
option b) you use the electricity to make hydrogen to fill a HFC vehicle
Here, the laws of physics step in, and you hydrogen car will only be able to travel roughly one third as far as your EV for any given energy harvested (because changing the state of matter (ie electrolysing water to hydrogen) takes energy and is not possible at 100% efficiency) so the EV has a 3 x "lower cost per mile" than the HCV option, irrespective.
Then there is the fact that your hydrogen car MUST actually have a battery anyway, both to load level (HFC's are not particularly responsive, and fitting one big enough to provide the peak power requirement of a car as opposed to the cars average power requirement which is typically 10 or more times less) and to enable energy re-capture (regen braking, again important, because passenger cars are typically driven in a very dynamic way, rather than an a constant speed).
So now you have a hydrogen powered EV, and when you do the math, it's far better to just remove the HFC and fit a bigger battery, both economically and in terms of total energy consumption per mile travelled!
jjwilde said:
I've said it before but all this talk of hydrogen being the future is caused by James May and the 2011 ant EV rant he did about it on Top Gear.
He has since said he was wrong but that episode is repeated constantly on Dave etc.
Who on earth would believe anything James May says?He has since said he was wrong but that episode is repeated constantly on Dave etc.
jjwilde said:
I've said it before but all this talk of hydrogen being the future is caused by James May and the 2011 ant EV rant he did about it on Top Gear.
He has since said he was wrong but that episode is repeated constantly on Dave etc.
You think James May has that much influence over all the manufacturers who have spent millions looking into it? He has since said he was wrong but that episode is repeated constantly on Dave etc.
98elise said:
LPG is relatively easy to store and transport, Hydrogen is not. Hydrogen nfrastructure costs are massive, then there is the energy required to crack hydrogen.
The EV drivetrain is perfectly suited for cars, hydrogen fuel cell drivetrain is not. Fuel cells don't work very well when you need a sudden demand, so you also need a battery system.
Everything is a compromise with Hydrogen, and even it's fill time is not as fast as you might think.
"Our fill-up from one-quarter tank to full took about 6 minutes, 30 seconds, so a bit longer than filling up with gas but not prohibitively long. Still, it's much faster than even the quickest chargers for electric cars, Tesla's supercharger, which takes 30 minutes to charge up to 80 percent of its battery." probably 20-25Mins quicker than a battery carThe EV drivetrain is perfectly suited for cars, hydrogen fuel cell drivetrain is not. Fuel cells don't work very well when you need a sudden demand, so you also need a battery system.
Everything is a compromise with Hydrogen, and even it's fill time is not as fast as you might think.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff