Toyota already admits that they are behind on their battery technology, despite having decades of opportunities to improve and innovate with their hybrid models.
Now they want to double down on their atrophy by effectively throwing their money away instead of investing in the future?
On the surface, this does not sound like a good plan for long term growth and profitability.
Someone told me they bought big into hydrogen powered vehicles. Seems they can’t let it go.
Seems like they know first hand about “wasted investment” then.
Which they seem to have turned into a sunk cost fallacy.
“Well, we’ve proven to ourselves that we’re incapable of investing without it being a sunk cost that we are too petty to let go and will fight tooth and nail to make profitable… So let’s just skip investing in much of anything new ever because we’re nincompoops. If there’s no guaranteed profit, why invest?”
Japan has no lithium to mine. So hydrogen is the best option for them. While I understand this for Japan, there’s a big world out there where Toyota is a market leader… for now.
You are also missing the fact the Japan’s power grid is in a desperate need of repairs and improvements. Hydrogen won’t fix however it introduces some lower cost temporary fixes that can be quickly implemented. In the long term the correct solution would be to fix the grid but we both know if there’s a cheaper and easier solution what they’ll go with…
but there is no hydrogen to mine either. Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels too (most of it)
Yes, steam methane reforming is the most cost effective. But there are other ways to make it. The most eco friendly was is electrolysis that uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. There are some microorganisms, such as algae and bacteria, that can produce hydrogen through biological reactions—but those aren’t able to scale today.
Important thing is there are multiple ways to produce hydrogen. Cheapest is through methane, but that’s only because methane itself is cheap. There are other methods of producing hydrogen and the more demand there is for it, the cheaper it’ll get. Especially when you consider there won’t OPEC to mess around with prices by rigging production against demand. So it would be smart to focus on fuel source which can be easily produced anywhere and can provide similar performance like current ICEs.
yeah, but we urgently need that huge amount of renewable energy elsewhere.
Yeah getting it that elsewhere often isn’t feasible
Lithium to my knowledge is not as abundant and very hard to recycle. There are a lot of chemical waste in all processes.
It wasn’t very abundant 10 years ago. More deposits have been found, refining and extracting technology has improved and hopefully we will see the first commercial mass produced sodium-based battery this year (not in 25 years like fusion).
Lithium nickel cobalt batteries are still the best for density per kg, but will be reserved for premium cars in the future.
Sunk cost fallacy.
Yes, biggest car manufacturer, which also manufacturer of the most popular hybrid car in the world, doesn’t know what they are doing when they are making cars. Right. I’ll take your word for it.
Yes, big companies fall into sunk cost fallacies all the time. Glad you’re keeping up.
You want me to ignore my own experience and all of the bad business decisions we’ve observed companies make throughout history because you want to be oppositional and edgy.
Also doesn’t help that you don’t know what a fallacy is. I recommend you have a look at Wikipedia.
Nokia was way more dominant in the phone market than Toyota in the automotive industry. Yet, when it was time to jump on the new technology that everyone else was jumping on (android), they fell into the sunk cost fallacy and stood by their own, outdated tech (symbian). That promptly got them bankrupt. Toyota may still change its course, but if they wait too long, they are going to end up just like Nokia did.
That’s a far better comparison than other offered. Nokia failed not because Symbian was outdated, but because they tried to have too firm of a grip on it and it didn’t evolve fast enough. But yeah, I can see that happening if Toyota decides not to share their tech with others and hydrogen doesn’t end up being wide spread as a result of it. Not sure if they’ll go bankrupt but still. Honda once almost did when they went all in on Wankel engines.
Meanwhile Toyota is giving people $40k to buy their Mirai.
They are giving discounts, not paying people to buy their car. It’s a big difference. Government is also giving subsidies for EVs and corn. Should we say government is paying you to buy corn?
But now hydrogen gas stations in California all closed down. So they sorta need to pivit
They have just released hydrogen internal combustion engine. This engine can burn gasoline, CNG or hydrogen. So transition with it would be super easy. But world is set on EVs which are not that great and a lot less cleaner than people seem to think. Mining for Lithium is a very chemically dirty process and there’s no abundance of it, especially not enough for everyone to switch to EV. Am thinking they realize this and are jumping over the hurdle early on, but are trying to push hydrogen into spotlight. More production means prices will drop and eventually it would get a lot cleaner to produce it as well.
That’s really not impressive. Lots of people converted their vehicles to run propane or NG during the 70s oil embargo. You can do it with pretty much the exact same piston engine.
BEVs are far better and yes cleaner.
More production means prices will drop and eventually it would get a lot cleaner to produce it as well.
Funny that you think this of hydrogen, but not of batteries. Given that I’ll say cheers.
Batteries are already being developed and advanced. I just don’t see why people think there can only be one technology. Even now we have multiple viable technologies and I see no reason why that can’t keep going on.
In the small chance you’re serious, because production of, transportation of, leakage of, and burning of gas, ng, or propane still pollutes. Hydrogen can technically technically be done cleanly but is still energy intensive, difficult to transport, difficult to store, difficult to distribute, difficult to store again in your car, and leaks along that whole path. It’s really not a good path. And for what purpose? So you can fill up in a few minutes (assuming the nozzle hasn’t frozen from use, look it up), forgetting that most people can charge their ev overnight meaning they start every day with a full tank.
BEVs and clean energy has a far, far easier and simpler path forward. Not to mention the development potential of batteries far exceeds that of hydrogen production (production only because there’s really not much that can be done for other parts).
If you want another solution it’s transit, ebikes, and trains.
I doubt I’m going to respond any further.
Hydrogen ICE makes something that was already losing on efficiency even worse. It possibly has some race applications, but probably nothing beyond that.
there’s no abundance of it, especially not enough for everyone to switch to EV.
That’s not true at all. There are 1.4 billion cars in the world now, while the lithium ores that are readily available for mining (22 million tons) were estimated to be enough for 2.8 billion cars a year ago. Twice the amount of cars existing today.
But since then, there was already another massive stockpile discovered in the US, that alone is bigger than that (20-40 million tons), so enough for another 3-5 billion cars. But there will surely be discovered new sites, now that we are actually, intensely looking for it. We have been looking for oil for more than a century now and are still discovering new reserves. Lithium will be the same.
Toyota has bet on hydrogen.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about how you can’t store hydrogen. Meanwhile there are eyewatering amounts being invested into water cracking facilities right now.
Check out the map of West aus:
https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2023-11/00232_1_hydrogen_projects_oct23_a4_web.pdf
Or 15,000 km2 of solar & wind producing 3.5m tonnes of hydrogen pa:
It takes a lot of hubris to bet against the largest car manufacturer.
Saying that a company convinced a politician that something was a good idea doesn’t make it true. A lot of money has been invested in really stupid things in the past.
Politicians aren’t pouring many billions of taxpayer dollars into these facilities.
Large companies, global consortium size companies, are doing research which is leading them in this direction.
It’s not Toyota execs sitting in a board meeting saying “what can we do to be edgy”, it’s well resourced think-tanks being asked for potential solutions to our energy problems.
Politicians aren’t pouring many billions of taxpayer dollars into these facilities.
Not billions but tens of millions
And over $160 million more(AUD I assume) to other projects
So yea it is pretty heavily government funded
Large companies, global consortium size companies, are doing research which is leading them in this direction.
Again, a lot of money is invested in really stupid things. If you’ve worked in a big company you know that, if you haven’t watch a Thunderf00t video then. I personally was in a meeting several months ago where $500,000+ was spent on a new machine, rather then just extend the meeting for a couple hours and plan the process for how it could be avoided.
The WGEH I linked will cost many billions.
Just because money has been invested in stupid things, does not mean that investing money is evidence of a stupid thing.
Every one of the largest projects in the plan you linked have been significantly (in the cases I linked half or more) funded by the government.
Just because money has been invested in stupid things, does not mean that investing money is evidence of a stupid thing.
No, but it does mean that money being invested doesn’t prove its a smart thing.
Yes, world’s largest car manufacturer doesn’t know what they are talking about when they talk about car manufacturing. Or they realize battery powered vehicles are only a stop gap measure that doesn’t have long term feasibility and they are jumping over that step. They were amongst the first manufacturers of hybrid vehicles and still produce most popular hybrid. But no, Toyota admits they are behind on battery “technology”. You really have to stretch logic to get that argument going.
They have launched a fully electric car, and it absolutely sucks. It say it’s the worst in its price class, behind not only newcomers (Tesla, Rivian, BYD, etc) but even American, European and other Japanese manufacturers.
Kodak Was the biggest player in photography and invented the digital camera, look where they are now. Don’t underestimate corporate greed, infighting and short-sightedness.
There’s one good thing about the bz4x: you can wait a bit for first year depreciation to hit, and then it looks pretty good.
But by then the depreciation also hits Model Ys, Nissan Ariyas, Ford Mach Es, VW ID4s, Škoda Enyaqs, Hyundai Ionic 5s, etc…
Not equally. Check first year prices on the bz4x. It hits it hard.
Am not, but am also not underestimating the fact they have decades worth of data on battery manufacturing, use and recycling. All of us are just talking out of our ass. Also comparing anything to Tesla and positioning Tesla as quality makes your argument significantly less impactful.
I didn’t mention quality, don’t let your prejudices cloud your reading.
My bad.
Fallacy of appeal to authority. Toyota could be fucking up despite the points you make.
I don’t think this is really an appeal to authority.
The assertion is, without knowledge of the future, Toyota’s predictions (based on research and expertise) is more reliable than that of some cryptobros on Lemmy.
You’re debating who’s opinion is more credible, the selection of an appropriate authority if you will.
An appeal to authority world be “smart guy says hydrogen is dead”.
An appeal to authority world be “smart guy says hydrogen is dead”
I was keying in on OP’s statement:
Yes, world’s largest car manufacturer doesn’t know what they are talking about when they talk about car manufacturing.
With the sarcasm taken into account, the intent appears to be:
The world’s largest car manufacturer must know what they are talking about when they talk about car manufacturing.
Taken with OP’s other arguments, he clearly believes Toyota shouldn’t be questioned simply due to Toyota is the largest and most profitable car company (thus far, anyway). I’m pretty sure that’s an appeal to authority.
Possibly. But assumption that they make good cars because they are popular is not a wrong one to make. It’s possible they are fucking up, of course. Remains to be seen.
Kodak would like a word with you.
Most profitable car manufacturer too.
More evidence that carbon credits are indeed bullshit.
You can’t fucking buy your way to environmental benefit.
Carbon credits use up the money that would otherwise go into making more pollution. It doesn’t stop pollution but it does slow it down and right now we need all the help we can get.
it kinda doesn’t though… in fact it might be worse. say you take a common carbon credit scam: “protecting” forest that was never going to be cut down anyway
you pay $3 in carbon credit to cover a flight… that money from you as the consumer went to someone wealthy enough to set up that company to run that scam. they’re likely a multi millionaire
as a consumer who chose carbon credits, you’re probably making pretty reasonable choices elsewhere in life: trying to recycle, buy sustainably where you can, etc
the multi millionaire now has that money however. it’s been repeatedly shown that these kinds of people have an absolutely enormous carbon footprint (obligatory fuck that term and its associated “it’s your fault” marketing from big business) compared to us regular folk
worse than that even, if you’re immoral and don’t care about the environment enough to run a carbon credit scam, you’re sure as shit not going to be doing anything sustainable… this is the worst kind of person we’re dealing with: the coal rollers of the world
So, I understand what Toyota is saying. I’m not sure I agree, but I get it.
Simply put, until we figure out a good solution to the battery problem, EVs are kind of at a dead end. They are about as good as they could be with current technology. There’s a big push right now towards better energy storage tech, aka battery tech, for EVs and beyond (everything from cellular/mobile/device applications, to EVs, to “grid scale” storage).
The problem is basically twofold: first, limited energy storage. This is compounded by fairly slow charging… Second, current lithium tech used in EVs tends to be rather… Flammable. Specifically, the most common chemistries are pyrophoric; aka, they burst into flames on contact with air. … I’ll emphasize that pyrophoric battery chemistries are commonly used in just about all consumer goods. This includes every Tesla, and every cellphone.
The only reason that your phone doesn’t spontaneously combust in your hand is because the batteries are sealed so no air can get at the chemistry. The issue with Tesla’s EVs is when one cell’s seal fails, and it combusts, then the chances that adjacent cells will have their air seal compromised, dramatically increases. This can quickly lead to a chain reaction of failures.
Current research is ongoing into batteries. The golden battery for EVs will have, fast charging, high discharge capability (also known as the “C rate”), similar or better energy density to current cells, and longer charge/discharge cycle life. Since we’re already comfortable giving pyrophoric batteries to the general public to carry around in their pockets, I don’t think anyone is focused on eliminating that, but, if they can, while achieving the other goals, so much the better.
Other battery chemistries exist that are not pyrophoric, but they lack the energy density of their pyrophoric counterparts. One notable chemistry is LiFePO4, which, by sacrificing some energy density, you get much longer cycle life, and no pyrophoric materials.
Solid state batteries are being researched which should extend cycle life significantly if it can be achieved as a “commercially viable product” (which is corporate talk for something that can be mass produced). Thus far, while sold state batteries exist, they’re either done in very small batches, and are very hard to produce, or, they simply don’t have the same, or similar, energy density to the lithium/cobalt cells that currently dominate the market.
One alternative is hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cell technology isn’t perfect, with a loss of about 20-30% IIRC, from the energy in vs the energy out. The benefit to hydrogen is that it can be stored, highly compressed (a large volume of gas in a relatively small container), and it doesn’t degrade or go bad, so it can be stored indefinitely, aka no significant loss over time. But hydrogen is a far more dangerous material than lithium/cobalt, and a tank rupture from a full tank of hydrogen in an EV, could create an explosion of significant size. It’s far more dangerous than the pyrophoric batteries. For more information, see: Hindenburg.
Other alternatives exist, but generally are not being used in EVs for various reasons. Among these are RITEGs. An RITEG outputs a consistent and stable power flow indefinitely, even a relatively small unit could be used to power a vehicle, with a small buffer battery, for upwards of 40 years without needing to “refuel” so to speak. Possibly longer depending on the fuel used. The reason they’re not considered is right in the name. The full name for an RITEG is “radio isotope thermal electric generator”. Aka, nuclear. The unique thing about an RITEG is that the power output is dependent on the differential between the heating provided by the fuel, versus the temperature of the surrounding material (usually some sort of passive heatsink). They’re very safe unless the seal is broken, in which case, you need Hazmat to clean up the mess. Their energy conversion is very very low. The power is stable, but only a small amount of wattage can be generated. It’s constant, but it’s a small amount. So the presence of a “buffer” battery for acceleration (and most driving) would be required, and often you can get more power from a small solar array, dependent on the weather. I like the idea of RITEGs, but more as a home generator type option, where you could bury one into the ground and dissipate the heat geothermally. No options exist for this and research into thermal electric tech has been stalled for many years. Nevertheless, I think it’s awesome. The idea of having a mostly solid-state, base load generator in your back yard, seems like a really good idea, but nobody has done it, since IMO, the regulations would be a nightmare.
Anyways, the battery problem outlined here is what we’re all waiting for… A commercially viable product that is on par with the current battery front runner, lithium/cobalt, for energy density, while having a much higher cycle life and a high “C rate”.
Hydrogen is NOT a viable option for consumer vehicles. Energy storage is not dense, it is barely more efficient than an ICE, and it is also very flammable because it is highly pressurized H and a large battery. They may be fine for commercial vehicles but there is not a market for them for consumers. That is why Shell is closing up its stations in CA and why Toyota is discounting the Mirai significantly while also giving lots of fuel up money and it is still not enough to do much for demand.
As for solid state batteries, they are already in some BYD vehicles and Toyota itself is claiming that their solid state battery that will offer 650 miles of range should be in cars by 2027.
As for current batteries, the limited storage is not a real issue in 99.5% of cases. Over 99% of trips are under 100 miles. There are quite a few EVs now that can get 300 miles which is more than enough for 99.9% of trips. The comparatively slow charge for fast charge stations is also not much of an issue since few people can drive that long without taking a half hour break (although several models can add 200 miles of range in 15 minutes). The current major hurdle for that charging is working stations that charge at a decent speed. And what about the 99.9% of times when you do not need fast charge? We need to make level 1 chargers significantly more available. The average American only goes a little over 30 miles per day and sits idle for 22-23 hours. If it can be charging for a large chunk of that time, even at level 1 speeds, you are looking at 70-90 miles added per day. We need to offer huge tax incentives to apartment owners to install them in parking spaces and incentives to either install smart panels or upgrade panels to 200A. Cities should also start putting slow chargers in their downtowns where people park.
The overall issues with EVs are largely not the batteries themselves, but the infrastructure surrounding them.
I would agree the charging is a large issue. Apartments especially.
One problem you didn’t mention is generation and the grid. The ability to transmit enough power down the grid if everyone were to go to EVs overnight, simply isn’t there. The high voltage transmission lines are simply not up to the task right now; and that ignores if we can even currently generate that much power.
I don’t recall mentioning range at all, but I would agree, range isn’t much of a factor, fast charging is mainly a side benefit of high C rates, the main focus for C rate is the ability to get the power out of the pack when it is needed, so it can be used for the locomotion of the vehicle. Simply put, the amps needed to lug around several tons of metal, batteries and people, is significant, that’s not even factoring in any hauling or towing. The ability to deliver that current directly from the battery on a consistent level is the key here. Current lithium/cobalt cells are more than capable of both charging and discharging quickly, though you can usually extend the life of the battery by primarily using lower C rates of charging, usually 0.5C provides the most benefit, lower doesn’t increase longevity by enough to be worthwhile, and you get less and less benefit as you approach, then exceed 1C. Solid state batteries shouldn’t have nearly the same trouble with this, as long as it’s capable of 2 or 3C, it should be plenty for the application.
I disagree on the fuel cell comment regarding efficiency. ICE engines, last I checked, could only convert 20-25% of the energy in gasoline to motion, whereas fuel cells are capable of up to 60% conversion of the energy in the hydrogen to electricity, adjusting for losses in the motors and everything, you should be able to get around 50% energy conversion to locomotion. Fuel cells are getting to a point where they are running up against the physics of the issue and can’t really make it any more efficient, ICE motors have been at that point for a while. There are small gains but a large percentage of the energy is converted into light+heat which is considered to be a waste product. There’s also the matter of how to create the hydrogen, which, right now, there are not many good methods. The “most green” method is by water electrolysis, separating the oxygen from the hydrogen in water (H2O), which is a very inefficient process, more energy goes in than the resulting hydrogen has. If this is factored in then yes, you’re correct that hydrogen fuel cells are not significantly more efficient, since the electricity to hydrogen to electricity conversion is the most lossy part of the whole system. There may be areas where we can enhance hydrogen production and get the numbers more on par with battery EVs, but I digress. As far as I know that is not a focus of current research.
Battery EVs are upwards of 90% efficient or better in most cases, even factoring in all the losses from getting the power into the pack and out of the pack. BEVs are simply more efficient overall. There’s no disputing that. ICE vehicles are usually dead last no matter how you look at it.
For charging, foregoing the grid issues, which need to be addressed regardless, every EV owning citizen should have access to a charger at their residence, or at least the option for one. Homeowners can easily buy and install (or have installed) a charger for their own personal use, condos and apartments are the main targets since the parking areas are usually managed by the property owner or condo authority, so installing a charger is a bit more of a problem. That definitely needs to be addressed.
The grid issues are not really that significant. You are correct that we would not be able to do it if things changed immediately. We would need another 800-1000 GW of power generation (an extra 15-20%). But it is not going to happen overnight. Cars last a pretty damn long time. Even if we hit 100% of new cars being B/PH EV in 2035, only about 13% of cars on the road will be EV at that point. It would take another couple of decades for those to be phased out. So this is more problem over the span of three to four decades to increase our grid capacity by 15-20% which is absolutely doable. It can actually result in a more stable grid if vehicle to grid becomes anything close to the norm.
I brought up range and charging speeds because that is what most people worry about. That is almost certainly due to their current mindset from using ICE vehicles where they go to a station to charge. But yes, that was more generalized info and not geared towards your points.
ICE vehicles are about 25-30% energy efficient. FCEV vehicles are a little under 40% while BEVs are about 80% efficient. . So FCEVs are slightly more energy efficient than ICE but a far cry from a BEV.
I did forget one other issue with BEVs that needs to be fixed: they are insanely heavy. That can take quite a toll on roads. This can be solved a couple of ways. The easiest way would be by not buying fucking massive SUVs and trucks that are not needed for the vast majority of trips. A commuter car used to be a thing. Speaking of commute, that brings us to number two. A commuter car does not need 300 miles of range. Small cars with 100-150 mile range are absolutely fine for 99% of trips. The last way would be to use solid state batteries since they can be much lighter for the same range.
But switching to EV will not get us even close to where we need to be for emissions because whole they may produce 80% fewer emissions over the vehicle’s lifespan, consumer vehicles only make up less than a third of emissions. Public transportation and biking infrastructure could be massively improved and help a hell of a lot more. Then we need to work on trucking, flight, and energy production.
You’re forgetting that we also need to work on global shipping. It’s a massive contributor to global emissions.
This is bluntly the place where I think we need fuel cells. Yes, they’re less efficient, but they can produce a significant amount of power for a significant amount of time given how much space is usually allocated on shipping vessels for the engine and fuel reserves.
I’m not talking about your mom and dad’s little motor boat, I’m talking about freight liners. They run basically 24/7 while on the water and consume more fuel daily than your average coal rolling F350 owner would in a year.
Since it would be done in a more controlled commercial context, safeguards can be put in place that other vehicles wouldn’t be able to have. Regular inspections of the safety equipment and testing of the storage and energy systems would be almost trivial to implement.
Honestly, I understand why this isn’t in the news, but why isn’t anyone else talking about this?
Global shipping is probably not talked about much because it is extremely tough to push any standards. It took forever to get an agreement to stop using the horribly toxic sludge they used to use in international waters. You are right though. It is 100% something that needs to be focused on and fuel cells would help a fuckton in that area. Sure they are not as energy efficient as BEVs but they are a ton better than the garbage fuel cargo ships currently use.
One alternative is hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cell technology isn’t perfect, with a loss of about 20-30% IIRC
You don’t recall correctly: The efficiency of Hydrogen, from solar cell to the wheels is 26%. Electrolysis is highly inefficient and compression and chilling of hydrogen is very energy intensive. Meanwhile, EVs are at 70%.
You are right that batteries kinda suck due to their energy density. However with EVs you can buy today you can still commute every day without noticing any major difference to an ICE car. You can also do long road trips, even in a small car, albeit slower. (Source: did both)
I see I get to have this conversation several times.
I looked it up, hydrogen fuel cells can attain about 60% efficiency from the energy potential in hydrogen, when converting to electricity. So I’m not wrong, we’re talking about different numbers.
You’re referring to the efficiency of the whole system from generation (via solar panels) to conversion to hydrogen (I assume by electrolysis?) to conversion back to electricity by fuel cell (~50-60% efficiency), then any losses getting the electricity to the wheels. That’s a very different number than what I was saying.
AFAIK, no real progress has gone into electrolysis for decades. But we can usually also do natural gas reclamation, which is the process of removing the carbon from CH4, and producing pure hydrogen, which, I believe is a much more energy efficient process.
It becomes an entire discussion to figure out how you’re producing hydrogen for the system, which is not an easy topic to tackle in a limited written medium like this one. I decided to forego that and focus on the efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell vs the energy potential in hydrogen directly. I was still off, I’ll give you that, but not so far off to make ICE look like a good option compared to FCVs.
BEVs are great short trip vehicles, daily commuters and all around daily driver vehicles. Even with current battery technology, I’m not disputing that. The fact is that the batteries will cause the cars life to end long before anything else wears out that could potentially cause the car to get scrapped. It’s cycle life which is the primary issue, but if we get super long cycle life at the cost of energy density, we generally won’t switch (see LiFePO4). If the c rate is too low (significantly lower than current tech), then acceleration and charging time will suffer, and we will equally reject the technology as viable for the purpose. So it needs to beat out lithium/cobalt on cycle life, but come close to, or do the same or better than lithium/cobalt in terms of C rate and energy density.
If anyone finds something that is identical to lithium/cobalt for energy density, and C rate, and just has an improved cycle life while all other factors are the same… Then IMO the entire industry would pivot so fast your head will spin.
Cycle life is the core of the battery problem. Other factors are nice, but the cycle life is where we need to improve before we can really get rolling on EVs. If that problem can be solved, I don’t think that ICE cars will even be built anymore. It will end the consumer petrol market within a decade of such a breakthrough. Of course, there’s more uses for gasoline and diesel than vehicles so there will still be gas stations, but there will be a LOT fewer of them, and many will likely be replaced by EV charging points.
I looked it up, hydrogen fuel cells can attain about 60% efficiency from the energy potential in hydrogen, when converting to electricity. So I’m not wrong, we’re talking about different numbers.
If you are looking at the pure engine efficiency, we are now looking at >97% for most EV motors (class IE4). However, the point of the entire transition away from fossil fuels is preventing or delaying climate collapse. For this purpose lowering emissions and reducing energy use go hand in hand, hence the overall efficiency is critical.
But we can usually also do natural gas reclamation, which is the process of removing the carbon from CH4, and producing pure hydrogen, which, I believe is a much more energy efficient process.
Hydrogen is less strongly bound to Carbon than Oxygen, however in this process we produce more CO2 again.
AFAIK, no real progress has gone into electrolysis for decades.
There is a theoretical upper bound for the efficency of water electrolysis, depending on the temperature. While current electrolyzers can surely be improved, since we are already making electricity, we might as well use it directly. Some applications (aircraft, rockets, …) need the higher energy density of chemical fuels. But: Working with liquid or gaseous hydrogen is terrible: Cyrogenic liquids are not easy to handle, let alone store. Hydrogen will embrittle any metal exposed to it and when inadvertenly mixed with air forms a highly explosive gas. Even the rocket people try to avoid using hydrogen unless they really need the ISP.
The fact is that the batteries will cause the cars life to end long before anything else wears out that could potentially cause the car to get scrapped.
So far we have seen EV batteries not degrade a lot due to good BMS. For most cars the battery will last at least 10 years before performance is seriously impacted and even then the battery can be reused for storage (home or grid scale). Most EVs have >40kWh batteries, homes usually need 5-10kWh storage. So one chewed up EV battery could be reused for multiple stationary battery systems.
Cycle life is the core of the battery problem.
I do agree that current battery tech is… not great. Having less spicy cells that are easier to recycle or recondition would be a massive gain and more research needs to be a core focus. However Li-Ion and LiFePo are already good enough to work for most people most of the time. Pair this with a lot of wind and solar energy generation and you have mostly sustainable traffic. This can be done right now and it has to be done right now. I argue a lot against hydrogen because it seems like a technology that is not there yet and allows many old players in the energy market to delay a transition which is not beneficial to them.
The argument for hydrogen generally revolves around the fact that it’s only waste product is literally H2O. So by using an FCV, you only really emit water as a byproduct, which in general is not of a global cooling chemical than a global warming chemical; though, I don’t mean to suggest, in any way, shape, or form that FCVs have any impact at all in reversing global warming.
I would argue that efficiency isn’t necessarily the most critical point in regards to “Green” technology. It’s an important factor, true, especially when dealing with portable or vehicular energy, since storing a large amount of fuel/energy/power to do a task is generally considered to be a bad idea, mainly due to the size and weight of such storage. I would argue that the efficiency in a less size/weight constrained system, such as a depot or facility, is less of a problem. For example, let’s say we’re getting 30+ % efficiency solar panels and generating… say, 10kW from the array on average for 5 hours, a total of 50kWh. There’s already losses from the solar, but we’ll discount that since there’s no competing technology to generate power from sunlight which has anywhere near as much efficiency.
From there, we lose maybe 30% from water electrolysis to generate hydrogen. We will lose an additional 40% when that is converted back to electricity for use in FCVs.
The output power will be ~21 kWh.
This is equivalent to a solar array of ~4.5 kW in the same situation, using BEV.
My argument here, against the efficiency matter is: the BEV array is approximately half as large or using panels that are half as efficient, this is going to be located at a facility or location where the hydrogen is stored, which will likely have room for a larger solar array than 10kW. So the only sacrifice made in the scenario is to allocate a larger space and some additional panels to a static location where the hydrolysis is being performed… Big deal. It’s entirely green energy with immense storage capacity (even just as a pressurized gas), and incredible energy density.
Obviously there are still risks with it being literally an explosive, though it can be argued that gasoline also carries that risk and it’s literally everywhere. Albeit not as extreme of a risk, but bluntly, gasoline sticks around. Hydrogen generally screws off. Once it’s released into atmosphere, yes it’s incredibly dangerous and explosive in the presence of oxygen, but it will quickly rise and clear out from ground level where all the spark hazards are… While gasoline releases vapor continually and any ignition of the vaporized gasoline will likely find it’s way back to the source of those vapors and ignite them. Hydrogen is a flash and it’s gone. It’s a trade off of risks either way.
I hear what you’re saying, I just don’t necessarily agree that it’s as bad as it would initially seem.
In the other hand, I’ve seen the dumb shit people do with anything flammable or explosive and I’d rather not put something so energetic into the hands of the general public. So there’s that as well.
I also want to address the matter of urgency. It’s not critical that we convert all of the cars to EVs. Personally owned vehicle emissions are not the greenhouse gasses that cause the most significant problem. What most graphs show are intra-country emissions, which either lump all “transportation” emissions into one category, or categorize mostly land-based transport methods. In more global charts they generalize “transportation” as one thing, not defining what each transportation type is contributing. There’s a few graphs that are out there, if you dig for them, which show that global transportation is ~75% of emissions, but break it down by purpose/type of transit, and if you really dig into the data, personally owned vehicles are something less than 10% of overall emissions. The rest goes to shipping, like boats, transport planes, trucks etc. large tank liners or cargo vessels are a huge portion of the emissions. There has been zero push to have those converted to electrical options. Whether fuel cell or battery, it’s not something that’s even discussed. The fact is, those boats are running basically 24/7, consuming more fuel daily than even a mid-sized town of consumer vehicles, and homes combined. And that’s just one ship. There are hundreds of them on the water. So having the public convert to EVs, is a literal drop in the bucket of CO2 emissions.
So the question is, why aren’t we talking about it? I think the answer is clear. Ships are the bread and butter for oil conglomerates. They need fuel, usually diesel, to get anything anywhere. The global demand for energy to simply move shit around is massive. Nobody wants you looking at it and complaining. Even if the consumer vehicles were all converted to some form of EV overnight, oil companies would still make money hand over fist.
None of this should be taken as “fuck it, let’s just keep going with ICE cars”. Absofuckinglutely not. Consumers still need to convert to EVs. There is no “but what about” going on here. But having perspective on the issue is essential. We all need to do our part. Right now, everyone seems happy to stay focused on consumer vehicles and the drive towards personal responsibility of carbon emissions, but that’s only focusing on consumer emissions. Industrial emissions from shipping and energy production, even just getting the energy products to where they need to go, should also be something that is a part of the discussion because they are far and above more egregious in their carbon footprint than the consumers are. IMO, they’ve set the pubic against itself to distract from the fact that we’re not the biggest problem. There’s now a war of sorts happening between “tree hugging” EV advocates and “dinosaur burning” ICE enthusiasts. It’s worked and we need to realise that we are all on the same side, and we need to recognize that the real problem isn’t us, it’s the companies who would rather ruin the planet than ruin their bottom line. Yes, that includes oil companies, but also shipping companies. Other industries are also guilty of massive ecological destruction too.
IMO, this is yet another example of the “elite” driving a narrative that benefits them. That somehow because reasons we should all feel bad about driving our cars to the places we need to go, burning mere gallons of fuel daily for everything we do, while they burn barrels of fuel hourly so they can line their pockets with our money.
Personally, I don’t think we should give up on fuel cells or green hydrogen, because there’s literal acres of land that can be used for solar to generate the power to produce hydrogen, and use that hydrogen to power fuel cell based electric vessels for transport. They have a virtually inexhaustible supply of water right next to where these docks exist, and plenty of land for solar which can be used for the process. It makes sense; and with a fuel cell vessel the hydrogen can be stored in large pressurized containers that are regularly tested and validated to be safe, with extended safety mechanisms in place that we basically can’t do with consumer goods. Weight is also less of a concern, and they already allocate a nontrivial amount of space on the ship to storing fuel for the journey. It would make such a significant impact to overall emissions that the consumer EV thing would be little more than a footnote, rather than the headline news it is right now.
But I don’t see anyone even remotely discussing it. Maybe they should.
Toyota is claiming to have a 750-mile solid-state battery that will be commercially available in 2027. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota-roll-out-solid-state-battery-evs-couple-years-india-executive-says-2024-01-11/ If this is true, then the battery “problem” will be a moot point.
If it were true, they wouldn’t be pushing hydrogen so hard.
Sometimes a company’s left hand doesn’t know what its right hand is doing. Look at how many times Google has released products that compete with its other products, for example.
The other reason they’re pushing hydrogen has to do with Japanese infrastructure, so they could very well be aiming to do both anyway. Domestic hydrogen and international EVs.
Damn really nice post.
We’re really at a tough point. Batteries in general suck if we’re honest. The biggest problem with EVs is that not only are they worse than ICE in some regards, they are on top of that more expensive.
If they can’t compete on longevity they have to compete on price, and right now they are nowhere close to worth the cost.
My personal opinion is that plugin hybrids are the future. Best of both worlds. You use the electric batteries for day to day, but you never have to worry about getting stuck or not starting in the winter.
I’m also a fan of hybrids right now. There’s fewer batteries to create problems, and the packs are cheaper than what’s used in vehicles that are only EVs, reducing cost and weight.
I don’t like that some manufacturers have either stopped offering, or never offered plug in hybrids, and bluntly, I don’t understand why. It’s literally a charge controller, a plug, and some wiring… Looking at you Honda.
My biggest issue with hybrids and EVs is that many manufacturers use insane designs for them. It’s like, no… I want a normal fucking car, that just has a battery and some electric drive motors. Not a cross between a 3 year olds drawing of a “car” and a Fischer price toy.
Like, give me something that looks like a corolla or an accord, or literally any normal sedan, with a PHEV system under the hood at a reasonable price and I’ll sell my old beater car today and buy one, but no. They have to do stupid crap like whatever the hell this is from BMW:
Or the Prius (which I’m sure we all know what they look like… Kind of a stubby station wagon looking thing)… There’s a freaking ton of examples, and the price is always a lot higher (usually double or more to the ICE counterpart)… So I’m going to pay more for this clown car? Fuck.
I’m actually unreasonably angry that so many hybrids and EVs look so stupid.
I’m in team “BMW i3 looks better than any boring Corolla”. I like the unusual EV aesthetics. I want funky cars.
Personally I love that BMW design, but I’m a weirdo with a super tiny garage. They are super cheap used because they have the worst battery range I have seen in any EV and their “extender” solution is basically just slapping a gas generator into the car. It’s assumed most EVs will be bought by middle class city people, so they go for more compact designs.
They’re super cheap because replacing the batteries cost 16k
RITEGs … Their energy conversion is very very low.
Yeah, no kidding. These will never be viable for personal vehicular applications because they are A) by necessity incredibly heavy, large, and expensive with the casings, shielding, heat exchangers, etc. required, and B) can’t produce enough energy to meaningfully propel something the size of a car any useful distance in any realistic time frame. A 1500 kilogram unit the size of a refrigerator only generates ~35 watts. That’s not enough to do anything with, from a transportation perspective. There is no “new technology” that’s going to get around this, either. Isotope half lives are what they are. The decay heat is what it is. The temperature differentials that you can safely maintain in a consumer environment can only be so large. That’s physics.
You’d literally be better off with a $200 worth of solar panels from Harbor Freight to recharge your EV. And yes, that includes taking into account that solar panels don’t work at night.
That, and you’d never get any random member of the public to willingly park anything that is known to contain radioactive isotopes in their own back yard. Radiophobia would ensure that such a proposal would be completely dead on arrival. People are already deathly frightened enough of radioisotopes existing in tightly regulated, very competently run nuclear power plants.
I’d happily have a RITEG buried in my back yard to sustain my base load from my house. Using geothermal cooling for the unit seems like a good idea, and it would be underground where nobody can fuck with it.
RITEG research and use hasn’t stopped, but most of the terrestrial units have been long decommissioned. The most recent example of note was the MMRTG unit used in curiosity (now on Mars), which is 45 KG and can produce 110W of output. The most notable terrestrial examples were the IEU units used by the Soviets for light houses, weighing upwards of 2-3 tones and producing less than 120W at their peak, mostly fueled by strontium 90 (the MMRTG uses plutonium 238). The only modern RTG for terrestrial use is the Sentinel units used for monitoring stations in the arctic by America, which top out under 60W and weigh more than a ton, closer to 2 ton. There are others but information is limited.
A lot of weight is due to the fuel (which is classified as a “heavy metal”) and the casing, which on earth is more robust than you would need in space, since it’s feasible that people would be nearby the unit for extended periods of time and any breach could be fatal.
Even with the weight, if we’re effectively burying it in a yard, deep enough to take advantage of geothermal cooling, then weight isn’t really a problem. Even size isn’t a problem since it can be the size of a large consumer vehicle and most homeowners have more than enough land to accommodate that… With little more than an access hatch for inspections and maintenance, it would be a viable option to contribute to offsetting the base load of your home. Even a 100W unit would trim about 2.4kWh from a household electricity bill per day for something like 100 years. That’s in the ballpark of 8.5 GWh over the lifetime of the unit before the fuel needs to be replaced (based on the half life of the material. Strontium 90 would need to be refueled every 40-50 years or so).
I’m not saying it’s a fix to the problem by any stretch, but it could trim about 1/4 of electricity costs per home, based on an average consumption of around 10 kWh per day.
This is why I like RTGs, they’re stable and long lasting, relatively safe (unless the housing/shielding fails) and solid state with basically no maintenance.
I’m a fan of the idea, but I’m not going to say it’s a one stop fix, nor do I think the regulatory people will green light any implementation of such a system for home use, ever. Nor do I think that even if such a solution were to be given approval, that the general public would ever accept it being installed “in [their] back yard” either literally or figuratively.
You’re right that a pair of 200W panels and a small battery system would have a similar effect (at least until the batteries needed replacing… or simply grid tie it), and as long as you can average ~2 kWh/day of generation, you’d be fine… You might need 4-5 panels to get the same daily output, but a system like that is probably still less than $1000, and will probably last ~20 years. So to make it economically viable such a system would need to cost the consumer less than ~$5000 or so before it becomes a better option.
I’m still a fan of the technology, and I find it immensely interesting, but I try to keep my expectations realistic. Due to the excessive weight of a terrestrial RTG, it’s not viable for a vehicle, but wouldn’t it be cool to have a car that charges itself all the time no matter where you park it or whether it’s in the sun or not?
I think that would be cool.
Hear me out. If we make the cars significantly lighter and cut holes in the bottom for the feet, we could save significant amounts of energy by allowing the driver to use his own leg strength to push the vehicle along. That could even be some sort of pulley system with chains that would make it easier to force the tires to move.
Oh I got a better idea. What if we link up the cars during long distance travel and have just one really powerful high efficiency car at the front pull all the other ones behind it and then every so often it reaches destinations where the other cars detach and go their own separate way.
Of course it will have dedicated routes, and probably specific times when the big car is passing by so there will be a schedule but that can be mitigated by running with a high frequency.
Heck we can even come up with a fun name for the last car in any Car Conga that essentially calls it a butt.
Shame there is nothing like that.
Lthe answer is hamster. S thousand hamsters in a thousand hamsters wheels in every car. They’ll eat their young so it’ll be a self sustaining eco system.
Toyota has invested heavily into hydrogen, and so are against electrification
Hydrogen would be cleaner in the long run, too, wouldn’t it? Since you wouldn’t need to mine lithium for batteries and such.
Yes but where is the hydrogen coming from? Also hydrogen cars are less efficient than battery powered EVs.
Water, I think? I think the hydrogen is less of an issue than the hydrogen fuel cell though.
Only 10 more years to go!
Unless we improve the efficiency of both electrolysis and fuel cell conversion to about 98%, we won’t beat the batteries.
Yes but where is the hydrogen coming from?
Water.
Natural gas, primarily.
Obtaining hydrogen from water is much more energy-demanding, and the efficiency of the entire water cycle (water electrolysis, hydrogen transportation, electrical conversion) is extremely low compared to just charging batteries.
It wouldn’t. Hydrogen production from any source is extremely power intense. Especially so from water. The amount of energy wasted on hydrogen production is easily offset by battery production and recycling. And that’s not even accounting for hydrogen tank production, which is another hell hole.
Not the mention the overwhelming vast majority of hydrogen today is produced from fossil fuels and not through electrolysis.
Let’s not kid ourselves, anyone advocating for hydrogen as fuel is defending the continued existence of the fossil fuel industry.
There are plenty of places with abundant green energy, and abundant water. As for the tank yea, but idk if it’s worse than lithium
The energy is only abundant until the moment you start wasting it. Hydrogen fuel is a waste of energy.
Renewable energy doesn’t have a tap, you either use it when generated or don’t. If there’s an excess now it can be used. But yea hydrogen fuel may be a waste or not I don’t know. But to say theres an energy shortage everywhere is just not true.
Renewable energy doesn’t mean infinite energy.
I never said it does. I did say for example there are areas that generate hydroelectric/wind/solar power that otherwise would be effectively wasted. Hydroelectric power can control the flow partially to bank it for later, but thats not the case with the other two.
Bullshido
Prius is one of the most popular selling Toyotas since it’s debut, either they’re just being obstinate about EVs or they are really invested to the gills on their Hydrogen fueled car lineup.
You would think at least one of their execs would have learned about the sunk cost fallacy in basic econ.
Honestly it’s quite amazing how prone we all are to falling for the old sunk cost fallacy, that fallacy and confirmation bias have to be the two most popular cognitive issues for us as a species.
One would think random person posting online would realize that biggest car manufacturer in the world knows a thing or two about car manufacturing. Especially considering the same manufacturer is behind worlds most popular hybrid car and a number of EVs. I’d also assume they would trust decades of accumulated data on battery sustainability, recycling and manufacturing but I suppose sitting in a computer chair googling is better. Here’s next term to google and learn about “Dunning-Kruger effect”.
Consumers like the Prius because of the addition of the battery and electric motor.
Toyota likes the Prius because it still contains and ICE engine, which they want to keep selling.
it reminds me of the big tobacco playbook when they put filters on cigarettes after people started realising they were not healthy…Toyota stuck a little battery next to their ICE engine and said ‘it’s healthy now!’ and people went with it…for like 30 years.
If they could pull off hydrogen fuel cells with the help from Ballard Power Systems, I’ll be rich. I’m not that lucky though.
Or they realize batteries are not the way to go. I don’t know why people seem to think Toyota is the biggest car manufacturer in the world and are just acting like retards. They are not, and every move is calculated. They have decades of data in regards to battery servicing and duration, recycling, etc. They have the data.
Regardless, we only have found one Earth-Like World within dozens, maybe even hundreds or thousands of light-years from us, and that’s Earth. This world is already straining to keep up with the pollution we are emitting. We have no alternative planets to go to, no backups or do-overs. I can pretty much guarantee that Toyota isn’t thinking of their position 35-100 years from now. Most companies seem to only be looking 5, maybe 10 years ahead. We gotta be careful not to set our only ship on fire in the endless ocean that is the hard vacuum of space. xD
If we really cared about pollution we should stop using traditional forms of cement and get rid of cars all together or at least ban them without at least 3 passengers.
I’d rather waste my money on a car from a maker with vision. This is in line with their move to TX. Too bad.
deleted by creator
Can’t beat the reliability of a Toyota or Lexus hybrid. Nothing comes close.
JFC we need a carbon tax. All these posts claiming ICE is better than EV lol. Burning fossil fuels kills 250,000 people a year in the US alone. It’s a 25% efficient process. ICE engine has 2000 moving parts while EV has 20. ICE is 20x most likely to have a car fire than EV and far more deadly. This list goes on and on.
We have a cap and trade system here in Washington which raised the price of gas by like 40¢. Unforgivable without a national one, that just incentivizes companies to go to more polluting states. Ironically (not really) the law in those states complain that we need to force China to emit less because manufacturing has moved over there because of their more lax standards.
Well the problem is just what feels like a timebomb to many people. Like the Pinto was actually relatively safe for cars of it’s time and class, but because it created extravagant failures it because notorious for safety.
Fossil fuel fires are explosive. EV fires (which occur 20x less frequently) are slow and hard to put out but give you time to get out of the car. What are you trying to imply by using the word “time bomb”? Because that’s disingenuous.
I’m trying to imply what I said. Please reread what I said before calling it disingenuous. Explaining why people feel a certain way isn’t saying that feeling is correct.
That’s funny because I’d rather spend my credits on something other than a Toyota.
Corporate “indulgences”
Carbon credits are an absolute scam but EVs are also not going to get mass adoption and aren’t going to replace ICE cars until used EVs are a thing without needing to replace the battery for the price of a whole car. So I can see why Toyota wouldn’t be too interested in EVs, the tech for them isn’t there for global adoption and is still a niche market.
EVs already attained mass adoption. In Norway almost all new cars are EVs. Several countries are not far behind. Most countries are more suitable for EVs than Norway.
How are most countries more suitable for EVs than Norway? Norway’s hydro power and smaller size is pretty great for EVs.
The size of the country isn’t particularly relevant. How many Australians for example regularly cross the desert? What’s relevant is how far individual people commute and that tends to be a function of things like adoption of Work From Home policies and population density.
For example the UK is quite good for electric vehicles because the population is very dense (especially in London where the population is extremely dense).
How is Norway bad for EVs then
Batteries don’t like the cold.
They don’t like charging in the cold but they’ll dissipate just fine
Most lithium ion batteries take permanent damage if charged below 32°f, and if they are used below 15.
Sodium ion batteries w/prussian blue are a major breakthrough. Considerably lower cost, no bad chemicals or rare elements, comparable energy density to Lion, prospects for better energy density in the future, and nob-damaging use/charge in cold temperatures. Neat stuff.
The hydro power helps, sure. But Norway is big, cold, and sparsely populated.
Like Canada who doesn’t sell many EVs?
The density of EV drivers in BC in the last 5 years has sharply, noticeably increased.
BC has stupid cheap electricity, it’s a perfect candidate for EVs just like Norway.
It’s true. Definitely part of my equation.
Smaller size???
Are you American?
I’m not sure about Norway but here in Estonia the vast vast majority of cars sold are used. New cars are rarely sold due to the price.
All cars were new cars once. If a majority of new cars are EVs, then it is only a matter of time before most used cars are as well.
It’s not (just) a matter of money. Even in China a third of new vehicles are EVs, and Estonia is much richer than China.
The problem is that replacing the battery in an EV costs as much as a new car which is something you need to do if it’s 10 years old.
Even if 1/3 of new cars sold is an EV that will take decades for any meaningful adoption since new cars are incredibly uncommon and affordable replacemt batteries don’t yet exist.
I don’t mind car makers making EVs but it seems like a pretty reasonable choice from Toyota not to enter that market yet.
You don’t have to replace the battery every 10 years. LiFePo cells can do more than 3000 cycles before going below 85% rated capacity. CATL has been making these cheaply for years.
Toyota has been actively sabotaging EV transitions for decades. Of course they’re against the thing they don’t want.
I can currently find exactly zero used cars with a LiFePo battery here. I looked around more and it doesn’t seem to be even used by any car brands that exist here so I have no way to check how expensive a replacement would be. I’m assuming there’s a reason it’s not used but I’m not going to dig into battery research over a lemmy post.
If those batteries solve all the issues leading to used EVs being feasible then that would be great in about a decade or two if they adobt that right now.
The only reason they are so expensive currently is because the demand is still quite new and the price you are quoting is ferrying the manufacturer who is incentivised to price it in such a way as to pay you towards buying a new car.
Go to an ICE manufacturer and ask for a new drivetrain and they will likely quote you parts and labour price that exceeds the value of the car.
Aftermarket support will continue to improve as the market continues to grow and mature. Give it another decade or so, and battery swaps/refurbishments will become as commonplace as ICE engine gasket replacements, while also being significantly cheaper.
Even as it stands now, ~10yo Teslas seem to have battery health at >80% (maybe due to over-provisioning?) and are sufficient to meet most commuter’s daily needs.
The battery in my car got replaced. For a 82kWh battery it was $11k, like two years ago. And it only keeps getting cheaper. And they come with 200.000 km warranty.
LiFePo4 have like 5 times the lifespan. So they will outlive your car, you can put them in your next car, they will outlive that one too and then you can use them as buffer storage for your house.
What car can you even do this? These days I expect the battery to be proprietary with DRM and discontinued by the time it makes sense to replace.
The manufacturer car replace the battery in any car they make…
Right now?
The only ev I’ve seen powered by LiFePO4 was built by an enthusiast.
… So the short answer is: you can only build one.
LiFePO4 batteries are less energy dense than lithium/cobalt, which is what most use (notable example being every Tesla ever), but some use prismatic cells, IIRC. But Cobalt based cells are generally preferred for weight reduction.
What we need is a battery with the endurance of LiFePO4 and power density that’s as good as, or better than lithium/cobalt cells. Right now that’s the Holy Grail for EVs, and research for such a battery is ongoing. There’s a few that are looking good, but still in fairly early stages of research.
IMO, if that kind of battery can be developed, or another method to power EVs is proven to be effective and safe, then very quickly after that, ICE cars will stop being produced altogether.
Most Chinese cars (BYD, MG, etc), Tesla Model 3 and Y standard range, etc
11k is more than double of what the average person pays for a car here. The vast majority buy used cars for about 5000 euros on average for a good quality one but you can get a car for even under 1k. Until EVs can hit those prices only a handful of people will buy them in poorer countries.
They will, you can get a Zoe for 6k right now. There just are no 20 year old evs yet.
The cheapest used Zoe I can find in Estonia is 7k and it’s in bad condition all the rest are from 15 - 25k.
25 is what a new one costs. You are doing something wrong.
7 is less than 25 so I’m confused about what you’re confused by. Maybe prices haven’t gone down as much as you’d like, but they’ve gone down, so clearly they are second-hand vehicles.
I was the one who said you can find them for 6, because I’m looking to buy one. Someone said they cost 15-25 used. Who buys a used car for the price of a new one?
Auto24.ee is the most popular site for selling used cars here, check it yourself.
Surprisingly, I don’t speak Estonian.
Wait what?
EVs are not going to be mass adopted until EVs are mass adopted and there are second hand electric vehicles. The logic of that one just goes round in circles.
Also who on earth is replacing the batteries on electric vehicles after 5 years of ownership? They will still be at about 80% capacity which is more than enough for most needs, no one’s requiring the replacement of batteries on these cars what are you want about?
The tech for affordable replacement batteries isn’t there and most used cars sold here are 10 years old at least.
If you’re buying a used car for 5000 and you know that at some point you need to cough up 10k to replace the battery you aren’t buying an EV.
I sold my car after I moved to the city since I can get everywhere by tram but take my dad for example: He bought a used van about 15 years ago and he isn’t going to replace it any time soon. If an EV can’t last 20 years without a 10k investment in the middle it just won’t be an attractive option. There are still cars from the 70s on the streets here and unless batteries become affordable that isn’t changing.
bruh in 10 years batteries are going to be significantly cheaper. probably less than half of what you’re banging on about.
It would need to drop to 1/10 of the current price for a used EV market to be viable and about 1/20 for it to be a more attractive option over an old ICE car.
A car that’s made like a phone can suck my balls
Present them.
EVs shouldn’t ever replace ICE cars, people should be able to buy whichever they like, the government needs to stay out of it.
Can someone explain what “credits” are like I’m 5? I read the article, but still don’t understand it.
Edit: Is it carbon credit subsidies from the gub’ment?
Essentially companies that pollute over certain threshold pay money (buy carbon credits) that then goes into non-profits compensating for those emissions by saving the environment, like planting trees and such.
The system is widely criticized for being very flawed and allowing all sorts of shenanigans and manipilations, as those “carbon credits” are sold at competitive pricing, fostering projects with questionable calculations.
In this case, the US governance sets a target efficiency for vehicles (miles per gallon here in the US) and if a pant does not meet that overall efficiency, they have to pay. EVs are a bit odd because they have a miles per gallon equivalency. So if it is expected for them to have 50% by 2030 (50% cars at 100 MPGe and 50% at like 45 MPG(e)) but they out have 30%,they will have to pay a large fine. They are saying they are okay with that rather than ramp up EV production more quickly.
Thanks
Aside from hybrids, Toyota has also put a lot of work into hydrogen cars. Those have some real benefits – range, fast fueling time, running the heater is “free”, like in a gasoline vehicle and doesn’t hurt range, don’t have range reduction in cold environments – but they’re more-expensive to fuel than a pure EV, because you’ve got the overhead of conversion from electricity to hydrogen.
I don’t think that the EV user experience is as good as the hybrid gasoline/electric experience or the hydrogen user experience, but I also don’t think that hybrids are gonna be able to achieve enough carbon reduction. Like, if we had figured out a really good, cost-effective way to do carbon sequestration, that’d be one thing. But that isn’t the case in 2024.
And if it comes down to hydrogen or EVs, I think that ultimately, the lower fueling costs of EVs will dominate.
Do you have a hydrogen car?
Right now, there are 59 public hydrogen fueling stations in all of the United States, all of which are in CA. Good luck on a road trip. Even in a big city like Los Angeles they are hard to find and far apart. Pretty awesome to drive 30 minutes in traffic just to fuel up!!
And before you say something like, “we just need to build out the infrastructure;” think how fucking expensive that will be. We already have a MASSIVE infrastructure for electricity and for gas stations. Each hydrogen station costs around $5 million to build. There are roughly 116,000 gas stations in the US, so even adding a quarter of that number in hydrogen would cost $143 billion. It would be better to spend that on beefing up the electrical grid, especially in places like Texas who can’t even handle a tough winter.
As far as the experience, there is nothing better than pulling up to your house and plugging in. It absolutely sucks having to go to a dirty gas station and stand outside in cold or heat or rain while some homeless person asks for money to fill up their car to get to a doctors appointment. Take that gas station experience and then spend time trying to find a far away hydrogen station to fuel up. Even on road trips, I can take a 30 minute lunch break to get 50-80% before driving again. In a hydrogen car I’ll be lucky to find a place to fuel up at all.
Finally, the economics of hydrogen for cars is dumb. Why spend money converting electricity into hydrogen, then put it in a tanker truck that uses diesel to drive it to a station, where it takes electricity to run the pumps, to put hydrogen in a car that TURNS HYDROGEN INTO ELECTRICITY. Compare that to just sending electricity down some wires to charge a battery.
People said the same thing when BEVs were coming out. Personally, I think the main hidden benefits of hydrogen isn’t fast refueling and range, but rather weight and ease of storage.
Hydrogen may be the solution to enable mass adoption of variable renewable power plants, allowing relatively cheap energy storage between seasons. Doesn’t matter if you only get 50% efficiency if you can produce it when electricity is dirt cheap and then store it nigh indefinitely.
As for the weight - the real money in vehicles is in the commercial sector, where weight is precious. Any weight lugging around batteries is dead weight - and hydrogen means less weight than lithium batteries.
I don’t have to stand in -30 weather filling up my EV. Hydrogen is a step back. Also, humans suck at not leaking gasses, and unburned hydrogen isn’t great for the environment.
That’s such a shit excuse. You do realize CNG is a thing? It’s a compressed natural gas powered vehicles. They are everywhere. Where I live every gas station has a connector for one of those. Hose like any other. You click and it starts filling.
I plug in my ev and go to sleep. No worrying about gas stations, high pressure gasses, leaks, price gouging etc.
Not to mention, BEVs have the simplest drivetrain ever. I’m half convinced Toyota and GM are going hydrogen so they can maintain their spare parts businesses. Though for reals it’s likely because they missed out on all those sweet BEV patents.
Do you have an EV?
For those of us who can charge at home, nothing beats the user experience of just plugging your car in overnight so you always have plenty of charge and never have to think about finding a gas station. Nothing beats the silence or feeling of effortless acceleration.
It’s only charging on road trips that os currently not as good a user experience, but those are uncommon, not as bad as people online think and getting better all the time.
But that’s the thing, we can have both. But EVs alone can’t replace all the cars on the roads now. Either because mining Lithium is a chemically dirty process and there’s not enough of it or simply put weight to range ratio is not where it needs to be. Sure, let people have EV for short commutes and similar use, but we can also have ICE hydrogen engines for trucks, locomotives, boats and cars if you so desire. We already have cars powered with CNG, diesel and gasoline. What makes you think there should only be one replacement for fossil fuels?
I’ve been in favour of hydrogen for years over electric. Honda had some really interesting ideas and concepts, plus a long term study in california. Mercedes initially looked to be heading into hydrogen over electric then pivoted, but BMW look to have just decided to move more to hydrogen from their electric development… Does look like batteries are beginning to take a step up though. Should be interesting in the next few years
Because hydrogen is primarily made from natural gas (fossil fuel). Hydrogen is not a viable solution since efficiency is crap
Hydrogen being viable fuel has nothing to do with its production. Its viability comes from high energy density, ability to refuel faster, better performance in the winter compared to EVs, etc. Production, sure, currently it’s fossil fuel based because that’s the cheapest way to produce it. The thing is, it’s not the only way to produce it. There’s electrolysis, then there are bacteria which can produce it, etc. If the demand jumps so will the production and prices will go down. Plus there’s no OPEC controlling prices.
But all of it matters very little. It means you can use fossil fuels to produce greener fuel, and then just switch along the line somewhere. Far easier transition.
A little outdated that view, there’s been several breakthroughs recently and production cost/ efficiency. The shear convenience of only having a three minute refill time instead of recharging problems etc
Hydrogen is a horribly volatile compound, inherently unsafe. Regarding costs, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Besides there isn’t enough of vital rare earths for the fuel cells. Currently it’s a dead end.
But do indulge me with links if you will
You realise hydrogen comes from water not fossil fuels right? You know the H in H2O? You just use electrolysis to split the H2O into hydrogen and oxygen.
Removed by mod
Over 95% of the world’s hydrogen is produced using the steam methane reforming process (SMR). In this reaction, natural gas is reacted with steam at an elevated temperature to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen. A subsequent reaction — the water gas shift reaction — then reacts additional steam with the carbon monoxide to produce additional hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel and non-renewable resource that is formed when layers of organic matter (primarily marine microorganisms) decompose under anaerobic conditions and are subjected to intense heat and pressure underground over millions of years.
deleted by creator
Their “long game” is the CEO has invested billions into hydrogen fuel cells and can’t afford to admit he made a mistake.
They lost the EV game so hard they made an ammonia engine
This, they started with hybrids and tough hydrogen was going to be the future, now they are behind in EVs and shit talk them all the time
Cars are the cigarettes of the transportation world and EVs are big oil’s new “light” or “low tar” option.
And you are bad at labeling things
This deliberately misguiding title is as myopic as the news talking about Bitcoin “crashes”.
Ten years ago, the EV auto market share was under 1% and Bitcoin was worth 320 bucks.
Ten years later, 10% of cars are EVs, 30% of the car market will be pure EVs, more will be hybrids, bitcoin is worth 62,000 dollars.
2024 headlines: Bitcoin crashes again and Toyota won’t waste money on EVs.
They literally call their hydrogen car the future. Toyota has been trying, and is still avoiding making purely electric vehicles.
Of all their models, Toyota only sells one EV in the US. Your aspirational assumptions about Toyota are nothing more than that.
Hydrogen is ‘pure’ electric.
The issue with hydrogen is that it can be colours other than green. Green hydrogen is used to store the excess from renewables, and is more like a battery than a fuel. Other colours use fossil fuel, sometimes with a desperate plea to believe that they will actually capture the CO2 produced in making it.
Green hydrogen is (potentially) a fantastic solution for transit, especially heavy transit… The jury is still out for cars but Toyota is one of the few taking that route and it’s important. Hydrogen is much lighter than batteries and refuelling is similar to petrol cars (ie quick).
The problem to be solved is leaks. More than about 5% leakage cancels out the benefits because hydrogen makes methane hang around for longer.
Green hydrogen is (potentially) a fantastic solution for transit, especially heavy transit.
Batteries also aren’t gonna cut the mustard for most aviation, and my understanding is that a switch to hydrogen might be the way to go there.
The jury is still out for cars
The basic laws of thermodynamics beg to differ…
Not that there’s anything wrong with hydrogen cars, but they only add to my point.
Dumb headlines focusing on extremely short-term “setbacks” ignoring how rapidly things have progressed and are progressing from just a decade ago.
Do you think 2030 is 10 years away? In 10 years, it will be 2034 when most countries will require 100% of new vehicles to not have fossil fuel ICEs.
They are still stupidly pushing for hydrogen electric vehicles. That is just a BEV with an additional step.
Why are you upset about fcevs? If hydrogen works out, great, it’s a sustainable vehicle with tremendous potential.
If not and Toyota switches to a larger BEV catalogue, great, they’re sustainable vehicles with tremendous potential.
the problem most car manufacturers have is they focus too much on the car and not enough on the infrastructure. theres a big reason why Tesla became popular and one of its major reasons was its charging network, and why its NACS standard is going to eventually be the standard for car chargers overtime, despite all other conpanies initially supporting the open standard. None of them wanted to bite the bullet and equally invest into the infrastructure to charge. Hydrogen has the same exact problem, but even fewer players so there’s even less players to take a shot at that investment.
Good point. Although I’m not a fan of Tesla’s vehicles, their charging system is great and was a huge lobbying point for the aptera, the EV I’m most excited about
The numbers do not work for FCEVs unless fossil fuels are used which is what 100% of the hydrogen in the current supply line depends on. I know people like to think that we can just use the excess energy from wind farms or solar but that is nowhere near a viable solution.
Research into hydrogen vehicles is fine but it is a vast waste of resources for consumer vehicles. They have promise in other types of vehicles but it is silly to slow down investment in consumer BEVs to push for consumer FCEVs.
It was silly to slow down investment in EVs a hundred fifty years ago when they were developed, I’m perfectly willing to support people trying different potentially sustainable experimentats now that EVs have been established as the future
Let’s turn clean water — something already getting difficult to come by — into fuel! What could go wrong?
Is that where you think hydrogen comes from?
It’s literally the most abundant element in the universe, present in many forms in, at this point, practically infinite amounts.
Most of it is harvested from natural gas these days.
It’s where “green” hydrogen comes from — which everyone keeps promoting as the future. People claim “oh we can just split water using electricity from solar wind and nuclear”. Not considering that it takes a lot of energy to do that. Energy that you’d get better bang for your buck by putting into batteries.
Oh. Well that’s a silly distinction of them to make. Hydrogen is abundant and refining processes are constantly getting cleaner, especially these days, no worries.
[citation needed]
You can’t use natural gas hydrogen for a fuel cell.
They can’t remove enough sulphur from it, and even a trace amount will destroy the fuel cell.
Here’s several methods companies can produce viable hydrogen from natural gas:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-productioen-natural-gas-reforming
As well as a few other materials:
Nope those all contain trace hydrogen sulfide.
