Amidst California’s ongoing efforts to promote environmentally friendly transportation and the changing landscape of hydrogen fuel infrastructure, Toyota has announced a dramatic rebate of up to $40,000 off MSRP for the 2023 Toyota Mirai.
Hydrogen, even if you make it 100% via electrolysis with solar power, is extremely inefficient. In the order of regular ICE cars inefficient. You piss 2/3 of the energy away while having the complexity of a BEV plus additional hydrogen on top. It is worse in every way except range. Unlike batteries, filling up H2 at the fuel station is not getting faster with every generation. Unlike batteries, the range does not increase with every generation. Unlike batteries, the price does not go down sharply. Unlike batteries, the longevity of the fuelcell is shit.
Fuel cells are far more efficient than ICEs. Refueling times are already comparable to that of an ICE car. Fuel cells can easily last the lifetime of the car. Range increases with every model. This is anti-progress and anti-green nonsense. You're pretty regurgitating corporate propaganda, either from the oil industry or from battery companies.
All steps can approach 100% efficiency. It is not much different than how a battery car works.
Fuel cells have already been test to 30,000 hours in real world settings. We're easily looking at million+ miles in certain circumstances. This is plain Ludditism to think that reliability can't be achieved.
Interesting. From what I’ve seen most of the tech that is used or being researched to produce hydrogen using electrolysis ranges from LTE (low temp) the least efficient at 70-80% to HTE (high temp), PEM (proton exchange membrane) and others using chemicals range ,from 70-90% efficient. You are correct in saying that the current cost constraints is the cost of the electricity being used. However with the amount of energy and the effects of strip mining processing and environmental effects. Hydrogen has just as much potential if not more as a future alternative to ICE.
Oh and according to Toyota on their Miria hydrogen vehicle it only takes ~5 mins to refuel.
Thanks for elaborating. It opens the discussion and understanding of potential mindset against this tech.
Then you are repeating an argument from the oil industry. To them, all green vehicles are secretly dirty, and therefore you must always buy an oil powered car.
Not really. Hydrogen cars are horrible for carbon. They just cannot compete with electric for efficiency. You’re bound by the laws of nature to have extra losses. The only argument hydrogen shills have is about “muh lithium” which isn’t really an issue longer term. It’s already recycled, whereas hydrogen is bound to have less efficiency forever, as compared to an electrical cable.
You just cannot avoid having losses with an extra conversion step. Any source of energy you can fathom can supply electrical current to the car. Directly via cables. If you convert said energy to hydrogen, then back to electric, you are bound to have extra losses, thus the car polutes more, as it uses more fuel for the same distance. There’s literally no way around this, in this plane of existence, and there’s literally nothing you can do about it.
The "conversion" steps are functionally the same as what happens inside a battery. Which is why the theoretical efficiency is the same as a BEV. You are effectively doing the equivalent of battery swapping, just with a fluid rather than a solid battery pack.
Do you know what a fuel cell even is? It is an electrochemical system that converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy. That is why FCEVs are also EVs.
You're just regurgitating blatantly Tesla propaganda. They are lying about the merits of FCEVs vs. BEVs. An FCEV is equally valid as an EV as any BEV.
They are not equal and will never ever be equal. I have no idea what Tesla is saying about it, I’m an EE and did the math (not that complicated), and Hydrogen will forever be less efficient and will pollute more, and there’s no way around it. You are trying to minimize the impact the Hydrogen infrastructure will have on everything, and are seriously misrepresenting what it implies. This is so horrible that I’m amazed it’s even a god damned discussion. Makes NO sense, pollutes more, releases WAY more carbon for the same amount of traveled distance all things considered, heavily complicates the car since not only does the car need an EV battery, it has to accommodate the extra cell, which will cost more of-course, pollute more, and do nothing for the average folk apart from taking power out of their hands, for nothing, and to pollute even more. This topic is insane, I’m amazed more engineers aren’t on top of debunking it.
Again, all of this is pure gibberish. Both fuel cells and batteries are electrochemical systems. Both have the same level of efficiency in the theoretical sense.
Like I said, you are repeating bullshit from BEV companies like Tesla. All of the anti-hydrogen stuff is just corporate propaganda and has zero basis in fact.
And what's ironic is that it is copied from propaganda that originated from the oil industry. BEV companies repeating this stuff just means they are repeating the same anti-green rhetoric used against all green energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc., even BEVs themselves, when through the same crap. And you are doing the same just against fuel cells and hydrogen.
Again, all of this is pure gibberish. Both fuel cells and batteries are electrochemical systems. Both have the same level of efficiency in the theoretical sense.
STOP FUCKING LYING DUDE!!! Just fucking stop You have an EXTRA conversion step, from hydrogen to electric, whereas battery doesn’t. You will have losses and you cannot avoid them. Even with zero losses (which is not possible in our reality) I’d still take an EV just to not have to deal with the extra cell bullshit + control I’d give to “special Hydrogen juice” sellers. Stop lying. Just stop, you are plainly lying with no damned shame.
And what is a battery, but an electrochemical system that converts chemical energy into electrical energy? A fuel cell works the same way.
The problem is that you have been fully brainwashed. Everything I said is true, and everything you said is false. You need to step back and realize who is lying to you.
No you are obviously lying, with no shame. I cannot believe this bullshit. How can you have the same efficiency for making hydrogen then converting to electric at car motor be equal as having electric in the first place delivered via cables? There’s no way you are not trolling.
Because it's all electrochemistry? Have you even looked a fuel cell diagram? It is basically anodes and cathodes turning chemical energy into electricity. Just like a battery.
In fact, it arguably IS a battery. Hence why FCEVs are also EVs.
You cannot make hydrogen via electrolysis and come out equal on the other end. You just cannot. If you spend energy on making hydrogen, transport that hydrogen, have the cell convert it back to electric, you WILL have losses as compared to getting the electricity you used for electrolysis and transport it via cables to car. You cannot beat that for efficiency, and that’s without the whole hydrogen transport and manufacture infrastructure. That all adds up to losses and carbon released in the air. This level of misrepresenting reality is surreal
You cannot charge a battery and come out equal either. But losses can be minimized in both cases. Transportation via pipelines is also analogous to transporting electricity via wires. Both have losses, but it can be minimized.
Like I said, the idea is basically the same as battery swapping, except the battery in question is a chemical fluid that can be move around like it was electricity.
I’m not sure you understand how small the losses are to transport electricity from source to car battery. You cannot beat it for efficiency and you will pollute more just so others which are clearly NOT YOU get more money and power and control over people. That’s it. It’s about money and against our safety on this planet, since the hydrogen bullshit pollutes more. It’s anti-green by default and no amount of washing will change that.
Losses from pipelines aren't very large either. At long distances, this is actually less than what you will experience from wires.
Like I said, the entire process of making and using hydrogen is analogous to battery swapping. You have to think of the battery as being this fluid that can be moved around to where it needs to go, effectively replacing wires. But the end result is basically the same.
The oil industry has been rooting for hydrogen cars as their favourite alternative to combustion engines as most hydrogen is produced from fossil energy carriers. It’s the oil industry’s backdoor to remain the mobility supplier as methane based hydrogen dominates the market and will remain cheaper than green hydrogen unless the whole world agrees on proper taxes, which it won’t. Hydrogen cars are emission free but hydrogen isn’t. And while the same can be said for electric cats, the shift to renewable energy sources is already happening there and the higher efficiency already makes BEVs more environmentally friendly than ICEs, unlike hydrogen cars.
The same is also happening with hydrogen. We are shifting towards green hydrogen. People who claim otherwise are repeating the same anti-green rhetoric used against BEVs.
The oil industry has been rooting for hydrogen cars as their favourite alternative to combustion engines
I’m pretty sure the real reason is that they need to sell you something. Hydrogen handling means exclusivity and they can control energy prices this way. Having solar panels is a big problem apparently, we’re not “allowed” to escape their control. Not sure we plebs can do anything about them pushing hydrogen constantly.
No one is going to meaningful control hydrogen prices in the long-run. It can be made via renewable energy like wind and solar. So it will have the same level of cost. Which is to say it will cost very little as wind and solar cost very little.
It’s more expensive because you have to have an extra conversion of energy which is bound to be lossy. There’s no way it makes sense apart from them having something THEY control and sell you, that’s it. The only realistic uses for it is for heavy machinery in remote places.
You can literally make it yourself. This replaces having to need giant banks of batteries, as well reduces the need for grid capacity increases. Furthermore, you need energy storage in general. That implies that even BEVs will need hydrogen for energy storage for long durations. As a result, there's not likely to be any meaningful increase in cost. And since wind and solar are so cheap, efficiency is not particularly irrelevant. The margin cost of production is basically zero anyways, so none of that matters. It will be far cheaper than fossil fuels in the long-run.
More carbon from hydrogen when you add up all that crazy infrastructure and safety related to hydrogen manufacture and transport which will be made via special trucks and stuff as compared to an electrical cable. You cannot and will not ever compete with a copper cable. You have to resort to plain lying for the hydrogen shill to make any god damned sense.
More gibberish. All of the steps needed for an hydrogen infrastructure can be powered by hydrogen. Even steel made for the purpose can be made via hydrogen reduction. So can any trucks or equipment needed. Meanwhile, all of the steps for building batteries or wires requirement fossil fuels at some point. After all, who is going to mine all of that stuff? Same with refining it to pure metals. You are unaware of how dependent BEVs are to fossil fuels. Something that won't be solved unless we adopt hydrogen on a vast scale.
And BTW, steel is a lot cheaper than copper. So pipelines are much cheaper than wires. In reality, you are just brainwashed by BEV propaganda mostly coming from Tesla. You'd save money by going with hydrogen. BEVs are the more expensive option.
Here is the lie, because this implies more carbon released in the atmosphere. It’s not free. Anything that can power the “infrastructure” can be directly supplied to cars, via copper cables. You will always have this issue, you cannot hide from it. ANY source of energy you can imagine can be used to power EVs instead of your hydrogen thing. You cannot escape this, there’s no way around it. You are lying, shamelessly for that matter.
Again, wrong. More gibberish. Green hydrogen can power any aspect of transportation. You do not need to have to involve carbon. Pipelines exist too. You can replace copper wires with pipelines, and it would be cheaper to move energy this way.
Again, the problem is that you need giant banks of batteries to power your all-BEV fantasy. That is much more expensive and in fact implies an unbreakable dependence on fossil fuels to build those things. Something avoided with hydrogen.
In fact, you have fully inverted reality. Hydrogen, not batteries, are mandatory in a renewable energy powered society. You will have to accept this simply fact.
Finally, you have to let go of BEV propaganda. It is all lies copied over from the oil & gas industry. It is all lies with zero basis in fact.
Green hydrogen can power any aspect of transportation. You do not need to have to involve carbon
Stop lying. You automatically have more carbon in the air by using Hydrogen for the same amount of “mined” energy. You will use more energy in the end using Hydrogen. You cannot have a reliable source of Hydrogen energy for the car sector, as compared to electrical current. You are not receiving that Hydrogen from the Sun, for free. It will cost more and pollute more. Hydrogen is the petrol industry in disguise. You want to pollute more, liars.
Green hydrogen is made by electrolysis of water using wind and solar energy. There is no carbon involved. As green energy scales up, the cost of this will drop to extremely low levels. Margin cost is basically zero, as you only need water.
As a result, it is a far simpler and scalable solution than going with batteries. You avoid all of the mining and infrastructure of batteries. And because it is so much more scalable, you end up having to use hydrogen for energy storage anyways. Even BEVs will have to depend on hydrogen power for long-duration energy storage needs.
The problem is, again, you are fully brainwashed. You are repeating nothing but BEV propaganda from companies like Tesla. And the ironic thing is that this all originated from oil & gas companies. It is climate change denial rhetoric only you don't know it.
Green hydrogen is made by electrolysis of water using wind and solar energy.
YES! So why not use that electrical energy you use for electrolysis, to power the car? Electrolysis has losses, then another set of losses when converting back to electric at car motor. I cannot believe this bullshit, how the hell can you lie with no shame? There’s no way you can avoid these losses, this is basic level of understanding you do not need a EE degree for it. You cannot avoid losses, and they are forever ingrained in the nature of our reality. The only thing you can do is continue to try and misrepresent the situation, and lying. You are literally hand waving the losses, it’s surreal.
YES! So why not use that electrical energy you use for electrolysis, to power the car? Electrolysis has losses, then another set of losses when converting back to electric at car motor.
Do you not also have losses converting the electrical energy into chemical in the battery and then again from the chemical in the battery to electrical for the motors?
Because, again, you need to store that energy in banks of giant batteries. Something that is very expensive. And again, if you realize that FCEVs are basically doing to same thing, just using water instead of giant batteries, it is going to much cheaper while not actually reducing efficiency that much.
In the long-run, there won't be hardly ANY difference in efficiency, because again, both are electrochemical systems that work the same way. This is the basic fact that you are failing to grasp.
Finally, hydrogen is pretty unavoidable for a green society anyways. You need it for long-duration energy storage anyways, and so will industry and heavy transportation. Meaning that even an all-BEV society will still need vast amounts of green hydrogen if it really wants to break dependency on fossil fuels.
If anything, you are handwaving the problems of BEVs. Hydrogen is the solution to that ironically.
Stop lying and shilling something you don’t even understand so others get more money and destroy the planet. Stop contributing to this shit cause dude, you are literally willing to make everything worse just so you get paid. There’s no way a reasonable human which understands what is happening is siding with hydrogen. Also you’re simply hand waving away serious issues about the whole thing
Again, you are the one brainwashed by corporate propaganda, mainly from Tesla. An FCEV is an EV. That is undeniable fact. As a result, it is equally as valid of a solution as BEVs are. The rest of your posts are you being totally confused by this fact.
Add comment