Toyota hopes you'll buy a hydrogen-powered car after grilling with a hydrogen barbecue
It will be the same as with lithium EVs. Hydrogen may be safer than IC, but once any explodes media will paint them as bombs driving on our roads
That depends on how easy it is to deal with the explosion when it happens. The issue with lithium-ion is that they can't just be smothered like an ICE fire, so there's really nothing you can do once it starts. Also, ICEs don't spontaneously catch fire when parked in your garage, they tend to catch fire when you're driving, which means you're immediately aware when it starts to happen.
An EV catching fire while it charges at night is extra scary because I'm likely to be asleep, and therefore I'll have a smaller chance to react properly (especially if I need to run up/down stairs to round up small children). So even if it's less likely, it's potentially worse because I'm less likely to be able to get away from it safely.
I don't know much about what a practical hydrogen failure looks like, but my understanding is that it's quite violent. But maybe they have controls around that now, idk.
Sooo just cooking gas with more steps.
Oil industry loves pushing hydrogen but it's nearly all made from fossil fuels, so what benefit is there?
Blue hydrogen is made by stripping the hydrogen from fossil fuel hydrocarbons (chains of hydrogen and carbon, hence the name), and sequestering the carbon. It produces a fuel that contains enough chemical energy to be burned as fuel, but without the carbon atoms that would turn into greenhouse gases.
Most hydrogen currently produced though, is gray hydrogen (made from natural gas, but without sequestering the carbon, so that CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere).
Key words being “current supply”. There are major moves being made to change this. Supply and demand need to grow at the same time if this is to work though.
Fossil fuels, including coal, are also used to produce electricity. They simply need to be prohibited or at least strictly rationed. Fortunately, hydrogen can be produced without emitting greenhouse gasses because it is still necessary for processes like steel and fertilizer production. It's also a practical replacement for fossil fuels in transportation and, as Toyota demonstrated, food preparation. As I replied to someone else, sometimes we need portability and/or a flame when it comes to cooking. Electricity just doesn't cut it in those cases.
The biggest use-case I see for hydrogen is more of an energy storage and transfer mechanism. With the world switching to renewables that generate power inconsistently, some countries are looking at putting the extra power into hydrogen generation via electrolysis, which can then be used at night/low-wind days to keep the power grid stable.
If we ever get to the point that we've got a surplus of renewably generated hydrogen, then it could make sense to start using to power cars, heating, cooking, whatever.
Generate hydrogen at night from nuke plants.
If the process to make hydrogen is clean, burning h is way way way cleaner. That's the math, not the source. The source can become an economics problem rather than necessarily an environmental one (imagine like 45 footnotes for where we do stuff that makes this not true, I'm just trying to capture the goal)
Burning hydrogen is 10x cleaner but not pollution free.
Using a fuel cell creates electricity and heat without pollution, but is a source of heat enough to call something a BBQ?
They’ll do anything not to build EVs /s
TBH I respect Toyota for being realistic more than grifters like Musk. The fact is that car will never be a sustainable replacement for cars. They're here to save the auto cartels, not the planet.
But on the other hand public transit and LEVs are much more realistic. I would very much like to see a Toyota e-bike.
Back in the early days of gas infrastructure, before wide-spread electrification, you know gas street lights and everything, the gas was produced by gasifying coal, resulting in gas that was often over 50% hydrogen, with only ~20% methane. Rest nitrogen and CO.
Natural gas has a methane content upwards of 75%, which meant that everyone had to switch out their burner nozzles but the rest of the infrastructure stayed intact.
All this is to say: Nothing about is really new or rocket science. Europe is certainly creating a backbone pipeline network for hydrogen, parts of it new pipes, other parts re-purposed natural gas pipes, many were built to a standard that allows them to carry hydrogen though some valves etc. might need upgrading. Some of those were originally built for hydrogen in the first place, and checking Wikipedia there's actually a 240km segment in the Ruhr area, built in 1938, still in operation, which always carried hydrogen. Plain steel but comparatively low-pressure so it works.
Oh and have another number: According to Fraunhofer, Germany's pipeline network can store three months of total energy usage (electricity, transportation, everything). Not in storage tanks, but just by operating the pipelines themselves at higher or lower pressure.
And we need that stuff one way or the other: Even if tomorrow ten thousand fusion plants go online that doesn't mean that the chemical industry doesn't need feedstock, or that reducing steel with electricity would make sense. Both of those things need hydrogen.
Fusion is still in the future so the plan is to import most of that hydrogen, mostly from Canada and Namibia, in tankers carrying ammonia which is way more efficient that trying to compress hydrogen also ammonia is needed for some processes anyway.
Fun project! But replacing gas with hydrogen seems really tricky. Hydrogen is much harder to transport without leaks because it's such a tiny molecule. Electric seems better than trying to still burn hydrogen.
Electric is far more efficient too, thus cheaper. Electricity you can transit over distance over wire and generate however you like. We've done it a long time, far and wide.
Turning electricity into hydrogen, distributing it, and then turning it back into electricity to move a vehicle, is so wasteful/expensive.
Just use a big battery.
For some applications like spacecraft where weight is critical, it does make sense to use hydrogen fuel cells as a battery. But usually it doesn't make sense.
Certainly not the way we lunch right now. The energy used, that focused, in that short a time, is insane.
The best way to store and transport hydrogen is to combine it with carbon so that it becomes a convenient liquid fuel. As a bonus, then you don't even need fuel cells to make electricity from it, but can instead simply burn it in something called an "internal combustion engine"
This is just synthetic fossil fuel with extra steps. Lol.
Exactly.
Hydrogen is mostly a greenwashing scam; it isn't any better than what we already have.
Nah, combustion engine is just one step up from the steam engine, such a wasteful technology, should long be in a museum.
First thing i think about in using a hydrogen-carbon fuel, is fuel cell (no better word for "Brennstoffzelle"?) to create electricity. Next up a steam turbine.
we do call them fuel cells
The combustion product isn't likely to be a carcinogen. Safer to use indoors.
That's cool and all...but hydrogen isn't an energy source, not the way we use it...it's more like a battery. And we have battery powered ovens now.
The hard part of current tech is making recharging the battery economical given that there will be a significant loss.
The even harder part of hydrogen, though, is storing and transport. Hydrogen atoms are real small. Anything you put it in will leak, and that impacts the recharge efficiency, as well.
Toyota builds Phillip Jeffries and found he doesn’t want to talk about Judy. He doesn’t want to talk about Judy at all
Surely an oven that inherently steams everything it cooks is quite a different tool to a regular oven? It probably works well with breads and similar products, though, so I guess that'd work as a pizza oven
Steam may be okay for the wheat crust, generally when baking bread steam is applied in the initial rise period, but is generally turned off at the end for a dry final bake. The cheese is another matter. Ideally the cheese has to do more than melt, it should develop a partly caramelized appearance on the top (slightly brownish in places). Whether that would happen with this kind of oven is unknown.
Burning methane also produces steam. Methane produces 891 kJ/mol, hydrogen 286 kJ/mol, methane has four hydrogen atoms that'd be 1144 kJ per what should the unit be in any case: Methane produces less heat per unit of produced water than hydrogen (the hydrogen first needs to get ripped off the carbon). Those ovens burn dryer than your current gas oven.
Never used steam when making pizza, they're not in there long enough for steam to make a difference. For bread it's indispensable to get a proper crust, though.
EDIT: Did I get moles right? It's been a while and I am no chemist.
What is this lighting called and why does it make my brain immediately think this image is AI?
I would call this "harsh" and indirect lighting with a shallow depth of field. It seems like a relatively low-light room, and there's tons of shadows making the images noisey. On cameras, the more you open the aperture to let more light in, the narrower your focus becomes. That's why there's so much blur or "bokeh" in the images.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
.png){kind=link}
