this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023

202 points (94.7% liked)

Technology

59708 readers

2105 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

202

Toyota trials hydrogen-powered vehicle on public roads in Australia (japantoday.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (6 children)

A hydrogen engine is so much worse for efficiency than a hydrogen fuel cell, and even that is not good compared to batteries. I'd estimate the round trip efficiency of a hydrogen engine to be about 10-15%. So for the same energy that could be used to drive a battery EV 100km, this car from Toyota could drive 12km.

Additionally, hydrogen is not very energy dense per volume. A compressed hydrogen tank that replaces the boot/trunk of the car would have enough hydrogen for about 100km of range.

Please let me know if I'm wrong about any of these numbers. For Toyota's sake, I really hope I'm wrong.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Your numbers are way off. No manufacture would even think about touching hydrogen ICE motors if they only got 10-15% efficiency.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

no manufacturer except one that's still desperately trying to push for a hydrogen economy because they invested too much into hydrogen production

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

https://insideevs.com/news/332584/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-73-hydrogen-22-ice-13/

according to this website, hydrogen ICEs are very inefficient. same with fuel cell vehicles. the main losses come from converting the hydrogen into and out of electricity. but if said electicity is generated in abundance with renewable energy at a cheap price, this could really be something.

edit: you can't really burn electricity, so as a car enthusiast i really hope hydrogen ICEs become a thing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

BEVs are a lot of fun to drive. Car people are nostalgic for burning fuels and roaring engines, but future generations will be far less so. We just need far lighter batteries.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The issue with this metric is they're talking about energy used to get the power. It completely ignores the fact that hydrogen can already be pulled from the atmosphere using solar plants. There are a few companies out there now that are developing stations that are basically automated.

The ICE motors Toyota and Hyundai have shown, have very little loss of HP/Tq numbers from their gas counter parts. Unless the battery industry comes up with a super light, quick charging (5 mins) and long lasting battery, EV will be resigned to the city at best and no heavy workloads for it either.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Efficiency still matters significantly with hydrogen solar panels, because solar panels aren't free.

Suppose solar to wheel is 60% efficient in a battery electric vehicle, but 30% efficient in a hydrogen vehicle. You need half as many solar panels to power the battery electric vehicle, and spend at most half as much to charge it. That matters.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Well. Basically no one except for dumbass boomer executives forcing the company in a direction. Like Toyota.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I thought they were using ammonia powered vehicles and calling them hydrogen just because ammonia contains hydrogen. Wasn't there a bunch of hype a few months ago about Toyota inventing an ammonia internal combustion engine that was so efficient it would "make electric cars obsolete"? The article just mentioned liquid hydrogen though. So I don't know what to believe anymore.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the biggest thing that people forgot in the efficiency debate is cost. What will hydrogen actually cost to go 100km compared to electricity

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The current cost to drive a car with green hydrogen from electrolysis (not blue or grey hydrogen from methane reforming) is roughly equivalent to $50/L (AUD) for petrol, or $120/Gal (USD) for gas. This is one of the reasons most hydrogen today is made from fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

and you have to use it up within a week or two, or your fuel disappears

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Why hydrogen? Why not electric at this point?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because Toyota invested a lot into hydrogen instead of EV, and they need to recuperate at least some of it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly I'm glad that somebody is exploring other environmentally friendly alternatives too, nothing wrong with having options.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Kind of? Hydrogen can be environmentally friendly, but EVs have big advantages:

Creating and burning hydrogen is way less efficient than EVs (almost an order of magnitude)
Hydrogen is much cheaper to create in environmentally unfriendly ways (using natural gas etc.)
Unless we have massive overproduction of power, the additional energy can be better used to de-carbonify other processes with larger impact

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why generating hydrogen during off-peak hours from a nuclear power plant will be very beneficial. It may be less efficient but way better for the environment then lithium

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

They've invested heavily into a partnership with Panasonic to build solid state batteries too . They hand just spread their risk

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

While most car companies initially believed liion batteries isnt ready for the market, and wanted to wait for a more safe and dense battery tech to hit market (solid state battery), toyota invested in hydrogen. Then Tesla took the bullet and sort of went against thr grain and created the liion based evs, and the rest of the companies are scrambling to catch up due to the demand for them.

Any push for hydrogen is because toyota invested into it and doesnt want for it to go to waste.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because some companies just can't get rid of the idea of ICEs. And they don't like that their expertise in making high-quality ICEs doesn't give them much benefit in making electric cars. So they prefer hydrogen to win over electric otherwise they'll have a very hard time competing against newcomers.

In my opinion, it's dinosaurs clinging to their old ways while the asteroid looms large in the sky.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there is an asteroid in the sky then everyone dies. Not just the "dinosaurs". This is not a good analogy

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] hoshikarakitaridia 10 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I know about 7y ago everyone was salivating at the idea of hydrogen powered vehicles.

I'll be very interested to see how well it works in practice...

load more comments (15 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Hydrogen fuel cells or engines are a useless joke. Toyota REALLY needs to be thinking more about power generation with Hydrogen and then electric cars so that their vehicle production can be universal across the world. Electricity is the most versatile form of energy and can be produced using lots of natural resources. I get it.....Japan has limited natural resources and the seawater around them is abundant (thus hydrogen), but the hydrogen vehicle makes zero sense literally anywhere else in the world and you're a GLOBAL COMPANY Toyota.

Also with all of the saltwater around them you'd think they'd be working on sodium-ion battery technology and how to utilize the salt they extract during the hydrogen production to be used in batteries, but no.....keep making ICE engines for some stupid reason. FFS Toyota.

[–] Crayphish 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are EVs, have electric motors, and qualify when you talk about "power generation with Hydrogen" and "versatility of electricity". The hydrogen in the tanks is fed into an anode and oxygen into a cathode to power a circuit and drive an electric motor. It's an EV, but the 'battery' is hydrogen. FCEVs could be the key to shoring up a lot of conventional EV shortcomings; lithium-ion waste, electricity grid load, and lifespan, for instance. Combine that with the ICE vehicle in question in the article; Hydrogen ICE engines could provide routes for retrofitting existing combustion vehicles, adding additional demand to improve supply infrastructure and improve green hydrogen supply. These are well-warranted experiments for Toyota to be undertaking on the global stage; as crucial as any EV battery investigation!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And don't forget it's way faster to refill a hydrogen tank than an battery. Also, cars are such a big industry it's actually easier to not have a middleman (hydrogen -> ~~electric grid~~ -> EVs) because all the infrastructure would have to be built without any real need for it.