this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
200 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

59135 readers
2535 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Why hydrogen? Why not electric at this point?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Kushia@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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
[–] xenspidey@lemmy.zip 3 points 11 months 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

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

You still have all the transport and storage costs associated with hydrogen. I'd need to see a study that actually determines the environmental impact of lithium to believe you.

[–] Geobloke@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 months ago (1 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.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not just Toyota that invested in the tech, a bunch of other big names did as well. Hydrogen makes sense for everyone who doesn't live in cities.

[–] KnowLimits@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How do you figure? Everyone who doesn't live in big cities has the ability to charge an EV overnight, or in half an hour when road tripping. Absolutely none of them live within hundreds of miles of hydrogen refueling station.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Unless you have a quick charge at your house, or live in an area with one, you're not getting 30min quick charge at all. I'm 50 miles from the capital city in my state and we don't have any quick charge stations here. Anywhere. You really seem to be underestimating the size of the USA.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months 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.

[–] Destraight@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ours@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Us mammals did pretty well all things considered.

[–] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

there are seroius longevity concerns with Lithium batteries. if you just fill the car up with combustible gas, there's no battery that is expensive to replace every 10-20 years. australia could very well be one of the best countries tp deploy this technology.

[–] jose1324@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Hydrogen tank for the Toyota Mirai literally has a replacement date of 10 years. And that's not a maybe, it has to be replaced for safety reasons.

Modern Batteries last 10 years easy. Even the abused leaf ones with no thermal management last fine. It will not be any issue

[–] mihies@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Could be, but I bet that hydrogen tanks is much cheaper, easier to produce and recycle. Also doesn't require rare earth materials.

[–] jose1324@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They're not comparable at all, I just said it as a reaction. The battery is more comparable to how often an engine completely dies. It doesn't, really. Especially the newer ones with proper thermal management.

The tank is cheaper, sure. But the hydrogen itself and infrastructure isn't, and hydrogen isn't even really green 95% of the time. But that's a whole different topic.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How is solar hydrogen collection stations that pull hydrogen out of the atmosphere not green?

[–] ours@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's wasting solar that could be used for better things.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] ours@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

But without the loss of solar to hydrogen convertion.

[–] EarMaster@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I imagine the next Mad Max movie with hydrogen cars. Invisible fires and awesome explosions sounds like a match made in heaven...

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
[–] frathiemann@feddit.de 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

These concers exist for Hydrogen too. While the Hydrogen tanks can last a longe time, the catalyst in the Fuel cell degrades, like the electrodes of batteries do. That means that the fuel cell needs to be replaced as well after some time. In addtition to that, fuel cell vehicles need batteries as well, since the fuel cell is slow to respond to load changes. These smaller batteries are stressed heavily in stop and go traffic and will need to be replaced a lot more often than Ev batteries.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

I think they are talking about using hydrogen as the fuel for an internal combustion engine, not fuel cells

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

This isn't a fuel cell. It's an ICE motor.

This is why Toyota and other manufacturers are still working on hydrogen. The ICE motor to run these is pretty much the same as current petroleum based ICE motors. Until batteries can charge in 5mins and travel more than 100 miles under load, then hydrogen is the way.