Toyota Hydrogen Car By 2015 for $50,000

[Caracalover]

Well, that IS what L.A. does best, after-all: Mismanage and squander money...

I work for a city in the Los Angeles area, and although I don't like to bag on it, they are being a bit unreasonable on this topic.

This is an incorporated city, not L.A. Big money is recieved from state and federal agencies for these programs.

 

[smkettner]

If hydrogen was an easy natural byproduct it might work. I just do not see it happening.
BEV is still the vehicle to replace many or most gasoline vehicles. JMHO.

And we think QC stations are slow to be installed can you imagine how slow H2 will be :lol:

At least with electric or CNG the refueling can be primarily at home.

 

[garygid]

$50,000 for a limited range car that does not already have
a nationwide, indeed worldwide, infrastructure ALREADY in place?

The advantage of electricity is that it is ALREADY (almost) everywhere,
though still rather slow-filling in many circumstances, and not uniformly
available "in public". However, I find that most of my friends have e-fuel!

The Hydrogen is WAY too "leading edge" for me.
E-Fuel actually WORKS TODAY.

 

[evnow]

Just so that people who have not seen the 1st page of this old thread can see this :lol:

Bottomline - BEV is 3x more efficient than hydrogen fuel cell.

This gives a good picture of why H2 is so inefficient (apart from all the other problems). This is from prof Bossel, one of the foremost experts on fuel cells.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Citation: Bossel, Ulf. “Does a Hydrogen Economy Make Sense?” Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 94, No. 10, October 2006.

 

[Pipcecil]

BEVs are way better in efficiency and environmental factors than hydrogen. But I do see hydrogen as a potential inbetween or a combo solution. Until fast chargers are everywhere and/or battery tech lets us go for extended rangers (200-300 miles) a hybrid hydrogen-electric vehicle may be worth it. Long haul fleets for trucks, etc. would make great use of the tech. Hydrogen is better than gasoline and natural gas so its a better solution than what we have. But, the final end is a BEV thats awesome range and fast charging abundant. But I see hydrogen as niche item and a carry-over middle tech before we can get to the real stuff (like hybrid was the first step to mass market plug-ins).

 

[davewill]

...But I see hydrogen as niche item and a carry-over middle tech before we can get to the real stuff (like hybrid was the first step to mass market plug-ins).

How can it make sense to build up such a huge infrastructure for a "niche item and a carry-over middle" technology like this?

 

[TEG]

If this topic interests you, then you may want to read this too:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/2048-Hydrogen-vs.-Battery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[evnow]

Until fast chargers are everywhere and/or battery tech lets us go for extended rangers (200-300 miles) a hybrid hydrogen-electric vehicle may be worth it.

It will be cheaper to build the QC infrastructure compared to anything hydrogen. A good intermin solution is Plug-In Hybrids. You can extend the range easily by filling up at ubiquitous gas stations.

 

[EVDRIVER]

You can fuel them at the Ecotality hydrogen stations they will surely seek millions of tax dollars to install :lol:

 

[mitch672]

as others have said, hydrogen is the "unicorn" promised by big oil, as a distraction from the REAL solution we are all well aware of, BEVs. If you tap your heels together 3 times, and say "hydrogen, hydrogen, hydrogen", maybe the million $ plus reforming statons will just pop up as if by magic... --- NOT ---

I'll say it again, hydrogen is NOT a fuel source, its an energy CARRIER. It takes ELECTRICITY to crack water (or natural gas) to generate the hydrogen, it take ELECTRICITY to compress the hydrogen to a high enough density to make it usable. If the stuff where comming out compressed out of the ground, then it might make SOME sense, I have yet to see that yet, except for at the bottom of the ocean, under tremendous pressure (and thats generally methane).

Hydrogen makes no sense, never has, never will. It's a total distraction to delay whats going to happen anyway, development of BEVs and PHEVs.

 

[evnow]

Hydrogen makes no sense, never has, never will. It's a total distraction to delay whats going to happen anyway, development of BEVs and PHEVs.

H2 makes sense only if we have so much cheap nuclear power that it is "too cheap to meter"

ps : Methane (or NG) fuel cells make much more sense. They are easier to transport, easier to store, cheaper to convert to electricity/kinetic energy. Instead of cracking water to get H2, we can use the same electricity to make methane.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

the biggest concern we have right now is how to store electricity effectively. all current options including hydrogen have a very large efficiency penalty.

i look at H2 options as a way to store energy effectively. right now its not doing its job and it never will if we dont try. but to use it as primary transportation is simply beyond stupid. it would only work for long range driving and based on the progress to that end, we will have surpassed its usefulness with enhanced batteries and quick charge options much sooner. most agree that current EVs will have double the range in 5-7 years. H2 viability for the long haul is 15-20 years away?? i dont know, maybe its sooner. its always been that far away and eventually it will be closer.

but will it work if it only returns 60% of the energy or 50%? when batteries return 80%+? that is a lot of performance wasted not to mention the extra cost of filling and holding hydrogen. after all, its a pretty tiny character. takes a pretty tight container to keep it under wraps. a lot of technical hurdles we have not figured out yet.

OTOH, electricity we already have figured out. the science is old. the ability to effectively manage our current supplies and capabilities may never be figured out. and it will be expensive. but at 100 Billion a year, its still a 75% off sale from the alternative of foreign oil.

 

[jcesare]

I don't understand why auto companies still think that hydrogen is better than plain battery electric vehicles(BEV).

IMO this is being driven by the big energy companies. They want the automobile teathered to their supply chain.

BTW isn't one of the BIG issues with H2 the amount of energy it contains? Doesn't the storage container have to be massive to get any decent range?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Hydrogen will take us completely off the fossil fuel train, so in concept, its the end point. but we are too far away from that. there are too many interim steps we need to master first.

until we can generate, transport and store Hydrogen efficiently, it will not work. we don t have the technology to do that. we do have the technology to do 2 out of 3 with electricity. and the 3rd; storage, we are making big gains on that every day. so we are less than a decade away from having all three in electricity.

we are most likely at least a decade away from mastering a single goal of Hydrogen

so ya, Hydrogen is the way to go, but its like buying a new pair of tennis shoes to walk from LA to New York. gotta be a better way!!

 

[cdub]

Hydrogen will take us completely off the fossil fuel train, so in concept, its the end point. but we are too far away from that.

HUH? Most Hydrogen is made via Fossil Fuels.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Hydrogen will take us completely off the fossil fuel train, so in concept, its the end point. but we are too far away from that.

HUH? Most Hydrogen is made via Fossil Fuels.

Yes currently that is true hence my statement that we are not there yet. hydrogen can be made from water but we don't have the extra energy our Ann efficient way of doing it but then again I thought all that was obvious

 

[ttweed]

Hydrogen makes no sense, never has, never will.

hydrogen can be made from water but we don't have the extra energy our Ann efficient way of doing it but then again I thought all that was obvious

Never say never. http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelea...suns_energy_to_turn_water_into_hydrogen_fuel/

San Diego electrical engineers are building a forest of tiny nanowire trees in order to cleanly capture solar energy without using fossil fuels and harvest it for hydrogen fuel generation. Reporting in the journal Nanoscale, the team said nanowires, which are made from abundant natural materials like silicon and zinc oxide, also offer a cheap way to deliver hydrogen fuel on a mass scale....

This photoelectrochemical water-splitting refers to the process of separating water into oxygen and hydrogen in order to extract hydrogen gas to be used as fuel. This process uses clean energy with no green-house gas byproduct. By comparison, the current conventional way of producing hydrogen relies on electricity from fossil fuels....

In the long run, what Wang’s team is aiming for is even bigger: artificial photosynthesis. In photosynthesis, as plants absorb sunlight they also collect carbon dioxide (CO2) and water from the atmosphere to create carbohydrates to fuel their own growth. Wang’s team hopes to mimic this process to also capture CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing carbon emissions, and convert it into hydrocarbon fuel.

While this may be "future" technology, it is not in "neverland," and might go a long way towards leveling the efficiency equation of hydrogen vs. BEV mentioned earlier, with the added benefit of reducing C02 at the same time.

TT

 

[evnow]

While this may be "future" technology, it is not in "neverland," and might go a long way towards leveling the efficiency equation of hydrogen vs. BEV mentioned earlier, with the added benefit of reducing C02 at the same time.

Not sure how this levels the efficiency equation. Is this any better in terms of efficiency or economics than PV+hydrolysis ?

 

[smkettner]

It would seem to me storing energy in a lithium battery is more efficient than hydrogen.
Besides we need that solar to take the edge off the day's peak grid demand instead of splitting water.
And it would be very possible to keep the used Leaf battery to power the home at night and recharge in the day if all electric was from solar.
Why do we need hydrogen again? Mass distribution to all homes, cars and industry does not seem practical.

 

[ttweed]

Is this any better in terms of efficiency or economics than PV+hydrolysis ?

Did you actually read the article? Even looking at the illustrations gives an idea of why there is a difference in efficiency: it is due to the 3D structure of the nanowire "tree" array, as opposed to the flat, planar, polished type Si array, which reflects a much higher percentage of photons rather than absorbing their energy:

More quotes from the article:
"By harvesting more sun light using the vertical nanotree structure, Wang’s team has developed a way to produce more hydrogen fuel efficiently compared to planar counterparts where they are reflected off the surface... "
"The trees’ vertical structure and branches are keys to capturing the maximum amount of solar energy, according to Wang. That’s because the vertical structure of trees grabs and adsorbs light while flat surfaces simply reflect it..." and
"...we have enhanced, by at least 400,000 times, the surface area for chemical reactions..."

TT