Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
LeftieBiker said:
Thanks for the above. As I skimmed down I was gritting my teeth preparing to have to respond. You did it for me. I will add that I'll take extra human deaths - even extra nonhuman deaths - from air pollution over the Russian Roulette style chance of ruining whole regions for millennia. Best, though, is to not burn coal OR roll the dice with nuclear power.


Who's ruined whole regions for millenia? Small areas, sure - you definitely don't want to linger in the (former) town of Pripyat.

We differ on our willingness to subject millions of people to early deaths annually, versus a few thousand over the entire life of a single plant 'accident' that was a textbook case of incompetence and malfeasance, of an unsafe design that would never have been accepted in any country with a government that had to answer to its citizens. In fact, Chernobyl's additional deaths (outside of those who died of acute radiation sickness, who were mainly those involved in trying to put out the fire) were so small that they were in the noise of total cancer deaths over the same period. The FSU, in particular, was a toxic sewer of all kinds with little or no regard for safety, while unhealthy lifestyles simply added to the existing high cancer rates. In addition to Chernobyl there was Chelyabinsk-40 aka Kyshtym, which was a reactor serving the same purpose as Hanford did in the U.S., producing plutonium for the Soviet nuclear weapons program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

I first read about Kyshtym in an article in "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" by one of the chief soviet weapons designers, shortly after the end of the cold war briefly opened up access to their side, and then did some further research on it. We almost had a similar accident at Hanford, but we took steps to prevent it. I remember that even before the accident, it was stated that standing on the shore of Lake Kyzyltash back when untreated waste was being dumped into it, you could get a lethal dose of radiation in 1 hour.
 
I was talking about a worst case scenario - one that hasn't yet occurred - not referring to a previous accident. Interesting, though, that you discount the deaths of those trying to contain the meltdown at Chernobyl: do you think that if they had not given their lives, that the total number of deaths would be less? I'm inclined to think it would have been much higher. I also take with a grain of salt those low estimates of total deaths from Chernobyl, because there was much more to gain from minimizing them than there was from getting them right, or overestimating them.
 
GRA said:
GCC:
Cummins unveils 15L hydrogen engine

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220517-cummins.html


At the recent ACT Expo in Long Beach, California, Cummins debuted its 15-liter hydrogen engine. This engine is built on Cummins’ new fuel-agnostic platform, where below the head gasket each fuel type’s engine has largely similar components, and above the head gasket, each has different components for different fuel types.

This version, with expected full production in 2027, pairs with clean, zero-carbon hydrogen fuel, a key enabler of Cummins’ strategy to go further faster to help customers reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

We’ve established significant goals as part of our PLANET 2050 sustainability strategy, including a target of zero emissions. Reducing well-to-wheels carbon emissions requires innovation of both energy sources and power solutions. While use cases for battery electric and fuel cell electric powertrains are promising, the pairing of green hydrogen in the proven technology of internal combustion engines provides an important complement to future zero emissions solutions.

—Srikanth Padmanabhan, President, Engine Business, Cummins Inc.

Cummins announced the testing of hydrogen internal combustion (ICE) technology in July 2021, and has made impressive early results, already achieving production power and torque targets (more than 810 ft-lb torque and 290 hp from the medium-duty engine). Additional testing on Cummins’ more advanced prototypes will begin soon. With Cummins’ significant global manufacturing footprint, the company can quickly scale production.

The industry needs multiple solutions to meet the needs of all on- and off-highway customers and all applications considering the variation in duty cycles and operating environments, the company said.

The engine will be a zero-carbon fueled solution for multiple markets. Cummins intends to produce hydrogen internal combustion engines in both the 15-liter and 6.7-liter displacements, believing that these engines enable the industry to take action and reduce GHG emissions yet this decade, ultimately accelerating carbon reduction. . . .

Hydrogen internal combustion engines use zero-carbon fuel at a lower initial price of a fuel cell or battery electric vehicle with little modification to today’s vehicles. Accelerated market adoption of hydrogen engine powered vehicles is driven by the technology’s high technology maturity, low initial cost, extended vehicle range, fast fueling, powertrain installation commonality, and end-user familiarity.

And this shows the desperation and idiocy of the incumbents. We already know that producing power by burning things isn't the most efficient way of extracting power (this should be obvious from the simple fact that fuel cells operate at a lower temperature than combustion engines - it isn't all wasted as heat). So instead of adding a battery buffer to make a FCEV to get the benefits of extended range, fast fueling, and high torque from an electric motor, they went with an even dumber solution that is LESS efficient with a high-cost fuel (H2). The fact that they chose to NOT engineer an actual BEV or PHEV (which would have met/exceeded all their goals - except for zero-carbon), just points to more greenwashing.

Cummins makes commercial engines for industry and businesses, who care very much about operating costs. Trying to sell them an engine that costs the same to build, but uses fuel that's 2-3x more expensive is a non-starter, and they should already know this. By saying their engine could now burn H2 instead of refined crude oil, they were probably able to spend government funding for the development of "zero-carbon" tech. And that's why sh*t like this pisses me off - it's so blatantly obvious!
 
Yeah, and calling hydrogen "zero emission" shows stupidity at best, and a willingness to lie to save money and effort at worst.

And for crying out loud: you drive "farther", not "further" - not unless you're talking about hours spent driving.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I was talking about a worst case scenario - one that hasn't yet occurred - not referring to a previous accident. Interesting, though, that you discount the deaths of those trying to contain the meltdown at Chernobyl: do you think that if they had not given their lives, that the total number of deaths would be less? I'm inclined to think it would have been much higher. I also take with a grain of salt those low estimates of total deaths from Chernobyl, because there was much more to gain from minimizing them than there was from getting them right, or overestimating them.



I'm not discounting their deaths, I'm looking at comparative risks of the two techs, and as noted in a previous post, was willing to assume that the ultimate actual deaths due to Chernobyl will be 250 times higher than the WHO report concluded. While that study involved scientists from multiple countries, when it was first proposed the Ukrainians refused to let a Russian head it because they figured a Russian would try to low-ball the numbers. The Russians refused to let a Ukrainian head it for the opposite reason. Ultimately they agreed on an American to head it. From the summary:

Dozens of important findings are included in the massive report:

Approximately 1000 on-site reactor staff and emergency workers were heavily exposed to high-level radiation on the first day of the accident; among the more than 200 000 emergency and recovery operation workers exposed during the period from 1986-1987, an estimated 2200 radiation-caused deaths can be expected during their lifetime.

An estimated five million people currently live in areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine that are contaminated with radionuclides due to the accident; about 100 000 of them live in areas classified in the past by government authorities as areas of “strict control”. The existing “zoning” definitions need to be revisited and relaxed in light of the new findings.

About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident’s contamination and at least nine children died of thyroid cancer; however the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99%.

Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure.

Poverty, “lifestyle” diseases now rampant in the former Soviet Union and mental health problems pose a far greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure.

Relocation proved a “deeply traumatic experience” for some 350,000 people moved out of the affected areas. Although 116 000 were moved from the most heavily impacted area immediately after the accident, later relocations did little to reduce radiation exposure.

Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas.

Ambitious rehabilitation and social benefit programs started by the former Soviet Union, and continued by Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, need reformulation due to changes in radiation conditions, poor targeting and funding shortages.

Structural elements of the sarcophagus built to contain the damaged reactor have degraded, posing a risk of collapse and the release of radioactive dust;

A comprehensive plan to dispose of tons of high-level radioactive waste at and around the Chernobyl NPP site, in accordance with current safety standards, has yet to be defined.

Alongside radiation-induced deaths and diseases, the report labels the mental health impact of Chernobyl as “the largest public health problem created by the accident” and partially attributes this damaging psychological impact to a lack of accurate information. These problems manifest as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.

https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
GCC:
Cummins unveils 15L hydrogen engine

[Snip]

And this shows the desperation and idiocy of the incumbents. We already know that producing power by burning things isn't the most efficient way of extracting power (this should be obvious from the simple fact that fuel cells operate at a lower temperature than combustion engines - it isn't all wasted as heat). So instead of adding a battery buffer to make a FCEV to get the benefits of extended range, fast fueling, and high torque from an electric motor, they went with an even dumber solution that is LESS efficient with a high-cost fuel (H2). The fact that they chose to NOT engineer an actual BEV or PHEV (which would have met/exceeded all their goals - except for zero-carbon), just points to more greenwashing.

Cummins makes commercial engines for industry and businesses, who care very much about operating costs. Trying to sell them an engine that costs the same to build, but uses fuel that's 2-3x more expensive is a non-starter, and they should already know this. By saying their engine could now burn H2 instead of refined crude oil, they were probably able to spend government funding for the development of "zero-carbon" tech. And that's why sh*t like this pisses me off - it's so blatantly obvious!


Did you miss this part of the quote?
The industry needs multiple solutions to meet the needs of all on- and off-highway customers and all applications considering the variation in duty cycles and operating environments, the company said.
Cummins is also developing fuel cell stacks as well as pursuing a variety of other avenues.

Meanwhile, both GCC:


Toyota, Air Liquide and CaetanoBus partner to accelerate the development of hydrogen mobility in Europe

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220518-tme.html


Air Liquide, CaetanoBus and Toyota Motor Europe have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the aim of developing integrated hydrogen solutions. This will include infrastructure development and vehicle fleets to accelerate the expansion of hydrogen mobility for both light- and heavy-duty vehicles.

The partnership reflects the shared ambition of the three partners to contribute to decarbonizing transport and to accelerate the development of local hydrogen ecosystems for multiple mobility applications.

The three companies will use their complementary expertise to address the entire value chain of hydrogen mobility, ranging from renewable or low-carbon hydrogen production, distribution and refueling infrastructure, to the deployment in different vehicle segments.

Initially the focus will be on buses, light commercial vehicles and cars, with a further aim to accelerate the heavy-duty truck segment.

By exploring joint opportunities, the three will contribute to the emergence of new hydrogen ecosystems across Europe, a key step to stimulate demand and facilitate hydrogen access for other mobility applications. This includes the infrastructure and refueling stations, as well as integrated vehicles offers (leasing and service) to customers such as taxi companies, fleet operators, local authorities, and others.

The integration of different applications and projects within a hydrogen ecosystem, where supply and demand meet, is intended to create a virtuous circle enabling the overall hydrogen infrastructure to further mature. . . .


You might also read the comments - it seems I'm not alone in seeing PHFCEVs as a good all-around option for the reasons enumerated by one of the posters.




HYON enters collaboration agreement with Mitsui on hydrogen fueling

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220516-hyon.html


HYON, a company founded in 2017 with the aim of being the leading provider of bunkering solutions for hydrogen, has entered a collaboration agreement with the Japanese trading and investment company Mitsui & Co., Ltd. The partnership sets the stage for large-scale development of hydrogen fueling solutions, starting with a joint feasibility study in the second half of 2022.

Together, the parties aim to venture into business opportunities related to establishing hydrogen fueling infrastructure in Europe, Asia or any other geographies with potential hydrogen demand. The agreement also opens for a financial and strategic commitment from Mitsui into HYON. . . .

As a first step of the collaboration, HYON and Mitsui will conduct a feasibility study to define relevant parameters for the global presence of hydrogen fueling solutions, roll-out plan, cost and specification of the technical solutions. The feasibility study will be undertaken in the second half of 2022, lasting a minimum of three to six months.


Off to watch the Warriors game.
 
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
GCC:

[Snip]

And this shows the desperation and idiocy of the incumbents. We already know that producing power by burning things isn't the most efficient way of extracting power (this should be obvious from the simple fact that fuel cells operate at a lower temperature than combustion engines - it isn't all wasted as heat). So instead of adding a battery buffer to make a FCEV to get the benefits of extended range, fast fueling, and high torque from an electric motor, they went with an even dumber solution that is LESS efficient with a high-cost fuel (H2). The fact that they chose to NOT engineer an actual BEV or PHEV (which would have met/exceeded all their goals - except for zero-carbon), just points to more greenwashing.

Cummins makes commercial engines for industry and businesses, who care very much about operating costs. Trying to sell them an engine that costs the same to build, but uses fuel that's 2-3x more expensive is a non-starter, and they should already know this. By saying their engine could now burn H2 instead of refined crude oil, they were probably able to spend government funding for the development of "zero-carbon" tech. And that's why sh*t like this pisses me off - it's so blatantly obvious!


Did you miss this part of the quote?

The industry needs multiple solutions to meet the needs of all on- and off-highway customers and all applications considering the variation in duty cycles and operating environments, the company said.

Cummins is also developing fuel cell stacks as well as pursuing a variety of other avenues.

Meanwhile, both GCC:

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220518-tme.html

You might also read the comments - it seems I'm not alone in seeing PHFCEVs as a good all-around option for the reasons enumerated by one of the posters.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220516-hyon.html

Off to watch the Warriors game.

What does it matter if they said that multiple solutions are needed? It still doesn't change the fact that burning H2 is a waste of resources.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
And this shows the desperation and idiocy of the incumbents. We already know that producing power by burning things isn't the most efficient way of extracting power (this should be obvious from the simple fact that fuel cells operate at a lower temperature than combustion engines - it isn't all wasted as heat). So instead of adding a battery buffer to make a FCEV to get the benefits of extended range, fast fueling, and high torque from an electric motor, they went with an even dumber solution that is LESS efficient with a high-cost fuel (H2). The fact that they chose to NOT engineer an actual BEV or PHEV (which would have met/exceeded all their goals - except for zero-carbon), just points to more greenwashing.

Cummins makes commercial engines for industry and businesses, who care very much about operating costs. Trying to sell them an engine that costs the same to build, but uses fuel that's 2-3x more expensive is a non-starter, and they should already know this. By saying their engine could now burn H2 instead of refined crude oil, they were probably able to spend government funding for the development of "zero-carbon" tech. And that's why sh*t like this pisses me off - it's so blatantly obvious!


Did you miss this part of the quote?

The industry needs multiple solutions to meet the needs of all on- and off-highway customers and all applications considering the variation in duty cycles and operating environments, the company said.

Cummins is also developing fuel cell stacks as well as pursuing a variety of other avenues.

Meanwhile, both GCC:

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220518-tme.html

You might also read the comments - it seems I'm not alone in seeing PHFCEVs as a good all-around option for the reasons enumerated by one of the posters.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220516-hyon.html

Off to watch the Warriors game.

What does it matter if they said that multiple solutions are needed? It still doesn't change the fact that burning H2 is a waste of resources.


So is driving an ICE vs. a BEV, yet for the past century the ICE has been the vehicle of choice because customers valued capability and flexibility over efficiency. Toyota is also developing H2-burning ICEs, and is racing them to demonstrate the tech, so they obviously see a potential role for them. While I'd go for the more efficient option of a fuel cell, there may be reasons why others make a different choice. Ultimately, the market will decide which approach(es) to adopt.
 
GCC:
Zhejiang Methanol Hydrogen and Element 1 partner to deliver hydrogen generation technology to Greater China

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220519-e1na.html


Element 1 Corporation (e1NA), Zhejiang Methanol Hydrogen Technology (ZMHT) and Zhejiang Element 1 (e1China) have formed a joint venture company—Zhejiang Hydrogen One Energy Technology Co., Ltd.— to drive methanol-based hydrogen generation technology and commercialize e1NA’s technology throughout Greater China.

The new JV will have rights to sell e1NA’s S-Series product for applications in backup power generation, the M-Series for on-board vehicle hydrogen generation, and the L-Series product for EV charging, hydrogen refueling stations, and distributed power generation.

The JV will work with listed companies across China to develop integrated hydrogen production and fueling stations in Qingdao, Wuhan, Jiaxing, Wuxi and other cities. These public companies will be investors in a network of hydrogen production and fueling stations which will be installed throughout China between 2022 and 2025.

The hydrogen generators produced by the JV under license from e1NA use methanol and water as feedstock resulting in cost effective onsite production of hydrogen and a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and local air pollution when compared to gas and oil. This energy generation can be fully carbon-neutral when using renewable methanol. . . .

I’m delighted with this new partnership which has been formed to deliver hydrogen solutions that will significantly reduce the carbon intensity as well as other harmful emissions (particulate matter, NOx, and SOx) traditionally associated with burning fossil fuels. Whereas fuel cell technology has matured substantially over recent decades, the supply of hydrogen as feedstock to fuel cells has lagged considerably, resulting in significant logistic and economic challenges to the wide-scale deployment of fuel cells. e1NA’s methanol-to-hydrogen technology offers a broad solution to this challenge and is also well suited to support hydrogen combustion engines.

—Dr. Dave Edlund, the founder and CEO of e1NA

The cooperation with Element 1 means that China will have a break-through solution on hydrogen production and refueling stations. Through small-size distribution hydrogen production systems, hydrogen stations can produce hydrogen with high-density liquid methanol carrying hydrogen, so as to completely solve the high logistics cost of hydrogen fuel transportation. Therefore the utilization of hydrogen energy can be rapidly popularized in a way acceptable to the market.

The e1NA patented technology incorporates decades of R&D effort focused on small scale hydrogen production systems. This, coupled with the JV’s near-term commercial opportunity of 300 hydrogen refueling stations will bring new impetus to the utilization of hydrogen energy in Greater China.


—Zhu Foqing, an industry expert in China’s energy field and legal representative of ZMHT




GCR:
DOE hydrogen hubs might be as dirty as coal if clean hydrogen isn't defined, experts caution

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135889_hydrogen-hubs-dirty-as-coal-clean-hydrogen


Federally funded hydrogen hubs have the potential to reduce emissions, but could also be as dirty as coal without proper oversight, a group of experts warned.

The 2021 infrastructure law includes funding for the hubs, which would produce hydrogen for different uses—including powering commercial trucks and industrial equipment and potentially trains. But the United States Department of Energy (DOE) needs to carefully consider how hydrogen is produced and used, according to a recent blog post from non-profit RMI.

Hydrogen can be produced with minimal carbon emissions through electrolysis, with electricity generated from renewable sources, RMI noted. But other methods—such as producing hydrogen from natural gas—can be as dirty as coal, the organization said.

This week, the DOE will open the competitive process for the $8 billion in funding earmarked for the hydrogen hubs, so now is an important time to consider exactly what constitutes "clean" hydrogen, RMI argues.

This process will likely involve more clearly defined standards. Ideally, those standards would reduce the carbon intensity of the full production cycle of hydrogen by at least 80% from the most common current process (which uses methane), and include a carbon intensity calculation that goes beyond emissions at the site of production, the group said.

The potential for hydrogen to swing from very clean to very dirty has made the hubs controversial since they were proposed. An early version of the infrastructure bill even discussed coal as a potential source.

Lax rules could also lead to the proliferation of "blue hydrogen," which is billed as a cleaner alternative to current production methods but could still be very carbon intensive. Making blue hydrogen produces carbon dioxide that is captured, theoretically ensuring it never enters the atmosphere. But a 2021 study found that emissions from this process are actually 20% higher than burning coal.

Cleaner alternatives do exist. One venture has proposed powering fuel-cell garbage trucks with hydrogen generated from the very refuse they haul. In 2021, hydrogen firm SG H2 Energy announced a California facility it claimed will have lower carbon emissions than electrolysis.


I would have thought having a low carbon standard ala' California's for these written into the law from the beginning would be blindingly obvious, but apparently not. Regarding that:
California Formally Announces Intention to Create a Renewable Hydrogen Hub

https://business.ca.gov/california-formally-announces-intention-to-create-a-renewable-hydrogen-hub/

Building from a foundation of nation-leading policies and new hydrogen system market development, Governor Newsom’s administration is announcing California’s intention to leverage federal investment from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to establish an environmentally and economically sustainable and expanding renewable hydrogen hub. Administration officials, led by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), will continue working with public and private stakeholders, including California’s legislature and leading municipalities such as Los Angeles, to submit one state co-funded application.

In the May Revise budget, Governor Newsom proposed direct investment in green hydrogen production, in addition to numerous pots of funding that can be leveraged to accelerate hydrogen market development, including zero-emission vehicle market acceleration, industrial decarbonization, and long duration energy storage. Additionally, the administration is committed to collaborating with neighboring states and initiatives to create a resilient supply and delivery chain, helping to facilitate success and learnings across multiple markets. . . .

Our recently published draft Scoping Plan Update makes it clear that renewable hydrogen has an important role to play in reaching our economy wide climate and air quality targets,” said California Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph. “We are committed to collaborating with all stakeholders to continually improve our robust policy framework to enable rapid renewable hydrogen market development.”

“The need for renewable hydrogen is clear, especially as we develop systems to store and use renewable electricity,” California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild stated. “We need federal, state, and private investment to accelerate market development to ensure we meet our carbon neutrality goals—and we are excited to work with stakeholders to build a world class hydrogen hub and believe that federal investments in green hydrogen in California will benefit the state and the nation.”

“The California Public Utilities Commission is committed to working with stakeholders to help define the role of investor-owned utilities in the hydrogen market ecosystem,” said Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen. “Renewable hydrogen can play a variety of important roles in a decarbonized economy.”

“From public transit to long-haul trucking, low-cost, renewable hydrogen is one of the key components in our efforts to rapidly reduce pollution from the transportation sector,” said California State Transportation Agency Secretary Toks Omishakin. “Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles of all types – including cars, heavy-duty trucks, buses, rail and watercraft – are an ideal complement to battery-powered vehicles as part of a diversified and sustainable transportation system. The hydrogen hub will help lower costs and accelerate California’s transition to a zero-emission future.”

A federally co-funded hydrogen hub in California would accelerate our collective transition to a carbon-neutral economy, creating the scale needed to drive down cost for businesses and consumers alike, all while creating high paying jobs. Near term hub activities will center on deep investments in electrifying port operations, goods movement, transportation, and energy system resilience. . . .


There's a link to the pdf file for the Scoping Plan update.
 
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Did you miss this part of the quote?



Cummins is also developing fuel cell stacks as well as pursuing a variety of other avenues.

Meanwhile, both GCC:

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220518-tme.html

You might also read the comments - it seems I'm not alone in seeing PHFCEVs as a good all-around option for the reasons enumerated by one of the posters.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220516-hyon.html

Off to watch the Warriors game.

What does it matter if they said that multiple solutions are needed? It still doesn't change the fact that burning H2 is a waste of resources.


So is driving an ICE vs. a BEV, yet for the past century the ICE has been the vehicle of choice because customers valued capability and flexibility over efficiency. Toyota is also developing H2-burning ICEs, and is racing them to demonstrate the tech, so they obviously see a potential role for them. While I'd go for the more efficient option of a fuel cell, there may be reasons why others make a different choice. Ultimately, the market will decide which approach(es) to adopt.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. ICE vs. BEV is a powertrain AND fuel difference. Combustion H2 vs. FCEV is simply a powertrain difference. If anything, the combustion H2 is actually less capable (significantly lower horsepower rating than an electric motor with the same torque performance). If by flexibility, you mean the combustion engine can also burn diesel and gasoline ... well isn't that convenient (sarcasm if you can't tell)? Much like how people bought PHEV's to get the tax credit, but still filled it up like a regular gas car. The only reason people plugged those PHEVs at all, was because electricity is cheaper than gas. Not the case with this cummins engine.

As for Toyota, aren't they tired of being wrong yet?
 
Toyota will continue to be cheerfully wrong as long as it's profitable for them. Once the hydrogen research money dries up, they may finally get serious about the solid state battery they are working on developing.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Toyota will continue to be cheerfully wrong as long as it's profitable for them. Once the hydrogen research money dries up, they may finally get serious about the solid state battery they are working on developing.


Toyota has been serious about the solid-state battery for a long time, which is why they've spent so much money and effort developing it (and the same goes for fuel cells). They feel, and I agree, that current Li-ion batteries don't have what it takes to be adequate replacements for ICEs for the typical buyer. Solid-state offers the potential of higher energy density, faster charging, greater safety and better longevity, all areas where current batteries fall short compared to ICEs, which is what the typical buyer will be comparing a BEV to. Of course, if gas prices continue to increase, the capability advantages of a fossil-fueled ICE will be out of reach for most people, no matter how desirable they may be.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
What does it matter if they said that multiple solutions are needed? It still doesn't change the fact that burning H2 is a waste of resources.


So is driving an ICE vs. a BEV, yet for the past century the ICE has been the vehicle of choice because customers valued capability and flexibility over efficiency. Toyota is also developing H2-burning ICEs, and is racing them to demonstrate the tech, so they obviously see a potential role for them. While I'd go for the more efficient option of a fuel cell, there may be reasons why others make a different choice. Ultimately, the market will decide which approach(es) to adopt.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. ICE vs. BEV is a powertrain AND fuel difference. Combustion H2 vs. FCEV is simply a powertrain difference.


That depends on what it's fueled by. In what form is the H2 provided?


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
If anything, the combustion H2 is actually less capable (significantly lower horsepower rating than an electric motor with the same torque performance). If by flexibility, you mean the combustion engine can also burn diesel and gasoline ... well isn't that convenient (sarcasm if you can't tell)? Much like how people bought PHEV's to get the tax credit, but still filled it up like a regular gas car. The only reason people plugged those PHEVs at all, was because electricity is cheaper than gas. Not the case with this cummins engine.

As for Toyota, aren't they tired of being wrong yet?


Yeah, they've been so wrong they're the world's largest auto manufacturer, and have also built and sold more EVs than anyone else. Most companies wish they were that wrong.
 
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
So is driving an ICE vs. a BEV, yet for the past century the ICE has been the vehicle of choice because customers valued capability and flexibility over efficiency. Toyota is also developing H2-burning ICEs, and is racing them to demonstrate the tech, so they obviously see a potential role for them. While I'd go for the more efficient option of a fuel cell, there may be reasons why others make a different choice. Ultimately, the market will decide which approach(es) to adopt.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. ICE vs. BEV is a powertrain AND fuel difference. Combustion H2 vs. FCEV is simply a powertrain difference.


That depends on what it's fueled by. In what form is the H2 provided?


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
If anything, the combustion H2 is actually less capable (significantly lower horsepower rating than an electric motor with the same torque performance). If by flexibility, you mean the combustion engine can also burn diesel and gasoline ... well isn't that convenient (sarcasm if you can't tell)? Much like how people bought PHEV's to get the tax credit, but still filled it up like a regular gas car. The only reason people plugged those PHEVs at all, was because electricity is cheaper than gas. Not the case with this cummins engine.

As for Toyota, aren't they tired of being wrong yet?


Yeah, they've been so wrong they're the world's largest auto manufacturer, and have also built and sold more EVs than anyone else. Most companies wish they were that wrong.

Do you actually believe that "self-charging electric vehicle" marketing non-sense? If you're incapable of thinking logically for yourself, rather relying on reports and someone else's words, then go away. You're insulting everyone else who actually put thought into their opinions.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
That's an apples and oranges comparison. ICE vs. BEV is a powertrain AND fuel difference. Combustion H2 vs. FCEV is simply a powertrain difference.


That depends on what it's fueled by. In what form is the H2 provided?


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
If anything, the combustion H2 is actually less capable (significantly lower horsepower rating than an electric motor with the same torque performance). If by flexibility, you mean the combustion engine can also burn diesel and gasoline ... well isn't that convenient (sarcasm if you can't tell)? Much like how people bought PHEV's to get the tax credit, but still filled it up like a regular gas car. The only reason people plugged those PHEVs at all, was because electricity is cheaper than gas. Not the case with this cummins engine.

As for Toyota, aren't they tired of being wrong yet?


Yeah, they've been so wrong they're the world's largest auto manufacturer, and have also built and sold more EVs than anyone else. Most companies wish they were that wrong.

Do you actually believe that "self-charging electric vehicle" marketing non-sense? If you're incapable of thinking logically for yourself, rather relying on reports and someone else's words, then go away. You're insulting everyone else who actually put thought into their opinions.


I believe that an Electric Vehicle, by definition, is propelled partly or solely by an electric motor. How that motor is supplied with electricity determines the type of EV it is. If that's too much logical thinking for you, perhaps you should take your own advice. I put thought into my opinions, I assume you do the same, so act like an adult and stop the personal insults.
 
I believe that an Electric Vehicle, by definition, is propelled partly or solely by an electric motor.

That's marketing nonsense. Actually, even the market critters use the term "electrified" to describe a vehicle with both an electric drive system and a combustion engine. Toyota has sold more "electrified" vehicles than anyone else. They aren't even worth an honorable mention for EVs.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I believe that an Electric Vehicle, by definition, is propelled partly or solely by an electric motor.

That's marketing nonsense. Actually, even the market critters use the term "electrified" to describe a vehicle with both an electric drive system and a combustion engine. Toyota has sold more "electrified" vehicles than anyone else. They aren't even worth an honorable mention for EVs.

Even Toyota hadn't been so bold as to call their hybrids "electric vehicles". They've only gone as far as claiming they were "electrified" as you've pointed out. Yet GRA seemed perfectly willing to push his definition that far AND still claim that he's ONLY a deliverer of the news. Does his hypocrisy not warrant the hostility and personal insults directed at him?
 
I don't think that anything short of personal attacks warrant hostility and personal insults. It makes more sense to just add someone who drives you Nuts to your "Foes" list, so you don't see their posts.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I don't think that anything short of personal attacks warrant hostility and personal insults. It makes more sense to just add someone who drives you Nuts to your "Foes" list, so you don't see their posts.

Seeing his signature line, and being a scout leader, he's actually a danger to society. He shouldn't be left alone.
 
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
That depends on what it's fueled by. In what form is the H2 provided?





Yeah, they've been so wrong they're the world's largest auto manufacturer, and have also built and sold more EVs than anyone else. Most companies wish they were that wrong.

Do you actually believe that "self-charging electric vehicle" marketing non-sense? If you're incapable of thinking logically for yourself, rather relying on reports and someone else's words, then go away. You're insulting everyone else who actually put thought into their opinions.


I believe that an Electric Vehicle, by definition, is propelled partly or solely by an electric motor. How that motor is supplied with electricity determines the type of EV it is. If that's too much logical thinking for you, perhaps you should take your own advice. I put thought into my opinions, I assume you do the same, so act like an adult and stop the personal insults.

Your definition of "Electric Vehicle" doesn't move the needle on reducing carbon emissions, nor is it one that even Toyota adopts. They skirted around the issue by saying that their hybrids were "electrified". The fact that you would contort the definition beyond what Toyota would even claim, just to support your baseless claim (about Toyota knowing a thing-or-two, because they sold more EVs than anyone else) shows how defensive and unyielding you had become. You can't just make up your own set of "facts" to argue against basic physics. That's what children do when they were little.

I know I have insulted you in the past, but after re-reading my previous post, this time I had NOT. It was a statement of fact that was merely too embarrassing for you to accept, so you took it as an insult.
 
Back
Top