Toyota CEO: "This new engine will destroy the entire EV industry !

[KhunLA]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I suspect this guy is much better informed than you are when it comes to the Nissan Leaf.

What really sucks in Australia is the auto lobby group obstructing importation of used vehicles, in the guise of protecting the Australian new car industry.

 

 

Great....another anti EV'er, but agree, the Leaf is krap, especially in hot weather.

 

Doesn't take much research to find which EVs are good, or bad.  If people actually did a bit of research, before plopping down their ฿1 or ฿2M, then they'd be happy consumers instead of regretting their purchases.

 

Can't fix stupid ...

 

Importing used cars ... people would actually buy them ?  Sounds high risk.   Could import all the flooded cars from TH, all cleaned up and ready to sell ????

Edited June 18, 2023 by KhunLA

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I suspect this guy is much better informed than you are when it comes to the Nissan Leaf.

What really sucks in Australia is the auto lobby group obstructing importation of used vehicles, in the guise of protecting the Australian new car industry.

 

 

You understand this guy is funded by the oil industry, yes? 

 

Used card pollute more than new cars, they need to be scrapped, not carried from country to country to save the greedy a few pennies. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Great....another anti EV'er, but agree, the Leaf is krap, especially in hot weather.

 

Doesn't take much research to find which EVs are good, or bad.  If people actually did a bit of research, before plopping down their ฿1 or ฿2M, then they'd be happy consumers instead of regretting their purchases.

 

Can't fix stupid ...

 

Importing used cars ... people would actually buy them ?  Sounds high risk.   Could import all the flooded cars from TH, all cleaned up and ready to sell ????

Japan sells used vehicles to benighted countries such as Myanmar and New Zealand. Due to Japan's environmental laws, it is uneconomic to keep a car there more than two years. The vehicles usually have less than 40,000 kilometres on the odometer.

I am not against EV's per se. However, like everything else, they have their pros and cons.

Not sure if this is on topic. However, I did find it interesting, if a bit alarming.

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 6/16/2023 at 11:59 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

Imagine you have the choice between one vehicle which needs hours to be refilled or recharged and another one which can be refilled or recharged within minutes. Which one would you prefer?

 

It won't be possible to charge modern big powerful batteries much faster with the existing electrical grid. And just swapping batteries, like on a gasoline station, seems to be no option.

There is already a prototype of a new battery being trialled in a Lotus Elise S1 concept car, that can fully charge to 100% in just 6 minutes.

 

Quote

Julian Thomson, teamed up with Nyobolt and CALLUM to create a Lotus Elise-inspired lightweight electric sports car with ultra-rapid charging (100% in under six minutes).

Lotus Elise reimagined as a sporty EV that can fully charge in 6 minutes

 

According to the manufacturer, these ultra-fast charging batteries should start commercial production next year. Apparently the 6 minute charging requires a 350kW (or better) fast charger of which admittedly there are not very many around yet but they are becoming more common and as another poster alluded to, 1MW chargers are already being introduced. In Europe their roll out started around a year ago - the announcement below is from June 2022.

 

CharIN Officially Launches The Megawatt Charging System (MCS)

Edited June 18, 2023 by GroveHillWanderer

[Lacessit]

On 6/17/2023 at 12:06 PM, KhunLA said:

 

On topic, the hydrogen thingy does seem to be a viable option to replace that disgusting diesel fuel for long haul trucking industry, but that's about it.   Totally impractical/redundant pollutant as a personal transport fuel.

Your post is ambiguous, do you mean diesel as a personal transport fuel, or hydrogen? If the latter, I would like your explanation why tailpipe water is a pollutant.

In terms of fuel economy, diesel is actually more efficient than gasoline. It's the blimpish behemoths that have higher fuel consumption which perpetuate the misconception.

It's very noticeable when one goes to Malaysia none of the trucks, buses or cars blow any smoke. If the same regulations applied in Thailand, my guess is 50% of vehicles would be put off the road.

[Skallywag]

Internal combustion Engine = 2,000+ moving parts,  EV only 20 moving parts.

Simply do not care about whiners who need to "get somewhere" and cannot spend the time to charge their EV.  

EV's are simply better, and better for the future. 

Polluting the air that others have to breathe has got to stop ... 

Very sad that governments do not ration fuel to those with personal cars who do not transport goods and services.

Driving is simply a distraction, a way to kill time, or simply fun for the speed freaks.  Just because you can afford gasoline, does not give you the right to burn it is my philosophy

 

Foreigners cannot buy firearms in Thailand, simple for government to say foreigners cannot buy personal ICE vehicles as well. Want to take a trip? Public transport is your option

Edited June 18, 2023 by Skallywag

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Your post is ambiguous, do you mean diesel as a personal transport fuel, or hydrogen? If the latter, I would like your explanation why tailpipe water is a pollutant.

In terms of fuel economy, diesel is actually more efficient than gasoline. It's the blimpish behemoths that have higher fuel consumption which perpetuate the misconception.

It's very noticeable when one goes to Malaysia none of the trucks, buses or cars blow any smoke. If the same regulations applied in Thailand, my guess is 50% of vehicles would be put off the road.

Diesel should be banned .... period.  It's a disgusting health hazard.

 

Hydrogen only practical for long haul, as diesel replacement.  Until better batteries are available for long haul, heavy duty loads.

 

Hydrogen is just another highly polluting fuel to produce, transport, store.  No more, no less.  Along with simply using too much energy to produce.   Redundant, going from one krap fuel to another.  Simply more profits for the fossil fuel conglomerates.

 

I really don't think I have to explain myself.  As apparently the anti EV'ers, simply don't understand it.  As someone's signature states .. "I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it" ... Love that.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

1MW chargers are already being introduced.

Yeah, sure, for private cars. 

At home? Or only right next to the local power plant?

What can possibly go wrong? ...

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yeah, sure, for private cars. 

At home? Or only right next to the local power plant?

What can possibly go wrong? ...

 

1MW chargers will be available (as they already are in several European countries) in regular EV charging stations. And yes, they will be available for any vehicles capable of using them. At the moment they're used primarily for heavy goods EV's but that's because not many smaller vehicles can use them yet.

 

As more and more private vehicles like the Lotus Elise become capable of using them, their availability and use will obviously increase.

Edited June 18, 2023 by GroveHillWanderer

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Diesel should be banned .... period.  It's a disgusting health hazard.

 

Hydrogen only practical for long haul, as diesel replacement.  Until better batteries are available for long haul, heavy duty loads.

 

Hydrogen is just another highly polluting fuel to produce, transport, store.  No more, no less.  Along with simply using too much energy to produce.   Redundant, going from one krap fuel to another.  Simply more profits for the fossil fuel conglomerates.

 

I really don't think I have to explain myself.  As apparently the anti EV'ers, simply don't understand it.  As someone's signature states .. "I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it" ... Love that.

You fail to answer my question. Asserting hydrogen is a highly polluting fuel does not make it so, it's called begging the question. Trying to label me as anti-EV is dishonest argument as well.

Hydrogen is not a fossil fuel when generated by renewable energy, any more than your EV is non-polluting when the electricity recharging it comes from the Mae Moh power station.

Let's say with the wave of a magic wand you could replace every ICE vehicle in Australia with an EV overnight. Your contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions would be a piddling 7%.

It's increasingly obvious from your posts you are part of the EV religion, it was ever thus when science and religion collide. The former is fact-based, the latter is belief. I doubt I can make you understand either.

 

[Plern]

On 6/17/2023 at 9:20 AM, JBChiangRai said:

Or in my case from the 54 solar panels on the roof

 

Aka that magic orangey white thing in the sky

Unless the sun isn't shining or it's night time. If the EV was charged at only these times it would be pretty much a fail. Oh yes, batteries.

[Plern]

It's gonna be hilarious when people start brawling over public chargers. ????????

[KhunLA]

33 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You fail to answer my question. Asserting hydrogen is a highly polluting fuel does not make it so, it's called begging the question. Trying to label me as anti-EV is dishonest argument as well.

Hydrogen is not a fossil fuel when generated by renewable energy, any more than your EV is non-polluting when the electricity recharging it comes from the Mae Moh power station.

Let's say with the wave of a magic wand you could replace every ICE vehicle in Australia with an EV overnight. Your contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions would be a piddling 7%.

It's increasingly obvious from your posts you are part of the EV religion, it was ever thus when science and religion collide. The former is fact-based, the latter is belief. I doubt I can make you understand either.

 

The redundancy of using energy, to produce hydrogen, for fuel cells, to produce energy.

 

Along with if & when, the energy to produce hydrogen, comes from renewables.  But until that happens, decades away, you once again, are catering to the fossil fuel conglomerates, for the energy, to produce a fuel, to produce energy. 

 

And then, same as fossil fuels now, the energy/fuel used to transport, store & pump it.

 

You're not seeing the hamster wheel here, simply going around and around, with no real progress, except more profits for, yea ... those guys, again.

 

I think the time and money, can be better spent, simply upgrading the grid to capture the renewable energy that is already available, but simply not be collected & used, since not as profitable.

 

Hard to justify silly prices for energy, that is provided free from nature, by simply collecting it.  Wind, solar, hydro, thermal, simply collect it, use it to generate electric, and send it on it's way by wire.

Edited June 18, 2023 by KhunLA

[KhunLA]

49 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's increasingly obvious from your posts you are part of the EV religion, it was ever thus when science and religion collide. The former is fact-based, the latter is belief. I doubt I can make you understand either.

 

Guilty as charged ... but after having solar & EVs, it really does expose the reality of how silly, the concept of using fossil fuel has been for at least the last 50 yrs.

 

There really is no reason, that we, well, you are still dependent on it today, in most cases, except for the control the industry has exerted on politicians & govts.

 

Yes, it just like that, religion.  Some Christian thumping wacko telling you there is a God.   Then it happens and you're now a believer, and think to yourself, how could I not see that before.

 

So ... install solar, get an EV, and join the cult, and you'll wonder ... W T F, my eyes are open now, how could I have been so blinded & ignorant.

 

Get back to us when you do, or not.  Just keep giving your money away to those guys, as they'll keep taking it.  Ignorance is Bliss ... for them.

Edited June 18, 2023 by KhunLA

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Diesel should be banned .... period.  It's a disgusting health hazard.

 

Hydrogen only practical for long haul, as diesel replacement.  Until better batteries are available for long haul, heavy duty loads.

 

Hydrogen is just another highly polluting fuel to produce, transport, store.  No more, no less.  Along with simply using too much energy to produce.   Redundant, going from one krap fuel to another.  Simply more profits for the fossil fuel conglomerates.

 

I really don't think I have to explain myself.  As apparently the anti EV'ers, simply don't understand it.  As someone's signature states .. "I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it" ... Love that.

I really don't you can explain yourself...

[KhaoYai]

I have long thought that EV's are not the answer to controlling pollution and thus, helping to address Climate Change. There are so many problems associated with EV's that detract from the claims made that they will reduce pollution.

 

A friend recently boasted that his EV was creating zero pollution.  Whilst that may be true in terms of his car not producing any emmisions now but there are huge question marks over how much pollution was created to make his car.

 

There are so many matters that must be taken in to account when considering the differences between conventional combustion engined vehicles and EV's.  The list is very long but the matters that spring to mind are:

 

Massive increases in demand for electricty to charge EV's. - how will that electricity be generated?

 

Battery disposal.

 

Huge infrastructure requirements and upgrades to the existing electricity supply.

 

Massive civil engineering requirements to provide that electricity where its required.

 

Serious environmental concerns regarding the mining of metals required for battery production.

 

I have never gone into the alternatives in any depth but at a glance, hydrogen powered combustion engines seem to make more sense.  Of course, no vehicle is totally green - they all need manufacturing and that itself produces pollution and places huge demands on the world's resources. However, from what I read a few years back, this new engine from Toyota is not actually new in concept although it may be the first to be put into practical production.

 

The problems I read about at the time were not that a combustion engine that runs on Hydrogen could not be produced, one of the biggest problems was in regard to the storage of Hydrogen within such vehicles.  Apparently, without a solution, you would effectively be driving around in a Hydrogen bomb.  The storage of Hydrogen at service stations could also be a serious threat - imagine the consequences of terrorists blowing up a Hydrogen storage facility. The tankers that deliver the Hydrogen to service stations would face similar problems.

 

It would therefore, be interesting to hear if Toyota have solved those problems.  I would love to keep the combustion engine but I don't fancy being blown up in the event of being involved in an accident!

 

When I first heard of electric vehicles I thought it would be great - charge your car at home whilst you're asleep.  The reality is that most homes don't have sufficient power for fast chargers.  I've already witnessed people fighting over a parking place that had a charging point and what about people that have to park on the street? How do they charge their EV's?  What about abuse or vandalism?

 

The Chinese seem to be developing a much better way of charging EV's - you don't charge them, you call in at a station and have your battery exchanged.  But still, the concept of Hydrogen power holds my interest - if the probems associated with it can be solved.

 

Having said all of that, in my opinion nothing, in any sphere that I've seen so far will solve the world's climate change problems.  There is one factor that is responsible overall, one that I'm yet to see any of the world's governments have the courage to address - there are just too many people on the planet!  We have been taking out more than we're putting in for centuries and that's just not sustainable.  As long as the desire to have more, make more and consume more exists - all we will do is slow down the road to catastrophe.  Human beings may be the most intelligent species but we have failed to appreciate that we are just part of an ECO system.  We have 'raped' the world's resources, we have destroyed the habitat of other creatures and simply behaved as if the world is ours alone. We

 

Whether a car is powered by petrol/diesel/electricity/hydrogen, the question should be, do we actually need one?  Would it not be better to upgrade the provision of public transport?

 

Never going to happen!

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

I have long thought that EV's are not the answer to controlling pollution and thus, helping to address Climate Change. There are so many problems associated with EV's that detract from the claims made that they will reduce pollution.

 

A friend recently boasted that his EV was creating zero pollution.  Whilst that may be true in terms of his car not producing any emmisions now but there are huge question marks over how much pollution was created to make his car.

 

There are so many matters that must be taken in to account when considering the differences between conventional combustion engined vehicles and EV's.  The list is very long but the matters that spring to mind are:

 

Massive increases in demand for electricty to charge EV's. - how will that electricity be generated?

 

Battery disposal.

 

Huge infrastructure requirements and upgrades to the existing electricity supply.

 

Massive civil engineering requirements to provide that electricity where its required.

 

Serious environmental concerns regarding the mining of metals required for battery production.

 

I have never gone into the alternatives in any depth but at a glance, hydrogen powered combustion engines seem to make more sense.  Of course, no vehicle is totally green - they all need manufacturing and that itself produces pollution and places huge demands on the world's resources. However, from what I read a few years back, this new engine from Toyota is not actually new in concept although it may be the first to be put into practical production.

 

The problems I read about at the time were not that a combustion engine that runs on Hydrogen could not be produced, one of the biggest problems was in regard to the storage of Hydrogen within such vehicles.  Apparently, without a solution, you would effectively be driving around in a Hydrogen bomb.  The storage of Hydrogen at service stations could also be a serious threat - imagine the consequences of terrorists blowing up a Hydrogen storage facility. The tankers that deliver the Hydrogen to service stations would face similar problems.

 

It would therefore, be interesting to hear if Toyota have solved those problems.  I would love to keep the combustion engine but I don't fancy being blown up in the event of being involved in an accident!

 

When I first heard of electric vehicles I thought it would be great - charge your car at home whilst you're asleep.  The reality is that most homes don't have sufficient power for fast chargers.  I've already witnessed people fighting over a parking place that had a charging point and what about people that have to park on the street? How do they charge their EV's?  What about abuse or vandalism?

 

The Chinese seem to be developing a much better way of charging EV's - you don't charge them, you call in at a station and have your battery exchanged.  But still, the concept of Hydrogen power holds my interest - if the probems associated with it can be solved.

 

Having said all of that, in my opinion nothing, in any sphere that I've seen so far will solve the world's climate change problems.  There is one factor that is responsible overall, one that I'm yet to see any of the world's governments have the courage to address - there are just too many people on the planet!  We have been taking out more than we're putting in for centuries and that's just not sustainable.  As long as the desire to have more, make more and consume more exists - all we will do is slow down the road to catastrophe.  Human beings may be the most intelligent species but we have failed to appreciate that we are just part of an ECO system.  We have 'raped' the world's resources, we have destroyed the habitat of other creatures and simply behaved as if the world is ours alone. We

 

Whether a car is powered by petrol/diesel/electricity/hydrogen, the question should be, do we actually need one?  Would it not be better to upgrade the provision of public transport?

 

Never going to happen!

 

 

 

Hydrogen is stored as metal hydride complexes which are actually more efficient than liquid hydrogen in terms of the volume required. There is no more danger from such a container on a car than there is with CNG and LPG, the same applies to delivery tankers and refuelling stations. Nobody gets their knickers in a twist about CNG stored at 3000 psi in CNG vehicles.

Science will solve the problems associated with climate change, pollution etc. IF the politicians and lawyers get out of the way. Most secular nations are actually in population decline, it's the religion-dominated nations that are continuing to breed up.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Guilty as charged ... but after having solar & EVs, it really does expose the reality of how silly, the concept of using fossil fuel has been for at least the last 50 yrs.

 

There really is no reason, that we, well, you are still dependent on it today, in most cases, except for the control the industry has exerted on politicians & govts.

 

Yes, it just like that, religion.  Some Christian thumping wacko telling you there is a God.   Then it happens and you're now a believer, and think to yourself, how could I not see that before.

 

So ... install solar, get an EV, and join the cult, and you'll wonder ... W T F, my eyes are open now, how could I have been so blinded & ignorant.

 

Get back to us when you do, or not.  Just keep giving your money away to those guys, as they'll keep taking it.  Ignorance is Bliss ... for them.

FYI, solar panels were installed on my Australian house about 25 years ago. I was one of the first there to put my money where my mouth is, as it made financial sense with the feed-in tariff I was getting at the time. IIRC, a $200/month electricity bill became 3 or 4 dollars.

How financially stupid would it be for me to shell out 1 million baht ( including subsidy ) for an EV in Thailand, when my elderly Vios worth about 80,000 baht will probably outlive me? 900,000 baht buys a hell of a lot of the fossil fuel you are decrying.

You want to ban fossil fuels? Be my guest. The food you eat, the furniture you sit on, the plastics that make the circuit boards which enable you to post your nonsense - all come from fossil fuels. The mirror in which you admire yourself certainly did not come from renewable energy, ask any glassmaker.

 

Implying I am ignorant is yet another example of your debating dishonesty.

 

[KhaoYai]

31 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Hydrogen is stored as metal hydride complexes which are actually more efficient than liquid hydrogen in terms of the volume required. There is no more danger from such a container on a car than there is with CNG and LPG, the same applies to delivery tankers and refuelling stations. Nobody gets their knickers in a twist about CNG stored at 3000 psi in CNG vehicles.

Science will solve the problems associated with climate change, pollution etc. IF the politicians and lawyers get out of the way. Most secular nations are actually in population decline, it's the religion-dominated nations that are continuing to breed up.

It was quite a few years ago when I read about the problems associated with the storage of Hydrogen - that may have improved.  I do get my knickers in a twist about CNG powered vehicles - I've seen some of the horrors when accidents have occurred in them.

 

Science will help slow Climate Change down, it will not solve it.  Broken down to basic maths - 5 into 4 doesn't go.  You cannot take out more than you put in.  We have to start taking care of what we do to this planet, not just talking about it.  That would involve a complete change of mindset and our reliance on 'the economy'.

 

It doesn't really matter which nations are increasing their populations - there have been far too many people for at least a century and the world's population continues to grow. It is currently standing at almost 7.9 billion and is projected to reach 9.7 billion in just 27 years!!! How does who grows matter?

Edited June 18, 2023 by KhaoYai

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Hard to justify silly prices for energy, that is provided free from nature, by simply collecting it.  Wind, solar, hydro, thermal, simply collect it, use it to generate electric, and send it on it's way by wire.

Solar certainly makes sense in countries like Thailand where sunshine is abundant.  I don't understand why the government doesn't give some sort of assistance to people to encourage them to install it.  Oh, silly me, I'm forgetting that the Thai government doesn't do anything that doesn't increase the wealth of its members.

 

In the private sector, mortgage providers could increase loans to include the cost of solar installation.

 

I will be installing solar in my Thai home next year. I doubt I'll live long enough to get any payback but I'm not doing it for that - its just the right thing to to and I can afford it.

Edited June 18, 2023 by KhaoYai

[Lacessit]

27 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

It was quite a few years ago when I read about the problems associated with the storage of Hydrogen - that may have improved.  I do get my knickers in a twist about CNG powered vehicles - I've seen some of the horrors when accidents have occurred in them.

 

Science will help slow Climate Change down, it will not solve it.  Broken down to basic maths - 5 into 4 doesn't go.  You cannot take out more than you put in.  We have to start taking care of what we do to this planet, not just talking about it.  That would involve a complete change of mindset and our reliance on 'the economy'.

 

It doesn't really matter which nations are increasing their populations - there have been far too many people for at least a century and the world's population continues to grow. It is currently standing at almost 7.9 billion and is projected to reach 9.7 billion in just 27 years!!! How does who grows matter?

IMO it does matter which nations are increasing their populations if said nations are ruled by religious maniacs. They are the enemy of science in any form, except perhaps destruction technology..

Worldwide, scientists average a mere 0.5% of the population. We don't need the percentage diluted any further.

It also explains why they get drowned out on social media by morons who did not make it past primary school.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Lacessit

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

IMO it does matter which nations are increasing their populations if said nations are ruled by religious maniacs. They are the enemy of science in any form.

Worldwide, scientists average a mere 0.5% of the population. We don't need the percentage diluted any further.

It also explains why they get drowned out on social media by morons who did not make it past primary school.

People consume. Thus, if the world's population increases there will be higher consumption.  Whilst I have no time for 'religious maniacs' - the problem is not who consumes, its simply the amount of consumption.

 

The world's current economic model, capitalist or otherwise, relies on us all having more, newer, the latest model etc. etc. and the economists tell us that there must be growth. Therefore, under the current system, we actually rely on increasing consumption.

[eisfeld]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yeah, sure, for private cars. 

At home? Or only right next to the local power plant?

What can possibly go wrong? ...

 

Do you have a gasoline pump at home? Or can you only refuel next to a refinery? Yes 1MW chargers will be only at charging stations. What could go wrong? A lot less than with hydrogen. Not sure why you are trying to argue against fast chargers. These arguments fall flat immediately.

Edited June 18, 2023 by eisfeld

[Yellowtail]

Spending 500,000 to save 1,000 a month makes great economic sense. 

[xtrnuno41]

Just checked some prices on Nissan leaf, currently 735 "occasions"

The oldest was 2011 156000 km, so thats old and batteries still there, costing €6195 

But only 24 kWh, can not compare with the new ones, 40 kWh or even models with 59 kWh. But new one as high as just over €43000. But  thats a brand new one.

Depending on what you choose. Nissan has more models on electric, the newest is the qashqai and that is new, but ok starting price.

Though im amazed so many leafs in younger age (2-3 years) are occasion already.

A Polestar 2 from 2022, 32000 km costing €46000 and thats one of the cheapest

 

You have some more money? Then what about this one

Polestar 2

Long Range|Performance Pack 467PK|Plus Pack|Demo

€ 65.450 2021 1.465 km, As you read 467 PK.

 

Or even this one? €76000 at the moment at auction. Normally new it cost €110000.

14000 km, 2021.

[JBChiangRai]

3 hours ago, Plern said:

Unless the sun isn't shining or it's night time. If the EV was charged at only these times it would be pretty much a fail. Oh yes, batteries.

Even on the cloudiest day, I still get about 35 KwHr from my PV

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Even on the cloudiest day, I still get about 35 KwHr from my PV

At night? 

[JBChiangRai]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

At night? 

Per 24 hours

[sirineou]

Always good to have another option, before we condemn it let's see how it develops. 

Toyota employs a lot of very smart people and they seem to think it makes enough sense to bet the future of the company on it, Do all the naysayers in this forum think they are smarter than them or  know more about the issue?

Don't you think they thought about all the objections you have?

Personally from what I know, think EVs is a better option, at least for the near future. 

The infustracture for hydrogen does not exist, where there is electricity in everyone's house. Combine that with a couple solar cells and an inverter and you can charge your car at home for free. If I had not bought a new car two years ago , and would take a bath if I traded it now, I would buy an electric car tomorrow. 

Developing a Hydrogen infustracture, unless it is done at the goverment level . would need enough hydrogen cars on the road  to make the investment profitable, and to sell enough hydrogen cars you would need a hydrogen infustracture. You see the problem.

So let's see how it plays out, but very exciting nonetheless. 

[xtrnuno41]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

People consume. Thus, if the world's population increases there will be higher consumption.  Whilst I have no time for 'religious maniacs' - the problem is not who consumes, its simply the amount of consumption.

 

The world's current economic model, capitalist or otherwise, relies on us all having more, newer, the latest model etc. etc. and the economists tell us that there must be growth. Therefore, under the current system, we actually rely on increasing consumption.

Yes you are right, the global economics is based on more, a big Ponzi scheme.

They will never bring down population as it effects big businesses and thats a fault for our home in that system. The Chinese did once (less people), but was said to be a failure.

However if you see the movie "10 billion" on youtube. Every one should agree we are with too many.

Things also doesnt help much if you put oil wells on fire as in Iraki war.

Very long time those wells were burning and there were a lot of them.

In USA, for decades (since 1962) there is a coal mine burning.

https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217

They dant want to do anything, afraid of what might happen and more important it is expensive.

It also doenst help when you make trips for wealthy people just out of earth. To gaze out the window on (yet) a blue planet.

Every launch cost a lot of fuel and material, but it seems profitable and therefor no one cares about climate change. 

We cut down many trees and still, all for growing population, not good.

And I say it again 9000000 TONS/year of plastic dumped in the oceans !!

Plankton as O2 producer, getting killed. No trees, no plankton, no oxygen, we die.

But no one is really doing anything about that.

Of course it is profitable to bring up climate change, by tax raising on petrol and gas from government. They dont tell you to stop, but increase tax until you cant pay anymore and driving a car is only for elite rich people.  

 

Hydrogen cars are already on the road, only not combustible ones.

Cell membrane application, converting H2 to electricity, but expensive.

Toyota now made such a combustible engine. Well they came out as first, but guess all other car companies have done the same and still not ready?

 

In "my"country there are so many solar panels and most of them feed back to the grid.

At one point they can not feed back anymore, as the grid is full.

Now they made some apps and when it is not possible anymore to deliver to the grid, they get an "alarm". Saying, use more power, start your washing machine.

It is the time for those people to think about an energy storage (battery).

 

OK I stop as I can go on for more.