I wonder why this didn't get to production ? Better than an a battery !

[JBChiangRai]

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

So IMO, and  supported by the above facts , there is a reason why Toyota is betting as much as it is on Hydrogen. When it comes to cars I think we can all agree they are not dummies, and have an idea what is coming in the pipeline. 

 

Toyota's long time chairman had to fall on his sword recently because he didn't want to believe EV's would take off and so kept Toyota out that sector, the board fired him.

Toyota is now firmly behind both Hydrogen AND EV's.

 

I think Toyota are out on their own believing Hydrogen is the future.

 

I could argue H2 is a superior solution, but it's too late, BEV's have already won.

 

Incidentally, the Toyota Mirai is a horrible car, only big enough for 2 adults and 2/3 children, it has 3 hydrogen tanks.

[CygnusX1]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Where Lithium, nickel and cobalt and other rare earths nessacery for the production of EV batteries are as the term implies rare

Lithium, nickel and cobalt are not rare earths. Rare earths are not especially rare, but since they comprise 17 different elements with very similar chemical properties, they’re very difficult to refine, which makes them relatively expensive. Most are produced in communist China, which has a big advantage in   having far laxer environmental controls than in Western countries.

[eisfeld]

2 hours ago, xtrnuno41 said:

Not long ago in AN you saw Toyota is setting in on H2 combustible engines. They developed such an engine.

That was fake news by some clickbait Youtube channel. Toyota is going all-in on battery EV and moving away from their Hydrogen focus even going so far as to sack their CEO because he championed it.

 

  

2 hours ago, xtrnuno41 said:

What about vibrations, sound of turbines? What effect on nature?

Killer whales at Portugal started attacking boats, they dont know why.

I suggest consuming less crackpot theory content. Sorry to be so blunt.

Edited August 8, 2023 by eisfeld

[eisfeld]

56 minutes ago, sirineou said:

A) Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, accounting for about 75 percent of its normal matter Where Lithium, nickel and cobalt and other rare earths nessacery for the production of EV batteries are as the term implies rare  

Rare Earth Minerals can be a misleading term. Yes they are comparatively rare but if you still have more than enough to build all the batteries you'd want then what's the point? Neither does it matter if Hydrogen was 10% or 50% or 99% of all matter. Forgive the pun. The only point is that there is enough for what you want to achieve.

 

58 minutes ago, sirineou said:

b) Gasoline has a higher explosive potential Explosion occurs with gasoline at much lower concentrations, 1.1- 3.3%.where Hydrogen can be explosive at concentrations of 18.3- 59%. In addition the storage containers for hydrogen in cars are much more safe than tin fuel tanks. Many companies are working on  Solid-State Hydrogen storage,

"Fortunately, hydrogen cars are among the safest vehicles on the road "

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/get-in-an-accident-car/8557439/#:~:text=Fortunately%2C hydrogen cars are among,a solid five-star rating.

Natural gas which many of you don't have a problem with converting your car to run with, is explosive at a 5- 15% concentrations

What does the concentration at which something will be explosive matter when you start with tanks that contain this thing at close to 100%? It's a completely moot point. I suggest you whitness a gasoline explosion and then a hydrogen explosion. In the german language Hydrogen has a second name: Knallgas which means literally Bang Gas. I have no problems casually opening my gasoline tank on my motorbike that sits between my legs and letting more gasoline freely drip into it all the while a blistering hot metal block sits just below it. I would never try that with a hydrogen tank.

 

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

C) A hydrogen fuel cell recharges 3-5 minutes as opposed to Hours for EVs. and has an unlimited range similar to ICE vehicles.

Modern battery EVs don't take hours to charge anymore. Let's not ignore all the advancements we had in recent times. We are now at about 20min to 80% and going towards 10min and no reason to believe that that is a hard ceiling.

 

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

So IMO, and  supported by the above facts , there is a reason why Toyota is betting as much as it is on Hydrogen. When it comes to cars I think we can all agree they are not dummies, and have an idea what is coming in the pipeline.

But they are not. They are betting on battery EVs after their Hydrogen efforts went nowhere.

 

 

I don't want to paint Hydrogen based vehicles as a bad technology. They have their uses. Buses or trucks are pretty decent example. Industrial applications too. But not for the everyday personal car.

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Toyota's long time chairman had to fall on his sword recently because he didn't want to believe EV's would take off and so kept Toyota out that sector, the board fired him.

Toyota is now firmly behind both Hydrogen AND EV's.

 

I think Toyota are out on their own believing Hydrogen is the future.

 

I could argue H2 is a superior solution, but it's too late, BEV's have already won.

 

Incidentally, the Toyota Mirai is a horrible car, only big enough for 2 adults and 2/3 children, it has 3 hydrogen tanks.

I Think rumors of the death of Hydrogen cell is highly exaggerated LOL 

EVs are wonderful but we have a rare earths supply problem with only 14% of the world vehicles being EVs, Can You imagine the problem if that number is increased by 84%? In addition many of those rare earths are concentrated in particular areas with competing strategic  interests. 34% in China. where only 14% in the US, In a bipolar world this might become a problem. Where Hydrogen is everywhere. 

Toyota has some good news on EV batteries but there are scalability issues with production projected for five years from now , in the meantime, Despite the increasing popularity of electric vehicles," Toyota remains committed to hydrogen fuel cell technology".

https://www.torquenews.com/1/toyota-ceo-confirms-focus-hydrogen-despite-increasing-electrification-efforts#:~:text=Toyota's Focus on Hydrogen,to hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Why? Because they see the problems associated with EV battery technologies and supply chain instability.   

Now , I don"t have a crystal bowl, who knows they can come up with a EV battery who does not depend on rare earths, charges quickly and has good  range. I know Tesla is working on permanent magnet batteries that do not use rare earth metals.  Anything is possible,  But as it stands now with the information we have at this time I am betting on Hydrogen.  

 

Rare earth metals play a big part in many technologies and not only in batteries, China by some estimates controls 36.7%, Rusia 10% ,Brasil 18.3 and India 5.8% for a total between them of  70.8% of the worlds production. 

What is noteworthy about the above list?

They are all BRICS countries.  In a Bipolar world this countries are moving closer to China. with another 40 countries wanting to join so far .

Trust me when I tell you, things are about to get very interesting.with hydrogen to play a very important role. I mean think about it, we are swimming in an element that has approximately 120 megajoules per kilogram energy density where gasoline,  has an energy density of 45.8 MJ/kg. Its , The problem so far is that hydrogen attaches to oxygen , and there is no distribution infustracture. But as I said with renewables coming more and more into play it's extraction is becoming more and more economically and environmental feasible ................ 

 

 

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Rare Earth Minerals can be a misleading term. Yes they are comparatively rare but if you still have more than enough to build all the batteries you'd want then what's the point?

Yes but the "at this point is 14% of the worlds vehicles being EVs that still leave a 84% problem. 

And rare earth minerals are not only used in EV batteries they are an important part of many technologies. 

In addition  70.8% of these rare earth minerals are controlled by BRICS countries , a coalition that is lead by China,. The implications of this I let you decide. 

[sirineou]

59 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Lithium, nickel and cobalt are not rare earths. Rare earths are not especially rare, but since they comprise 17 different elements with very similar chemical properties, they’re very difficult to refine, which makes them relatively expensive. Most are produced in communist China, which has a big advantage in   having far laxer environmental controls than in Western countries.

70.8% of rare earth metals are controlled by BRICS countries , a coalition  led by China. ..........

anyway I have two more replies , with a lot of information as it pertains to the EV battery  vs  Hydrogen fuel cell , no disrespect intended by I dont have the time to argue each point, 

I happen to think for the reasons I stated , Hydrogen fuel cell makes much more sense that EV batteries. Both economic and strategic. 

[JBChiangRai]

Many people think H2 is a better solution than Battery.

 

But I think it is too late now, BEV has already won.

 

Incidentally, there is ample Lithium, we need to scale up battery production.

[Artisi]

On 8/6/2023 at 2:00 PM, JBChiangRai said:

You’re missing a couple of important points. Hydrogen is still highly inflammable and explosive, whether it is used for fuel or buoyancy.

 

Secondly, how are you going to produce the hydrogen? With the same dirty fossil technology that is currently used to charge EV’s.

 

Market forces will determine which one is going to be successful, and right now, it does not look like hydrogen.  It very much looks like EV.

So is compressed LPG, but many vehicles seem to run successfully on it. 

[JBChiangRai]

4 minutes ago, Artisi said:

So is compressed LPG, but many vehicles seem to run successfully on it. 

Indeed, I have had 2 petrol and 1 diesel car converted to LPG in Thailand

[xtrnuno41]

44 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

That was fake news by some clickbait Youtube channel. Toyota is going all-in on battery EV and moving away from their Hydrogen focus even going so far as to sack their CEO because he championed it.

 

  

I suggest consuming less crackpot theory content. Sorry to be so blunt.

Clickbait? https://www.yamaha-motor.eu/cy/en/news/tapping-the-potential-within-100--hydrogen-powered-engines/

You see Yamaha did it for Toyota.

 

Everything that turns makes sound and vibrations. Maybe you arent bothered with it, as you dont notice, but other species do.

Im not saying im right, but it is not even investigated. There are now rounded up 3500 of them in the North Sea and increasing.

But it is already a know fact, lots is kept away from public.

 

You remember we once used lead in petrol? Just one man made it clear, it was not good for our brains and it changed.

You remember the explosion of the Challenger, red once a guy was over ruled as he said an O-ring wasnt the right one. We know the outcome.

 

[Stevemercer]

Yes, use nuclear power stations to desalinate sea water (producing fresh water which is needed by most countries), generate electricity and produce hydrogen through hydrolysis. Waste heat and steam can also be used for heating and supply to industry.

 

Four useful streams from the one power plant without generating carbon dioxide.

[JBChiangRai]

17 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

Clickbait? https://www.yamaha-motor.eu/cy/en/news/tapping-the-potential-within-100--hydrogen-powered-engines/

You see Yamaha did it for Toyota.

 

Everything that turns makes sound and vibrations. Maybe you arent bothered with it, as you dont notice, but other species do.

Im not saying im right, but it is not even investigated. There are now rounded up 3500 of them in the North Sea and increasing.

But it is already a know fact, lots is kept away from public.

 

You remember we once used lead in petrol? Just one man made it clear, it was not good for our brains and it changed.

You remember the explosion of the Challenger, red once a guy was over ruled as he said an O-ring wasnt the right one. We know the outcome.

 

Converting a petrol car to hydrogen can’t be much more difficult than converting it to LPG or CNG. Every Somchai in Thailand can do it.

 

But why would you want to?

 

EV’s are already the optimum solution with battery technology tipped to improve exponentially.

[eisfeld]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

Yes but the "at this point is 14% of the worlds vehicles being EVs that still leave a 84% problem. 

And rare earth minerals are not only used in EV batteries they are an important part of many technologies. 

In addition  70.8% of these rare earth minerals are controlled by BRICS countries , a coalition that is lead by China,. The implications of this I let you decide. 

You can't draw any conclusions out of those numbers. It doesn't matter if 70% is situated in BRICS countries if the other 30% is enough to cover demand. And yes if there is a shortage at the moment in time for some materials which means that mining and production are lacking, not that there isn't enough raw materials. Show me that the amount of reasonably minable matter is not enough to cover future EV needs and I'll listen because that would be the number that matters. It's just a matter of supply and demand. We can ramp up supply. Let's take Lithium for example. There's enough of that stuff in the oceans alone that we could build ten cars for every person on earth out of 100% lithium including frame, engine etc. Is that a reasonable number to take into account? No. And so is the distribution of the material amongst countries alone.

[eisfeld]

50 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

Clickbait? https://www.yamaha-motor.eu/cy/en/news/tapping-the-potential-within-100--hydrogen-powered-engines/

You see Yamaha did it for Toyota.

The clickbait I referred to was a news topic posted on AN that showed a Youtube video which claimed Toyota will revolutionaize the car industry with their amazing Hydrogen cumbustion engine and that it will kill the battery EV industry. It was complete BS.

 

Now in respect to the project with Yamaha. Pause a moment and think why Toyota would do such a project with Yamaha. Does Toyota need their expertise? What's Yamahas knowledge when it comes to Hydrogen combustion that Toyota does not have? Or maybe it's to have a project with shared costs that can be presented nicely for marketing. There is nothing interesting in what they did there. It's a show.

 

54 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

Everything that turns makes sound and vibrations. Maybe you arent bothered with it, as you dont notice, but other species do.

Im not saying im right, but it is not even investigated. There are now rounded up 3500 of them in the North Sea and increasing.

But it is already a know fact, lots is kept away from public.

The leaps you are taking are so vast... I'm sorry it's just too much. Wind turbine noise making Orcas attack boats? What about wales attacking boats in places where there are no wind turbines? What about the attacks happening before there were wind turbines? What about the actual noises from the boats themselves? Why does it not happen everywhere there are wind turbines? There's just too much wrong with this line of thinking. And the icing on the cake is the "it's not even being investigated" plus "lots is kept away from public" conspiracy nonsense. I call out BS when I see it.

[Muhendis]

Somebody made the comparison between VHS and Betamax. This was to emphasise the race between BEV and HEV.

 

Let us not forget neither video recorder system is now in use. It was superceded by the CD.

 

Perhaps tomorrow we will all be driving around in CD RW machines.

[willr]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:12 AM, JBChiangRai said:

Ah a FOOL cell, Hydrogen, there was a vehicle that ran on hydrogen, it was an airship, I think it was called the Hindenburg.

 

What could possibly go wrong.

That would be helium not hydrogen.

[xtrnuno41]

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

The clickbait I referred to was a news topic posted on AN that showed a Youtube video which claimed Toyota will revolutionaize the car industry with their amazing Hydrogen cumbustion engine and that it will kill the battery EV industry. It was complete BS.

 

Now in respect to the project with Yamaha. Pause a moment and think why Toyota would do such a project with Yamaha. Does Toyota need their expertise? What's Yamahas knowledge when it comes to Hydrogen combustion that Toyota does not have? Or maybe it's to have a project with shared costs that can be presented nicely for marketing. There is nothing interesting in what they did there. It's a show.

 

The leaps you are taking are so vast... I'm sorry it's just too much. Wind turbine noise making Orcas attack boats? What about wales attacking boats in places where there are no wind turbines? What about the attacks happening before there were wind turbines? What about the actual noises from the boats themselves? Why does it not happen everywhere there are wind turbines? There's just too much wrong with this line of thinking. And the icing on the cake is the "it's not even being investigated" plus "lots is kept away from public" conspiracy nonsense. I call out BS when I see it.

Im sorry , i do upset you.

The Yamaha link shows the story on how what where when.

I cant make it different. 

I wasnt there when Toyota and Yamaha made some deal.

There are even mentioned other companies, also in deal?

Thats it, nothing more.

And yes it could change the stupid electric cars world.

 

With the orca's, at first there were no attacks. 

But they started and started after putting turbines in sea.

The scientists are baffled as they never had these situations before.

I can only notice, first nothing and later trouble and all what has changed are turbines in the sea. Yes im aware there are lots of motorized boats passing the sea.

So logically thinking, could turbines in sea effect the orca's?

 

You seem to have great expectations of all kinds of leaders in this messed up world.

You can. I dont anymore. We differ. 

You like to shout out and im still calm. Have a nice evening. 

[eisfeld]

35 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

Im sorry , i do upset you.

The Yamaha link shows the story on how what where when.

I cant make it different. 

I wasnt there when Toyota and Yamaha made some deal.

There are even mentioned other companies, also in deal?

Thats it, nothing more.

And yes it could change the stupid electric cars world.

Good that you are sorry, BS indeed upsets ????

 

You do realize the V8 prototype they built was mostly a marketing exercise right? There is nothing in that engine that hasn't been done before in one way or another. And the other companies only have agreed to discuss the future of carbon free fuels. That's it. Why you think that would change the "stupid" electric cars world is unclear. As mentioned before, Hydrogen has some usecases. But it wont win over battery EVs. That would be delusional.

 

40 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

With the orca's, at first there were no attacks. 

But they started and started after putting turbines in sea.

The scientists are baffled as they never had these situations before.

I can only notice, first nothing and later trouble and all what has changed are turbines in the sea. Yes im aware there are lots of motorized boats passing the sea.

So logically thinking, could turbines in sea effect the orca's?

It's simply not true that there haven't been orca attacks before. There also have been wind turbines long before Orcas attacked in some areas. So please don't make things up.  And please stop derailing the topic. This has nothing to do with Hydrogen powered vehicles.

 

42 minutes ago, xtrnuno41 said:

You seem to have great expectations of all kinds of leaders in this messed up world.

You can. I dont anymore. We differ. 

You like to shout out and im still calm. Have a nice evening.

No idea why you think that I have great expectations of "all kinds of leaders". Where does that thought suddenly come from and what does it have to do with anything in this topic? I'm perplexed about the line of reason which jumps from one thing to another totally unrelated thing. But I do wish you a nice evening as well ????

[SiSePuede419]

#jeremyclarkson #thinks #britishcars #arereliable 

#blimey ????

[JBChiangRai]

7 hours ago, willr said:

That would be helium not hydrogen.

Sorry, but the Hindenburg airship was buoyed by Hydrogen.

 

Helium is largely inert and wouldn't have burned.

[sirineou]

11 hours ago, eisfeld said:

It doesn't matter if 70% is situated in BRICS countries if the other 30% is enough to cover demand.

Bu that is a big "If"  since we are having issues now that EVs only comprise 14% of the world cars. and there are no overt conflict between the Westerns and BRICS pacts. But It sounds reasonable to me that Unless the west secures additional sources, as EV production increases so will the demand, and if we are having issues now, those issues will increase along with the demand, ad to that  any difficulties in sourcing and I think you can see why Hydrogen might be a better alternative. 

   But putting aside all of the above, and assuming they will not provide any difficulties , we also have the fact that Hydrogen (EV because a hydrogen fuel cell car is really an EV with a different kind of battery. ) fuel cell has many advantages over conventional EV batteries. 

 1) is speed of recharging , comparable if not faster to ICE vehicles, (You dot really charge, you simply change the catalyst. 

2) it eliminates range anxiety 

3) and the biggest reason is that it is the most abundant element in the Universe. The elements needed   to produce conventional EV batteries even is adequate for current and near future production are finite, they will one day run out or become in sort supply, Where Hydrogen will never run out .

At,least not before we run out LOL.

4) Conventional EV batteries need to recharge using the current electricity distribution grid, which I am sure we can all agree that it is currently

inadequate.  This is both a disadvantage and an advantage because, thought the distribution grid might be inadequate, not the less it exists , where a hydrogen distribution is almost non existent.  

Anyway the best technologies do not alway prevail, we all know that , so it would be interesting to se how this plays out. IMO convectional EV batteries is  stopgap option until Hydrogen production and distribution becomes a viable reality.

[JBChiangRai]

30 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Bu that is a big "If"  since we are having issues now that EVs only comprise 14% of the world cars. and there are no overt conflict between the Westerns and BRICS pacts. But It sounds reasonable to me that Unless the west secures additional sources, as EV production increases so will the demand, and if we are having issues now, those issues will increase along with the demand, ad to that  any difficulties in sourcing and I think you can see why Hydrogen might be a better alternative. 

   But putting aside all of the above, and assuming they will not provide any difficulties , we also have the fact that Hydrogen (EV because a hydrogen fuel cell car is really an EV with a different kind of battery. ) fuel cell has many advantages over conventional EV batteries. 

 1) is speed of recharging , comparable if not faster to ICE vehicles, (You dot really charge, you simply change the catalyst. 

2) it eliminates range anxiety 

3) and the biggest reason is that it is the most abundant element in the Universe. The elements needed   to produce conventional EV batteries even is adequate for current and near future production are finite, they will one day run out or become in sort supply, Where Hydrogen will never run out .

At,least not before we run out LOL.

4) Conventional EV batteries need to recharge using the current electricity distribution grid, which I am sure we can all agree that it is currently

inadequate.  This is both a disadvantage and an advantage because, thought the distribution grid might be inadequate, not the less it exists , where a hydrogen distribution is almost non existent.  

Anyway the best technologies do not alway prevail, we all know that , so it would be interesting to se how this plays out. IMO convectional EV batteries is  stopgap option until Hydrogen production and distribution becomes a viable reality.

I don't doubt that starting with a clean sheet of paper, Hydrogen can be argued to be a better solution than Batteries...Today.

 

However, battery tech is going to improve, maybe Sodium-ION batteries will win the day, less energy dense than LFP but still workable and Sodium is abundant.  One car already with these batteries.

 

Your point 4 about the grid, equally applies to electrolysis of Hydrogen.  EV'ers have got used to charging at home, I don't want to waste time going to a fuel station ever again, and whilst there is already one product for making hydrogen at home for your fuel cell car, it is prohibitively expensive and we still then have the same power grid issues.

 

Hydrogen has it's own problems, not least being distribution and for me the major issue is it is too late.  BEV has already won this race.  If we struggle to make enough batteries then supply & demand will kick in, BEV cars will become expensive and there will be less cars on the road, governments will be happy, but I think any supply issues will be transient.

 

China is already starting to dominate the BEV market.  Their cars are high quality, drive well and are typically 2/3 the cost of everyone else.  Just today I read that Germany recognises it's BEV cars are currently too expensive to make for it to compete.

[sirineou]

48 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

However, battery tech is going to improve, maybe Sodium-ION batteries will win the day, less energy dense than LFP but still workable and Sodium is abundant.  One car already with these batteries.

As I also said , 

in my conclusion " Anyway the best technologies do not alway prevail, we all know that  "

But to the above point you made, the same applies to Hydrogen technology .

 

51 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Your point 4 about the grid, equally applies to electrolysis of Hydrogen.

Not equally, because Hydrogen can be produced at the point of convenience. 

53 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Hydrogen has it's own problems, not least being distribution and for me the major issue is it is too late. 

I also mentioned the distribution problem, but EV charging stations  had and have an availability issues and to the some degree the issues is being overcome there is no reason why Hydrogen distribution could not be overcome in the same way

 

56 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

for me the major issue is it is too late

You might be right, but that remains to be seen . There was time that it was too late of EVs with the dominance of ICE and we all know what is happening with that.

58 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

China is already starting to dominate the BEV market.

I agree, but that also might become the problem for EVs if or when there is conflict In a bipolar world.

With NATO expansions and the  attempt from the US to limit China's development as an equal superpower with it's own monroe doctrine, a conflict is inevitable IMO and then nessacery resources belonging to one sphere of influence will become a problem for the other .Hydrogen removes that problem. 

I am sure that what I say has been considered by all involved in greater detail than I have , and perhaps they know something I don't know . 

In fact I am sure they know a lot I don't know, so we will see.  But as it stands now from what I know Hydrogen is IMO inevitable. 

As you said  " However, battery tech is going to improve," well it has! Hydrogen Fuel Cell is an improved battery . After all what is a battery? 

[eisfeld]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

Bu that is a big "If"  since we are having issues now that EVs only comprise 14% of the world cars. and there are no overt conflict between the Westerns and BRICS pacts. But It sounds reasonable to me that Unless the west secures additional sources, as EV production increases so will the demand, and if we are having issues now, those issues will increase along with the demand, ad to that  any difficulties in sourcing and I think you can see why Hydrogen might be a better alternative.

The problem is that I haven't seen so far a good argument why we will have trouble producing the required amount of batteries. That BRICS countries have more raw materials than others is not sufficient. Neither is not having enough mining and refinement at the moment. If the west does not ramp up their own supplies in time and relies on hostile countries like they did already multiple times then that's an artificial problem of their own making.

 

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

1) is speed of recharging , comparable if not faster to ICE vehicles, (You dot really charge, you simply change the catalyst. 

Of course you don't change the catalyst. By definition a catalyst does not change in a chemical reaction. You change the fuel. Charging times have come down immensely. We are not talking about hours anymore. This was mentioned multiple times in this very thread btw.

 

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

2) it eliminates range anxiety

We are seeing battery EVs with over 1000km range. No range anxiety there.

 

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

3) and the biggest reason is that it is the most abundant element in the Universe. The elements needed   to produce conventional EV batteries even is adequate for current and near future production are finite, they will one day run out or become in sort supply, Where Hydrogen will never run out .

I will believe that if I see proper numbers for this claim. Which elements will we run out of? How much of it is available and how much is required? And why can't it be replaced with similar elements? We've seen so many different battery chemistries that I can't count them anymore.

 

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

4) Conventional EV batteries need to recharge using the current electricity distribution grid, which I am sure we can all agree that it is currently

inadequate.  This is both a disadvantage and an advantage because, thought the distribution grid might be inadequate, not the less it exists , where a hydrogen distribution is almost non existent.  

It's neither difficult to upgrade parts of the grid if needed nor do we have a hydrogen distribution grid. I think people vastly overstate the need for changes in the grid. Of course we have to do a little bit something to help with a massive transition in our transportation system. The benefits so crassly outweigh the effort needed that it's comical.

 

 

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

Anyway the best technologies do not alway prevail, we all know that , so it would be interesting to se how this plays out. IMO convectional EV batteries is  stopgap option until Hydrogen production and distribution becomes a viable reality.

Why has it not become a reality? Hydrogen be it fuel-cells or combustion has had the first mover advantage. It's been there for decades and hasn't gone anywhere apart from very limited adoption in Japan. From a technological point of view Hydrogen combustion would be the easiest transition. The engines are nearly the same as our petrol powered ones and the fuel distribution is similar as well. Production of Hydrogen is super simple as well. Why has it not happened?

[sirineou]

47 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

The problem is that I haven't seen so far a good argument why we will have trouble producing the required amount of batteries.

If the cows you have. eat one ton of straw(or what ever cows eat lol) but there is a shortage of cow food, do you think if you got more cows ,your cow food shortage will get better or worst?

After that you screw the cow  suppliers wife, and he finds out do you think he be happy and give you more cow food or do you think he be pissed and tell you..........

Is that a good argument?

Anyway , I believe you are beating a dead horse at this point.

 

[eisfeld]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

If the cows you have. eat one ton of straw(or what ever cows eat lol) but there is a shortage of cow food, do you think if you got more cows ,your cow food shortage will get better or worst?

After that you screw the cow  suppliers wife, and he finds out do you think he be happy and give you more cow food or do you think he be pissed and tell you..........

Is that a good argument?

Anyway , I believe you are beating a dead horse at this point.

 

On the risk of beating a dead cow: If there is a shortage of cow food then what has to be done is ramp up the production of cow food. But the claims are that there is not enough raw cow food elements without backing it up. The difference is between production of something we can control and raw number of elements which we can't (yet) control.

 

About the thing about screwing the cow suppliers wife... I am not sure how this analogy relates to the Hydrogen vehicles. Who is the cow supplier on that side and who is screwing them how?

 

I believe cows prefer fresh grass ????

[Lacessit]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:32 PM, JBChiangRai said:

Just hook those pipelines up to the Anti-EV’ers here, lots of gas and hot air here.

Seems to me most is coming from the EV fanboys. Quite odd, seeing they pride themselves on the absence of emissions from their vehicles.

[sirineou]

10 hours ago, eisfeld said:

If there is a shortage of cow food then what has to be done is ramp up the production of cow food.

I an afraid you only paid for the 5 minute argument , if you want to continue you have to buy the full argument package,

Quote

what has to be done is ramp up the production

Yes indeed , why are there any shortages when all we have to do is increase production? Brilliant suggestion I will bring it up at the next G7 meeting. .

But then we will have to change the name from "rare earths" to  Abundant , 

not easy to do , its already in all the publications,

But Maybe we can do like Prince did when he changed his name from Prince to "to the artist formerly known as Prince" . Yea I like the sound of that Abundant Earths formerly knows as Rare, it has a good sound to it. 

Quote

I am not sure how this analogy relates to the Hydrogen vehicles.

    

Who holds most of the supply? If you desire more supply , I am  afraid the supplier might , want something in exchange, don't you think? Among other things the supplier might want you to stop screwing with him and his. 

I know. highly unreasonable , but such  is the world. 

But we really don't have to use Hydrogen instead , there are other options. when I was young I used to make airplanes whose propeller was powered by wind-up rubber bands. Perhaps I will bring this up at the G7 meeting.

I am sure the invitation is in the mail. 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by sirineou

[eisfeld]

46 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I an afraid you only paid for the 5 minute argument , if you want to continue you have to buy the full argument package,

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue with Monty Python. That's for sure ????

 

46 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yes indeed , why are there any shortages when all we have to do is increase production? Brilliant suggestion I will bring it up at the next G7 meeting. .

But then we will have to change the name from "rare earths" to  Abundant , 

not easy to do , its already in all the publications,

Snark aside I'm not sure you understood my prior arguments. Rare is a relative term. It does not mean there is not enough because not being enough depends on how much you need. Come on, it's not complicated. Show me that we need X amount but we only can feasably obtain Y amount. With that you'd convince me in a second.

 

46 minutes ago, sirineou said:

But Maybe we can do like Prince did when he changed his name from Prince to "to the artist formerly known as Prince" . Yea I like the sound of that Abundant Earths formerly knows as Rare, it has a good sound to it. 

Again, hung up on a term but not backing with numbers.

 

46 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Who holds most of the supply? If you desire more supply , I am  afraid the supplier might , want something in exchange, don't you think? Among other things the supplier might want you to stop screwing with him and his. 

I know. highly unreasonable , but such  is the world. 

Again missed the point of my argument. There isn't just one supplier. And it doesn't matter if 90% of lithium would be in North Korea if all I need was 5%. Who has the most is irrelevant.

 

All that snark is trying to sound funny and smart. But it's lacking in substance.

 

Just wait before you discover that those same rare earth elements are used in the production of Hydrogen fuel cells ????

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by eisfeld