Bye bye Electric & Hello Hydrogen?

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

The single biggest barrier with Hydrogen is the cost to produce it.  Some people say it will become cheaper as technology improves, and whilst that is true, there are some scientific laws that cannot be broken leading to it never getting anything better than 3 times more expensive than running a BEV per kilometer.

 

CP are making a big noise about using chicken poop to make H2.  Firstly, it makes methane and they then crack that to make H2.  That uses a lot of energy and is problematic, often producing carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas or solid carbon which stops the reaction.  Secondly, it's not scalable.

 

The preferred way to produce H2 is by electrolysing water, this produce4s H2 and Oxygen (O2).  You need a specific amount of energy to break the bond between the two of them, you can't get more energy back by recreating the bond by reacting H2 in a fuel cell or burning it in an adapted ICE, producing water again in both cases.  So the efficiency level in doing this is always going to be poor.  There are losses in processing and delivering the H2 to cars.  Then if we have an ICE car adapted to H2.  We have probably taken the ICE as far as we can in terms of efficiency development as we are at around 40% for the best and most are around 25%.  A Fuel Cell is typically 40-60% efficient, let's suppose by some miracle we could improve that to 80%, that would still make a H2 Fuel Cell car cost twice as much to run as a BEV.  you can't argue with science.  The best we can ever achieve is twice the cost per kilometer for H2.

 

The next issue is Fuel Tax.  It's impractical to tax electricity for cars, it would be easy for governments to apply tax to Hydrogen, this would make the case for Hydrogen even worse.

 

The only scenario I can see people buying H2 cars is if the BEV's become super expensive.  It's likely to happen if @Lacessit is right about Lithium shortage in the future, but however you look at it, purchase cost being similar, the BEV is far more desirable because it's much cheaper to run.

Using methane to produce hydrogen is really going around in circles as far as global CO2 emissions are concerned. The production process has carbon monoxide as one of the results, which is nasty stuff to have around.

The main advantage of a hydrogen-fuelled car is carmakers can make them with their existing production lines, all they need as a bit of tweaking, like they do with LPG and CNG. It burns hotter than LPG, so hardened valves and seats would probably be needed.

There is no argument EV's are cheaper to run, and are environmentally friendly IF they are refueled using renewable energy. However, I really doubt there is enough of the raw materials needed for them to completely replace ICE's.

[KhunLA]

27 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I guess the future will tell. 

Hasn't progressed very far in the past 20 years.   In the movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car", it was being pushed as alternative to BEVs,   With countrywide (USA) promo tour,& car demo performing.   Arnold test driving (2004) H Hummer.

 

Screenshot from that movie, 2006, and yep... Toyota was pushing Hydro, even back then.   Almost 20 yrs of progress since and ...  

 

Hard to believe ignorant people believe anything the fossil fuel conglomerates are pushing is to benefit anything except their profits.

Edited February 20 by KhunLA

[JBChiangRai]

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

There is no argument EV's are cheaper to run, and are environmentally friendly IF they are refueled using renewable energy. However, I really doubt there is enough of the raw materials needed for them to completely replace ICE's.

 

 

Whilst what you say is true, we can expand on it.

 

Saying BEV's are environmentally friendly if they are refueled using renewable energy is true, however the same can be said about producing H2 for H2 cars.

 

If you use coal fired power stations to produce H2 then the H2 cars are not environmentally friendly either, it's 3 times worse.

 

The argument for H2 being environmentally friendly is true if you use renewables (solar, wind, hydro) to produce H2.  

 

However, here is the inconvenient fact.....  If you used that renewably produced energy and put it into the power grid instead, it would fuel 3 times more BEV's than H2 cars.

[sirineou]

31 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Hasn't progressed very far in the past 20 years.   In the movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car", it was being pushed as alternative to BEVs,   With countrywide (USA) promo tour,& car demo performing.   Arnold test driving (2004) H Hummer.

 

Screenshot from that movie, 2006, and yep... Toyota was pushing Hydro, even back then.   Almost 20 yrs of progress since and ...  

 

Hard to believe ignorant people believe anything the fossil fuel conglomerates are pushing is to benefit anything except their profits.

Path of least resistance.

Right now the path of least resistance in conventional battery EVs . 

I am not against EVs if my car was not relatively ne, I would be owning one. 

And it is good to notice that, aside the language both conventional and Hydrogen are batteries. 

What if you had a battery that would secure 100,000 cycles?  would you be for it? 

The only impediment to this is the production and distribution ag Hydrogen. In a culture where we are talking about going to Mars , do you think that we don't have the capacity to efficiently and Economic produce Hydrogen?  It is only a matter of time.  

People talk about the cost of Hydrogen batteries  per kw as compared to conventional batteries but they fait lo consider that as scale of economies has helped bring the cost of conventional batteries down, so it will with Hydrogen batteries. ,

[Lacessit]

32 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Whilst what you say is true, we can expand on it.

 

Saying BEV's are environmentally friendly if they are refueled using renewable energy is true, however the same can be said about producing H2 for H2 cars.

 

If you use coal fired power stations to produce H2 then the H2 cars are not environmentally friendly either, it's 3 times worse.

 

The argument for H2 being environmentally friendly is true if you use renewables (solar, wind, hydro) to produce H2.  

 

However, here is the inconvenient fact.....  If you used that renewably produced energy and put it into the power grid instead, it would fuel 3 times more BEV's than H2 cars.

I agree. But where are you getting the X3 BEV's from?

 

The reading I am doing is saying at best, only 20-30% of ICE's can be replaced by BEV's. There just aren't enough raw materials. If you have contrary information, please post it.

 

AFAIK coal-fired power stations are not purpose-built to produce hydrogen. Cracking methane is an entirely different process. You may be referring to producer gas, which uses coal, and is a fairly lethal mix.

 

If you are referring to using the electricity generated by a fossil fuel station to electrolyze water, that would be as big a farce as carbon capture and storage.

[KhunLA]

8 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What if you had a battery that would secure 100,000 cycles?  would you be for it? 

That would be impractical, unless it was universally removeable, and able to put in another vehicle, universally, and not just the same make car.   

 

BEV batteries will probably outlast the rest of the car (aside from motors), for most people's driving habits.  But can be repurposed to solar systems. Not many people put 500k-1M kms on a car, or want to keep one that long, whether it lasts or not.  

 

On the low end, that's 25 years for my wife, and she's 47.  So unless she gets bored of it, that's probably her last car.   No way she'll be racking up 20k kms a year after I crap out.  Lucky if she'll put 10k kms on a year.

[JBChiangRai]

27 minutes ago, sirineou said:

In a culture where we are talking about going to Mars , do you think that we don't have the capacity to efficiently and Economic produce Hydrogen?  It is only a matter of time.  

 

 

It's impossible to get more energy from recombining H₂ & O₂ than you put in cracking 2H₂0 into 2H₂ & O₂  

 

So you can never make it as economic as a BEV, best case is probably half the efficiency allowing for the process of compressing & distributing it and the inefficiencies of the Fuel Cell.

 

22 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I agree. But where are you getting the X3 BEV's from?

 

The reading I am doing is saying at best, only 20-30% of ICE's can be replaced by BEV's. There just aren't enough raw materials. If you have contrary information, please post it.

 

AFAIK coal-fired power stations are not purpose-built to produce hydrogen. Cracking methane is an entirely different process. You may be referring to producer gas, which uses coal, and is a fairly lethal mix.

 

If you are referring to using the electricity generated by a fossil fuel station to electrolyze water, that would be as big a farce as carbon capture and storage.

 

I was talking about electrolysing water with energy from a coal fired fuel station.  I agree it would be idiotic. But then I think cracking methane is only slightly less idiotic.

 

You could be right about there not being enough raw materials.  That will lead to expensive BEV's and cheaper H2 cars.  Which you buy will be down to either what you can afford or based on your usage pattern, which has the lowest total cost of ownership.  I think China & Tesla have prioritised their supply of Lithium and there's insufficient left for legacy automakers and companies like Toyota are stuck in a tunnel that has a rock wall at the end of it.  Toyota are buying their BEV batteries from BYD, that doesn't bode well for them in the future.  Mercedes also, but at least they have a niche premium product.

 

If we had H2 cars today and abundant fuel stations, I would still go for the BEV unless the H2 car was a lot cheaper to buy to make up for the increased fueling cost.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

That would be impractical,

You make a good point, but...

LOL there is always a but. 

 I would rather have more cycles available to me than not, then I would not have to engage in all sort of acrobatics to extend the life of the battery,

 I would rather have unlimited range such as ICE vehicles, than less. and I would rather wait only five minutes to recharge than 30 minutes , and I think most people would. 

For that and many other reasons that I have stated earlier, I believe Hydrogen fuel cell batteries are the future. 

But who knows? there are many examples where in the past , the best option did not prevail.  

Case and point  VHS vs Beta. Beta was smaller . held the same amount of data, and produced  a better product. Yet VHS prevailed because of better marketing. 

So who can tell?

 

 

[RayWright]

Toyota have made a couple of interesting announcements in the last 2 months over their Water Fueled and Ammonia Fueled engines as alternatives to Hydrogen or petrol engines or EV propulsion systems. 

Remember back in 1976 spent 3 days at the Patents Office in London researching Solar Energy as part of my Diploma, however after a day got bored and spent the remaining time looking into the various Water based engine designs that had been patented. Turns out all were 'owned' by the common known household branded petroleum companies. Hence why their exposure was curtailed. 

Could Water be the future? 

 

[JBChiangRai]

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You make a good point, but...

LOL there is always a but. 

 I would rather have more cycles available to me than not, then I would not have to engage in all sort of acrobatics to extend the life of the battery,

 I would rather have unlimited range such as ICE vehicles, than less. and I would rather wait only five minutes to recharge than 30 minutes , and I think most people would. 

For that and many other reasons that I have stated earlier, I believe Hydrogen fuel cell batteries are the future. 

But who knows? there are many examples where in the past , the best option did not prevail.  

Case and point  VHS vs Beta. Beta was smaller . held the same amount of data, and produced  a better product. Yet VHS prevailed because of better marketing. 

So who can tell?

 

 

 

I think a lot of that is coming.  Batteries will go solid state, they will charge in 5-10 minutes, they will have a lot more cycles.

 

What effect do you think the H₂ Fuel Cell car costing (let's be optimistic) 3 times more per km will have on demand?

 

Let's assume the average distance driven per year is 10,000km.  The H₂ car is going to cost between 20,000 and 40,000 baht more per year to fuel (3-5 times less efficient).

 

If Toyota made a Mirai in both BEV and H₂ Fuel Cell form, how much cheaper would the H₂ car have to be at purchase time?

 

Worst case scenario, they tax H₂ with road fuel tax, it's now 7 times more expensive per km, and that annual figure goes up to 60,000 baht per year.  On a 5 year ownership model, the H₂ car needs to be 300,000 baht cheaper than the BEV version.

 

Realistically, I think H₂ cars probably needs to be 150-200,000 baht cheaper than their BEV equivalents and I think that is coming.

[bunnydrops]

I would have loved to read a forum like this back when we were moving from horse and buggy to the motorcar.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think a lot of that is coming.  Batteries will go solid state, they will charge in 5-10 minutes, they will have a lot more cycles.

This might well be true , as it will also be true for hydrogen   . But that will not change all the other parameters that make hydrogen a better option.

 

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

What effect do you think the H₂ Fuel Cell car costing (let's be optimistic) 3 times more per km will have on demand?

As economies of scale have reduced the cost of conventional EV batteries so would reduce the cost of Hydrogen fuel cell Materials. 

6 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

If Toyota made a Mirai in both BEV and H₂ Fuel Cell form, how much cheaper would the H₂ car have to be at purchase time?

At this point. I agree that conventional EV batteries are the best option right now, but I advance the proposition that this will not always be the case, 

7 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Realistically, I think H₂ cars probably needs to be 150-200,000 baht cheaper than their BEV equivalents and I think that is coming.

And the same factors that reduced the cost of conventional EV batteries will play out for Hydrogen Fuel Cell batteries.   

[Digitalbanana]

18 hours ago, Crossy said:

Where will the hydrogen come from?

70% of the universe is made of it 🙂

[KhunLA]

37 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You make a good point, but...

LOL there is always a but. 

 I would rather have more cycles available to me than not, then I would not have to engage in all sort of acrobatics to extend the life of the battery,

 I would rather have unlimited range such as ICE vehicles, than less. and I would rather wait only five minutes to recharge than 30 minutes , and I think most people would. 

For that and many other reasons that I have stated earlier, I believe Hydrogen fuel cell batteries are the future. 

But who knows? there are many examples where in the past , the best option did not prevail.  

Case and point  VHS vs Beta. Beta was smaller . held the same amount of data, and produced  a better product. Yet VHS prevailed because of better marketing. 

So who can tell?

Why would you pay extra, assuming something that last 100 yrs instead of 25,when after 25 yrs, its not longer usable.

 

You're at the doc, he gives you a choice of pacemaker, at 75 yrs old.   You can have pacemaker A, proved to last 25+ years, or pacemaker B, known to last 50+ year, but one cast 2x as much.   Which do you chose ?

 

OR ... if all things being equal, you pull into your carport, pug in your BEV, takes all of 15-20 seconds, and unplug when topped up or simply ready to leave, another 15-20 seconds.  That vs making a stop at hydro station, Q'ing, waiting for staff then paying, still takes 5-10 minutes, same as petrol.   Whether station is along your daily or weekly routes, (not for us, as a special trip needed, due to U-turns), it would still be less desirable to have hydrogen.   

 

Only advantage when O&A, which most don't do regularly.   Total time in a year, BEV still less time spent topping up.  NOT seeing much of an advantage, and simply another fuel using too much energy to produce, transport, store and delivery to end customer.

[JBChiangRai]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

This might well be true , as it will also be true for hydrogen   . But that will not change all the other parameters that make hydrogen a better option.

 

As economies of scale have reduced the cost of conventional EV batteries so would reduce the cost of Hydrogen fuel cell Materials. 

At this point. I agree that conventional EV batteries are the best option right now, but I advance the proposition that this will not always be the case, 

And the same factors that reduced the cost of conventional EV batteries will play out for Hydrogen Fuel Cell batteries.   

 

I wasn't considering the cost of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell compared with the cost of a Storage Battery.  I have no idea of the difference in cost, but I do understand the cost per km of running them.

 

It could well be that you can make a Fuel Cell car for 200,000 baht less than the equivalent BEV car, in which case consumers will buy it if it's priced accordingly.

 

I agree Hydrogen is an elegant greener solution, it's just it's both impractical and expensive.

 

3 minutes ago, Digitalbanana said:

70% of the universe is made of it 🙂

 

 

True, but it's not accessible.  The best source of Hydrogen for us on planet Earth is water, and 4/5 of our land surface is covered by it.  It's just that the Hydrogen is bonded, very strongly to Oxygen and it's expensive to split it off, compress it, pump it into tankers and drive those tankers to fueling stations and pump it into tanks and then pump it again into cars.

[KhunLA]

16 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think a lot of that is coming.  Batteries will go solid state, they will charge in 5-10 minutes, they will have a lot more cycles.

 

What effect do you think the H₂ Fuel Cell car costing (let's be optimistic) 3 times more per km will have on demand?

 

Let's assume the average distance driven per year is 10,000km.  The H₂ car is going to cost between 20,000 and 40,000 baht more per year to fuel (3-5 times less efficient).

 

If Toyota made a Mirai in both BEV and H₂ Fuel Cell form, how much cheaper would the H₂ car have to be at purchase time?

 

Worst case scenario, they tax H₂ with road fuel tax, it's now 7 times more expensive per km, and that annual figure goes up to 60,000 baht per year.  On a 5 year ownership model, the H₂ car needs to be 300,000 baht cheaper than the BEV version.

 

Realistically, I think H₂ cars probably needs to be 150-200,000 baht cheaper than their BEV equivalents and I think that is coming.

Appears to have one close to mass production, maybe, in the coming future with impressive specs: 

 

 

[bunnydrops]

Two things I have seen talked about in the past. One already mentioned. EV service station where the battery is removed,  remaining power measured, and a charged battery inserted, you are charged the difference, plus a small replacement fee. You never own the battery. All done in less than 5 min. The second is all the advancements being made with capacitors. They could be put in the car roof, door panels, etc, instant charge, lighter than batteries

[vinny41]

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

The single biggest barrier with Hydrogen is the cost to produce it.  Some people say it will become cheaper as technology improves, and whilst that is true, there are some scientific laws that cannot be broken leading to it never getting anything better than 3 times more expensive than running a BEV per kilometer.

 

CP are making a big noise about using chicken poop to make H2.  Firstly, it makes methane and they then crack that to make H2.  That uses a lot of energy and is problematic, often producing carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas or solid carbon which stops the reaction.  Secondly, it's not scalable.

 

The preferred way to produce H2 is by electrolysing water, this produces H2 and Oxygen (O2).  You need a specific amount of energy to break the bond between the two of them, you can't get more energy back by recreating the bond by reacting H2 in a fuel cell or burning it in an adapted ICE, producing water again in both cases.  So the efficiency level in doing this is always going to be poor.  There are losses in processing and delivering the H2 to cars.  Then if we have an ICE car adapted to H2.  We have probably taken the ICE as far as we can in terms of efficiency development as we are at around 40% for the best and most are around 25%.  A Fuel Cell is typically 40-60% efficient, let's suppose by some miracle we could improve that to 80%, that would still make a H2 Fuel Cell car cost twice as much to run as a BEV.  you can't argue with science.  The best we can ever achieve is twice the cost per kilometer for H2.

 

The next issue is Fuel Tax.  It's impractical to tax electricity for cars, it would be easy for governments to apply tax to Hydrogen, this would make the case for Hydrogen even worse.

 

The only scenario I can see people buying H2 cars is if the BEV's become super expensive.  It's likely to happen if @Lacessit is right about Lithium shortage in the future, but however you look at it, purchase cost being similar, the BEV is far more desirable because it's much cheaper to run.

Regarding  Fuel Tax its more than likely that Fuel Tax will be applied to Charging stations as we know its unlikely that commercial vehicles will be BEV due to weight and range concerns

[VocalNeal]

bye-bye-electric-hello-hydrogen  ammonia. FTFY 

[eisfeld]

9 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Come on, Thailand can't even run the current grid properly.  Outages are common place - especially away from the capital.

 

Maybe a good reason then to finally upgrade the grid? They did it here and the only outages I've had in years was when they did the upgrades. But using this argument would you then rather see highly explosive hydrogen tanks rolling around when there is so little care taken? When there are so many accidents?

 

9 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

As an ex mechanic I've repaired many cars with engine damage incurred during a accident. Maybe not so many that have had a rock get into the engine bay but plenty that have gone off the road and damaged the sump and/or engine casings.  VW Golf Mk 5's and 6's used to break the casting where the engine mounted bolted on quite regularly in a front end shunt - new cylinder block, never done, car written off.

 

The insurance companies don't seem to agree with you currently either, have you checked out the premiums on EV's?

 

https://www.cityam.com/insuring-electric-vehicles-is-hugely-expensive-and-that-might-not-change-soon/

 

The above site (and plenty of others) also seem to disagree with your sentiment that EV batteries are unlikely to be damaged. I doubt that batteries will be immune to damage but it will not I accept, be common. However, the high replacement cost of them is already contributing to higher insurance costs.

 

I never said that batteries are immune to damage. Obviously nothing is. I just said that they wont be damaged because a rock hit them. You talk about accidents. Of course engines get broken during accidents. Cars are in fact designed so that the engine compartment acts as a crumble zone that takes the hit and deforms so it can absorb the energy of an impact and less is transfered to the passengers. Of course insurance is higher for more expensive cars. The site says 25% higher repair cost. Well EVs are also about this much more expensive than normal ICE cars. It's a new technology that is being deployed. Of course it costs more in the beginning. Prices for batteries are coming down fast as mass production ramps up and development makes them cheaper to produce. That there is only a 25% premium right now already is amazing.

[eisfeld]

9 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

I'd rather buy a car based on what the position is currently - not what it might be in the future.  The current cost of battery replacement is between $5000 and $20,000. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-battery-cost-replacement-repair-expenses-tesla-evs-2023-10?r=US&IR=T

 

How much will a car that is approaching its battery replacement age be worth?

 

I would, also state - based on experience, that each time the technology on cars has evolved - that has been accompanied by huge replacement costs for damaged or failed 'new tech' parts. A failed ECU (engine control unit) for example, can literally write a vehicle off (and does) and now we have Body Control Modules etc. etc.  The EV's that I've seen all seem to be packed with even more 'new tech' and if my past experience is anything to go by, that will go hand in hand with huge replacement costs when items fail.

 

The one saving grace is that there are now companies that specialise in taking this 'new tech' apart and repairing it at a fraction of the cost of replacement.  However, they don't usually get involved until a vehicle is 5 or 6 years old and even then, only when failures are common. Even more reason to hang fire and see where things go.

 

I am not talking about current EVs. I totally agree that the current EVs are not the be-all end-all solution. But the thread is about electric vs hydrogen and in terms of the future. The costs you mention for replacements of high-tech parts like an ECU are something that always trips me up. The prices the manufacturers quote are nowhere near what they cost to produce. They simply don't want to sell the parts, they'd rather sell you a new car. I've had a little ABS control unit fail on a motorcycle. Price? 90k THB. Totally absurd. Costs them probably something like 2k THB to produce. I'm with you with waiting a bit before making the switch. There is currently too much rapid development going on and so current models will depreciate fast. Right now I'd prefer a hybrid. And that's what I bought and love the smooth instant torque down low. Next one might be a BEV though in something like 5-10 years.

[Ben Zioner]

9 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Come on, Thailand can't even run the current grid properly.  Outages are common place - especially away from the capital.

Not wrong, but that's only Thailand.

Edited February 20 by Ben Zioner

[eisfeld]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

That would be great, do all of the third world countries know?

Seriously, pouting aside all the other challenges  of of conventional EV batteries, what do you think would be easier, Upgrade the worlds electrical grid infustracture, and have to live with all the other conventional EV battery issues, or develope a hydrogen infustracture. 

 

People think it's easy to build a hydrogen infrastructure. I'm not sure why. The existing gasoline stations can't just be used as-is. The underground tanks are not built for high-pressure hydrogen storage. The pumps are not built to handle hydrogen delivery. The delivery trucks are not built for hydrogen. We do not have the necessary hydrogen generation plants. None of it is. And where do you think the electricity will come from the generate the hydrogen? All you get is concentrated power usage rather than distributed one.

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

at this point 2.2% of the worlds vehicles are conventional  battery electric, and already there are issues.

  The main material in  fuel cell battery is so prevalent that people often drown in it. The only issue is the extraction by current technology. But what technology  ever stays static?  When extraction becomes easier , and a hydrogen infustracture is developer, conventional EV batteries would only be a milestone in the history of the development of the EV.

 

That ignores the issues with hydrogen. Like explosion risk. And that wont ever go away no matter the technological development because that's what hydrogen chemically does. In german the alternative name for hydrogen is "Knallgas" or literally translated to english "Boomgas". Guess why. I've whitnessed a hydrogen explosion in a chemistry lab. Not looking forward to experiencing that again. Anyways, you speak about the development of making fuel cell construction easier/cheaper. Well the same applies to other batteries!

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

Same thing I can say for hydrogen , and the main point of my post.Once the extraction of hydrogen becomes easier and cost effective, there would be no point in raveging the world by mining,and  making trade deals with countries,  Rain would be fine, and easily accessible to everyone.

 

"Extraction" of hydrogen is already easy. You just split water via electrolysis. But the round-trip efficiency of electric power in and then power to the wheels just never will be as efficient as conventional batteries especially for hydrogen combustion engines because they waste too much on heat. And so they will cost more per kilometer to operate. That you have to deduct from higher purchase/repair costs.

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

So in conclusion,conventional EV batteries are more desirable because the energy delivery infustracture already exists , but they have a long, charging time, much lower number of charging cycles.  at 100% usage some countries will have grid issues. and availability of minerals needed,

 

You are making the mistake of looking at currently widely used battery tech vs what is coming. There wont be long charging times. There wont be low cycle lifetimes. Look at phone charging times. They used to charge with 5W and hold something like 5Wh. Now we have phones that charge more than twenty times as fast! And they hold more than triple the capacity. LTO batteries already have cycle durability of up to 10000 cycles. More than enough for the lifetime of the vehicle. That's like a full charge every single day for 27 years.

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

IMO it is the buttery type of the future, there is a reason both Toyota and GM are betting on it, and it is not because they are stupid. And there is the Geopolitical aspect also. China dominates the conventional battery market, Hydrogen might be the way for the US to brake that dominance. 

 

Toyota has bet on hydrogen in the past and it was a massive failure. They fired their CEO due to that. Now they are back to banking on normal battery tech. GM is a joke of a manufacturer and on the way out. They are making so many horrible decisions it's not funny. Just recently they announced to discontinue support for Apple Car Play which will make them lose more customers. I don't look at them as an example for smart decisions. Every other big manufacturer is on lithium based battery tech. That's where the investment goes. Somehow all that money thinks it'll work out.

[eisfeld]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

What if you had a battery that would secure 100,000 cycles?  would you be for it? 

 

What would you do with that? Inherit it for the next 10 generations of your kids? That's hundreds of years of fully discharging and charging daily. As soon as a battery reaches 5000 cycles lifetime it's already much more than good enough for the lifetime of a vehicle. Heck, even 2000 cycles is probably more than enough for most people who would need one charge every couple days and it'll last 20 years.

[KhunLA]

14 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

People think it's easy to build a hydrogen infrastructure. I'm not sure why. The existing gasoline stations can't just be used as-is. The underground tanks are not built for high-pressure hydrogen storage. The pumps are not built to handle hydrogen delivery. The delivery trucks are not built for hydrogen. We do not have the necessary hydrogen generation plants. None of it is. And where do you think the electricity will come from the generate the hydrogen? All you get is concentrated power usage rather than distributed one.

 

That ignores the issues with hydrogen. Like explosion risk. And that wont ever go away no matter the technological development because that's what hydrogen chemically does. In german the alternative name for hydrogen is "Knallgas" or literally translated to english "Boomgas". Guess why. I've whitnessed a hydrogen explosion in a chemistry lab. Not looking forward to experiencing that again. Anyways, you speak about the development of making fuel cell construction easier/cheaper. Well the same applies to other batteries!

 

"Extraction" of hydrogen is already easy. You just split water via electrolysis. But the round-trip efficiency of electric power in and then power to the wheels just never will be as efficient as conventional batteries especially for hydrogen combustion engines because they waste too much on heat. And so they will cost more per kilometer to operate. That you have to deduct from higher purchase/repair costs.

 

You are making the mistake of looking at currently widely used battery tech vs what is coming. There wont be long charging times. There wont be low cycle lifetimes. Look at phone charging times. They used to charge with 5W and hold something like 5Wh. Now we have phones that charge more than twenty times as fast! And they hold more than triple the capacity. LTO batteries already have cycle durability of up to 10000 cycles. More than enough for the lifetime of the vehicle. That's like a full charge every single day for 27 years.

 

Toyota has bet on hydrogen in the past and it was a massive failure. They fired their CEO due to that. Now they are back to banking on normal battery tech. GM is a joke of a manufacturer and on the way out. They are making so many horrible decisions it's not funny. Just recently they announced to discontinue support for Apple Car Play which will make them lose more customers. I don't look at them as an example for smart decisions. Every other big manufacturer is on lithium based battery tech. That's where the investment goes. Somehow all that money thinks it'll work out.

Hydrogen has been around for at least 20 yrs, so any wonder why it hasn't been developed.   Personally I think all the 'talking' about hydrogen cell is a ploy, to delay people from buying BEVs, as long as possible.   As they haven't, and I don't think they have any real plans to use hydrogen for personal vehicles, as seems a really stupid idea.

 

But by delay ignorant people from buying BEVs, they make more profits over the next 5-10 years.  Especially if they buy yet, another petrol burner.   As once someone does buy a BEV, now or next couple years, they'll be asking themselves ... "damn, why didn't I buy one sooner".  

 

I consider it one of my best purchases, even with selling the only 2 yr old ICEV, as nothing really loss on the higher depreciation of short owned car.  If anything, nothing but gains, thanks to TH & solar.  Even if having to pay 5 baht at house to charge, it's a thrifty buy.

Edited February 20 by KhunLA

[eisfeld]

2 hours ago, RayWright said:

Could Water be the future? 

 

Water as in hydrogen and oxygen? I'm confused by your post. You can't power something with just water unless it's a water mill or hydro power station at a dam. Or maybe a steam engine?

[eisfeld]

1 hour ago, Digitalbanana said:

70% of the universe is made of it 🙂

 

H is about 3.5% of the energy in the universe as far as we currently know. Conventional matter itself is just 5% 🙂

 

Makes me think... we should probably look into dark energy powered vehicles. That's like 69% of the universe... nice!

 

Edited February 20 by eisfeld

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

People think it's easy to build a hydrogen infrastructure. I'm not sure why. The existing gasoline stations can't just be used as-is. The underground tanks are not built for high-pressure hydrogen storage.

I don't think it is easy, I think it is easier than to upgrade all of the worlds electrical grid, for a conventional EV battery system that also has other limitation, where there is another  system that also has less limitations. 

By the way not hydrogen storage has to be done under pressure,  there is also research and major breakthroughs with solid state hydrogen storage 

If you are interested read the following article or do a google search for "Hydrogen solid state storage" 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/09/02/hydrogen-storage-techniques/

12 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

That ignores the issues with hydrogen. Like explosion risk

less explosion risk the ICE 

https://www.topspeed.com/why-shouldnt-fear-hydrogen-powered-cars/#:~:text=However%2C this is a myth,this way as technology advances.

17 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

But the round-trip efficiency of electric power in and then power to the wheels just never will be as efficient as conventional batteries

Hydrogen is significantly more energy dense than batteries, it is only at this stage of development that batteries are more efficient than fuel cells. expect that to change. 

You also need to consider the following.

I am sure you are familiar of the famous F=ma equation. Current conventional EV batteries are very heavy. part of the current increase of conventional battery EV goes towards accelerating the battery weight. 

And please don't say that is is recovered with regenerative braking. because both types of vehicles have regenerative braking. 

The extra weight of batteries,is particularly important in payload issues. 

25 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Toyota has bet on hydrogen in the past and it was a massive failure. They fired their CEO due to that.

Toyota is still betting on Hydrogen so is GM as of lately. 

https://www.topspeed.com/toyota-betting-big-on-hydrogen-despite-745-mile-solid-state-battery/#:~:text=Indeed%2C hydrogen figures prominently in,cars per yer by 2030.

Don't confuse toyota's participation in the current EV market for giving up on Hydrogen,

Toyota is one leading manufacturer of cars in the world, and is not willing to give up it'd market share for future  Hydrogen considerations. 

[sirineou]

22 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

What would you do with that? Inherit it for the next 10 generations of your kids?

You would not have to engage in the gymnastics you do now  nessacery to maintain and extend battery life. 

Edited February 20 by sirineou

[CharlesHolzhauer]

12 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Or maybe a steam engine?

Impressive!

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/jay-leno-favorite-steam-car-ever-built-more-powerful-you-think/