Bye bye Electric & Hello Hydrogen?

[Lacessit]

46 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I think ammonia powered cars won't take off.  It's better to run a mixture of ammonia and hydrogen (or petrol), I am more interested in what GAC Group aren't saying, is it running on 100% ammonia? 

 

Every time I hear of an alternative to BEV's, Toyota is involved somewhere.  Toyota's involvement with GAC and this car 

further fits with my assessment that they are trying to obfuscate the fact that EV's are going mainstream and trying to spread FUD, typically, this or that solution is round the corner, the reality is it isn't and Toyota and the other legacy manufacturers are scrabbling around to source Lithium.  Tesla & China have already locked down all the major producers of Lithium.

 

This highlights some of the issues, When it does burn, it is a carbon-free emission and produces zero CO2, zero hydrocarbons, and zero soot. Don't celebrate yet, without an engine using a high compression ratio or boost, it does release a lot of nitrogen into the atmosphere which leads to ammonia and ozone being made in the atmosphere which can lead to acid rain and impair our ability to breathe. That's why we're rather doubtful that this is a meaningful development. As BloombergNEF's head of transport and automotive analysis, Colin McKerracher, stated, "Ammonia is hellish to handle, I can't see it taking off in passenger cars." With its toxicity issues, there just isn't an infrastructure that exists to even fuel these engines. Even though hydrogen has a tougher time when compared to the EV charging infrastructure network, it would potentially be far better to use ammonia in hydrogen production rather than use as a combustible fuel for ICE vehicles.

 

China’s GAC Introduces New Car Engine That Runs On Toxic Ammonia (motortrend.com)

 

So the issue here is an extra step over producing just Hydrogen, producing hydrogen then turning it into ammonia, even less efficient than hydrogen cars which is less efficient than BEV's.

The purpose of converting hydrogen to ammonia is to enable transport in bulk. Shipping hydrogen would either require high pressure cylinders, or tonnes of metal hydrides, neither of which are practical.

 

Burning ammonia in an ICE sounds to me like a recipe for jumping from the frying pan into the fire environmentally, due to NOx emissions. A fuel leak could gas the occupants of a sedan, I sure as hell would not be buying one.

 

I don't know how releasing nitrogen into the atmosphere leads to more ammonia and ozone production, given our atmosphere is already 78% nitrogen.

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I think ammonia powered cars won't take off.  It's better to run a mixture of ammonia and hydrogen (or petrol), I am more interested in what GAC Group aren't saying, is it running on 100% ammonia? 

 

Every time I hear of an alternative to BEV's, Toyota is involved somewhere.  Toyota's involvement with GAC and this car 

further fits with my assessment that they are trying to obfuscate the fact that EV's are going mainstream and trying to spread FUD, typically, this or that solution is round the corner, the reality is it isn't and Toyota and the other legacy manufacturers are scrabbling around to source Lithium.  Tesla & China have already locked down all the major producers of Lithium.

 

This highlights some of the issues, When it does burn, it is a carbon-free emission and produces zero CO2, zero hydrocarbons, and zero soot. Don't celebrate yet, without an engine using a high compression ratio or boost, it does release a lot of nitrogen into the atmosphere which leads to ammonia and ozone being made in the atmosphere which can lead to acid rain and impair our ability to breathe. That's why we're rather doubtful that this is a meaningful development. As BloombergNEF's head of transport and automotive analysis, Colin McKerracher, stated, "Ammonia is hellish to handle, I can't see it taking off in passenger cars." With its toxicity issues, there just isn't an infrastructure that exists to even fuel these engines. Even though hydrogen has a tougher time when compared to the EV charging infrastructure network, it would potentially be far better to use ammonia in hydrogen production rather than use as a combustible fuel for ICE vehicles.

 

China’s GAC Introduces New Car Engine That Runs On Toxic Ammonia (motortrend.com)

 

So the issue here is an extra step over producing just Hydrogen, producing hydrogen then turning it into ammonia, even less efficient than hydrogen cars which is less efficient than BEV's.

I have already posted that Both Ford and GM have sourced their own supply of Lithium

Its not just Toyota that is looking at alternative solutions to BEV BMW  both have hydrogen models

 

A Third of Drivers Don't Want a BEV - But are They Aware of the Alternatives?

https://www.viritech.co.uk/blog/a-third-of-drivers-dont-want-a-bev-but-are-they-aware-of-the-alternatives#

Toyota GAC Jpint Venture 

GAC Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 广汽丰田汽车有限公司) is an automobile manufacturing company headquartered in Guangzhou, China and a joint-venture between GAC Group and Toyota Motor Company for manufacturing Toyota's model platform in the Chinese market. It was founded on 1 September 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAC_Toyota

Edited February 20 by vinny41
add

[CG1 Blue]

The way I see it, if the major car companies were truly convinced that BEVs were the long term answer, then why would they be spending loads of money looking at (and developing) alternatives? 

So if you buy a BEV now there's a good chance it'll be superseded by something better in a few years, and your BEV will only have scrap value. 

 

Early adopters have taken a gamble IMO. Maybe they can afford it 🤷‍♂️

[motdaeng]

7 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

So if you buy a BEV now there's a good chance it'll be superseded by something better in a few years ...

 

Early adopters have taken a gamble IMO. Maybe they can afford it 🤷‍♂️

 

maybe in a few decades (but for sure not in a few years) there will be a better alternative to bev with less "disadvantages", but just maybe! who do you call a gambler?

 

Edited February 20 by motdaeng

[JBChiangRai]

8 hours ago, vinny41 said:

I have already posted that Both Ford and GM have sourced their own supply of Lithium

Its not just Toyota that is looking at alternative solutions to BEV BMW  both have hydrogen models

 

A Third of Drivers Don't Want a BEV - But are They Aware of the Alternatives?

https://www.viritech.co.uk/blog/a-third-of-drivers-dont-want-a-bev-but-are-they-aware-of-the-alternatives#

Toyota GAC Jpint Venture 

GAC Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 广汽丰田汽车有限公司) is an automobile manufacturing company headquartered in Guangzhou, China and a joint-venture between GAC Group and Toyota Motor Company for manufacturing Toyota's model platform in the Chinese market. It was founded on 1 September 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAC_Toyota

 

As I said, the major producers of Lithium have already been locked down, and that happened years ago, what they are doing now is probably going to be too little, too late and too expensive. 

 

 

7 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The way I see it, if the major car companies were truly convinced that BEVs were the long term answer, then why would they be spending loads of money looking at (and developing) alternatives? 

So if you buy a BEV now there's a good chance it'll be superseded by something better in a few years, and your BEV will only have scrap value. 

 

Early adopters have taken a gamble IMO. Maybe they can afford it 🤷‍♂️

 

I think major legacy automakers were caught with their pants down.  I don't think they are spending loads of money looking at alternatives, only enough money to look good and try and persuade people BEV's will not be here long term.  First, we had Toyota's Mirai Hydrogen Fuel Cell car, now they have funded an Ammonia fueled car, both of these are loose change investments and the Hydrogen investment is worth it because we will see some Hydrogen vehicles.  BEV's have batteries no higher than 4" in the BYD, they are placed low down and don't intrude on cabin space at all, they contribute to a low center of gravity and stiffen the chassis.  Hydrogen cars have a major issue, the tanks are huge and take away a large part of the interior space.  The center console in the Toyota Mirai is massive to hide one of the 3 tanks, the rear seat, according to road testers, is unsuitable for adults who are sitting directly on top of it, there is another tank in the boot.

 

 

Initially, it was just Tesla and the legacy automakers didn't understand the technology, they dismissed the Tesla Roadster as a fad, when the model S arrived they looked at it and when the model 3 arrived, they understood the danger and deconstructed the technology and planned their own. As they moved forward they found batteries are available from 2 companies at scale, CATL and BYD, you can read that as Tesla & China, or more accurately China/Tesla and China.

 

It's certainly going to take years to ramp up and achieve economies of scale.  In the interim, they either make BEV's and lose money buying other people's batteries (Toyota buy BYD batteries, so does Mercedes), or they plan for the future, trying to slow down the world going BEV and you do that by in saying BEV's are not the solution, the solution is Hydrogen, Ammonia, Water Engines etc etc.  Most of this FUD is sponsored by Toyota.

 

I believe most legacy makers are facing an existential crisis and they know it.  Ford & GM can't sell their EV's for one simple reason.  It's not that they are no good, they are fine cars.  The problem is price.  To compete with Chinese EV's they would probably lose tens of thousands of dollars on each car.  Not even Tesla with it's plant in China can compete with BYD because Tesla buy in batteries, semiconductors, seats, plastics etc whilst BYD make their own, even their semiconductors and BEV's are chock full of semiconductors.

 

Look at Thailand, Ford Mustang Mach E didn't sell well here, the Toyota bZ4x doesn't sell either, it took Chinese EV manufacturers with their competitive products to get the ball rolling.  In Thailand BEV's are already cost competitive with their petrol equivalents the Neta V is cheaper, bigger and more powerful than the Mitsubishi Mirage.  The BYD Seal is cheaper and more powerful than equivalent Toyota Camry/Honda Accord models, this is going to continue with more models coming to market.

 

EV's are not a fad in Thailand, they are already mainstream.  Mr. Toyoda said BEV's would fail and the future was Hydrogen, he said that almost 10 years ago, he was wrong and he was ousted as CEO because of it.  He said recently BEV's will never exceed 30% of new sales. I think by December this year we will be hitting 30% of new sales in Thailand.  It's happened before, in Norway 80% of new sales are BEV's. There is no disaster, no doom & gloom, they buy them and they love them.

 

If there is enough Lithium available, then EV's are the future, if there is insufficient Lithium then we will see Hydrogen cars sold alongside BEV's and those that can afford them will buy BEV, those that can't will buy Hydrogen for the simple reason the BEV is 5 times cheaper per km and there is no wasted time filling up with Hydrogen every week.

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, motdaeng said:

 

maybe in a few decades (but for sure not in a few years) there will be a better alternative to bev with less "disadvantages", but just maybe! who do you call a gambler?

 

 

I don't think there will be any disadvantages with BEV's in a few years.

 

Refueling will take 5 minutes, they will be cost competitive.  I am failing to see any disadvantages once we have mainstream adoption.

 

It's only commercial trucks that are going to be an issue.

[JBChiangRai]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I don't know how releasing nitrogen into the atmosphere leads to more ammonia and ozone production, given our atmosphere is already 78% nitrogen.

 

I think there was a mistake in that article, it shouldn't have said Nitrogen it should have said NO_x

[sirineou]

"Research findings could enable high-density hydrogen storage for future energy systems"

 

"A development in efficient hydrogen storage has been reported by Professor Hyunchul Oh in the Department of Chemistry at UNIST, marking a significant advancement in future energy systems.

This innovative research centers around a nanoporous magnesium borohydride structure (Mg(BH4)2), showcasing the remarkable capability to store hydrogen at high densities even under normal atmospheric pressure. The study is published in Nature Chemistry."

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-enable-high-density-hydrogen-storage.html

[Lacessit]

13 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I think there was a mistake in that article, it shouldn't have said Nitrogen it should have said NO_x

Correct. I have to suffer scientific illiteracy in ASEAN on a regular basis.

 

Another common mistake of journalists is confusing nitrate with nitrite, when the two have entirely different chemistry.

[JBChiangRai]

15 minutes ago, sirineou said:

"Research findings could enable high-density hydrogen storage for future energy systems"

 

"A development in efficient hydrogen storage has been reported by Professor Hyunchul Oh in the Department of Chemistry at UNIST, marking a significant advancement in future energy systems.

This innovative research centers around a nanoporous magnesium borohydride structure (Mg(BH4)2), showcasing the remarkable capability to store hydrogen at high densities even under normal atmospheric pressure. The study is published in Nature Chemistry."

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-enable-high-density-hydrogen-storage.html

 

Anything that reduces volumetric and pressure requirements on storing Hydrogen is going to be very welcome.  That study recognised the major use is going to be public service vehicles and heavy trucks.

 

Consumers are always going to prefer BEV's because mass adoption has already started with an ever increasing choice of models and only a shortage of refined Lithium will lead to BEV's rocketing in price and people will then buy the cheaper Hydrogen cars and put up with the much more expensive running costs.

 

The way battery technology is developing, I am failing to see any disadvantages with BEV's in the future.

 

Hydrogen cars have been available for a few years, people are not buying them. There is no demand.

[herfiehandbag]

 

The way ahead, I tell you.

 

Of course it is all powered by an app!

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Anything that reduces volumetric and pressure requirements on storing Hydrogen is going to be very welcome.  That study recognised the major use is going to be public service vehicles and heavy trucks.

I don't pretend to have a crystal bowl , I simply take the information I currently have and make pejections that might or might not be correct. 

  Both Connection EV butteries and Hydrogen Fuel Cell   are batteries , so the BEV to apply to one and not the other is misleading IMO 

Weight is a major problem for conventional EV batteries, both in terms of efficiency (F=ma) and payload

So IMO the future of commercial and aircraft transportation is in Hydrogen, and as such a hydrogen infustracture will have to be developed for them. 

I don't see the economic viability for having one infustracture for   airplane and Commercial  transportation and another for cars. Aside from all the other issues , it does not make sense to me'

But perhaps I am missing something. 

 

[sirineou]

16 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Hydrogen cars have been available for a few years, people are not buying them. There is no demand.

There is no demand because at the time a better option exists.

There is an infustracture for delivering electricity at low EV usage, where none exists for hydrogen yet. 

The operative word here is Yet. 

[JBChiangRai]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

There is no demand because at the time a better option exists.

There is an infustracture for delivering electricity at low EV usage, where none exists for hydrogen yet. 

The operative word here is Yet. 

 

I agree with you that BEV and Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are both fueled by batteries.

 

I see it as a bit like Betamax and VHS.  The adoption rate of BEV's is unstoppable, on top of that, it is also the better technology whereas Betamax was the better technology, but Sony owned it and wanted expensive licences for third parties to use it and Philips who owned VHS said you can use it for free.  

 

I think BEV's are unstoppable.  Yes they carry around a lot of weight, but that doesn't seem to be a problem and leads to them feeling more solid and driving better.

 

The power grid could be an issue but I am confident they are not just sitting there twiddling their thumbs.  They know what is happening and they are addressing it in an incremental fashion.

 

It's not as if BEV's are a sub-standard solution.  You can ask drivers of them what they think and they are generally over the moon.

 

Hydrogen is coming from so far behind, I don't see their being much choice available within the next 11 years when in a lot of countries ICE cars will no longer be sold, nor will there be an infrastructure of filling stations.  I think Hydrogen has already lost the race.

[sirineou]

7 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I see it as a bit like Betamax and VHS.  The adoption rate of BEV's is unstoppable, on top of that, it is also the better technology whereas Betamax was the better technology, but Sony owned it and wanted expensive licences for third parties to use it and Philips who owned VHS said you can use it for free. 

Yea I made the same point a few posts back. the better technology does not always wins. There are other factors. but for the purpose of this Cooperation all I can do is consider the factors available to me at this time, otherwise it would imposible to make frojections. There are always unforeseen consequences. and they are called unforeseen for a reason.

11 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

but that doesn't seem to be a problem and leads to them feeling more solid and driving better.

It is absolutely a problem , weight play a significant part in designing a road vehicle,  which is why it is always displayed in conjunction with power output 

But it is a critical problem with airplanes , for obvious reasons , and it transportation. 

Payload is a limiting factors in tractor trailer trucks, In the US without an overweight permit an truck can not have a total vehicle weight of more that 80.000 lbs as such a 12 times as heavy conventional battery reduces the payload.  A significant problem for the trucking business in terms of profitability, and consumers in higher prices on the product transported. 

21 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Hydrogen is coming from so far behind, I don't see their being much choice available within the next 11 years when in a lot of countries ICE cars will no longer be sold,

Not sure if it will in 11 years or not. I only claim that the replacement of conventional EV batteries with hydrogen is inevitable based on the information we have today. The time scale is a different story. 

Unless of course someone comes out with a different battery or system that outperforms everything available now .  

 

[Lacessit]

32 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

 

 

Hydrogen is coming from so far behind, I don't see their being much choice available within the next 11 years when in a lot of countries ICE cars will no longer be sold, nor will there be an infrastructure of filling stations.  I think Hydrogen has already lost the race.

I disagree, because IMO it is not a race.

If you only have enough raw material resources to supply 20 - 30% of new car demand, and you want to get to zero CO2 emissions, hydrogen is the natural choice.

Of course, if new batteries can be developed which use readily available raw materials, that changes the landscape.

[KhunLA]

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The way I see it, if the major car companies were truly convinced that BEVs were the long term answer, then why would they be spending loads of money looking at (and developing) alternatives? 

So if you buy a BEV now there's a good chance it'll be superseded by something better in a few years, and your BEV will only have scrap value. 

 

Early adopters have taken a gamble IMO. Maybe they can afford it 🤷‍♂️

No gamble for myself & wife.   I'll be long gone before anything better than present BEVs are affordably mass produced.   And the wife probably won't need them either, as the present EV may even outlast her.   Solar will continue to give us a free supply of energy, as the price of the sun, will never fluctuate, or run out of energy.

 

So wait for something better that may not come along in your lifetime, or keep wasting your money on petrol 

 

UP2U

[JBChiangRai]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yea I made the same point a few posts back. the better technology does not always wins. There are other factors. but for the purpose of this Cooperation all I can do is consider the factors available to me at this time, otherwise it would imposible to make frojections. There are always unforeseen consequences. and they are called unforeseen for a reason.

It is absolutely a problem , weight play a significant part in designing a road vehicle,  which is why it is always displayed in conjunction with power output 

But it is a critical problem with airplanes , for obvious reasons , and it transportation. 

Payload is a limiting factors in tractor trailer trucks, In the US without an overweight permit an truck can not have a total vehicle weight of more that 80.000 lbs as such a 12 times as heavy conventional battery reduces the payload.  A significant problem for the trucking business in terms of profitability, and consumers in higher prices on the product transported. 

Not sure if it will in 11 years or not. I only claim that the replacement of conventional EV batteries with hydrogen is inevitable based on the information we have today. The time scale is a different story. 

Unless of course someone comes out with a different battery or system that outperforms everything available now .  

 

 

I agree batteries are not the solution for trucks or airplanes, I suspect Hydrogen isn't either.  Maybe Ammonia or some other ecologically produced HydroCarbon that can be burned in a jet engine.

 

Weight is not an issue for any BEV owner currently.  I am rather hoping that existing multistorey car parks will have wider bays in the future.  I see weight as a non issue.

 

I don't think we can say Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are the superior technology because of the problem with generating the Hydrogen and getting it to the car.  We can't make it as cheap and that's the major issue.  I agree it is more elegant and ecologically sound.  It's just too inconvenient and too expensive and those are insurmountable hurdles.

 

I am not sure Hydrogen succeeding BEV is inevitable.  ultimately the cost of making batteries is going to plummet because we will be recycling old ones instead of processing tens of tons of earth in faraway places.  Given a perfect infrastructure for Hydrogen distribution today, I would still choose a BEV for convenience, I like the way they drive.  It's great not to have go to the petrol station every week.

[eisfeld]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

Weight is a major problem for conventional EV batteries, both in terms of efficiency (F=ma) and payload

 

It's not a problem as currently mass produced EVs prove. The additional weight of Li based batteries compared to other systems is what percentage of the weight of a car? 20-25%? But they are 50%+ more efficient when it comes to power round-trip. That's already enough to make them supperior but add to that recouperative breaking and your point is beyond moot.

 

Just to be crystal clear on this because I've tried to refute that claim before in this thread but it seems it didn't stick. There are three ways to waste power in a car: 1. air resistance (drag) 2. tire friction 3. heat loss from the motor. Batteries don't increase drag. Batteries slightly increase tire friction due to added weight but that's a tiny fraction of all the losses. The biggest difference in terms of energy loss is then due to point 3, heat loss. And guess what, Li batteries and their electric motors have significantly (2x or better) less heat loss compared to fuel cells, fossil fuel ICEs or hydrogen ICEs. Battery weight does not register as a real problem for cars. In fact it adds to a lower center of gravity which is good for handling and the massive torque from down low results in great acceleration. All that while being more energy efficient. A hydrogen ICE can never compete as they will always have massive heat losses, there is no way to do cold combustion and there is no way to use that heat. That's why ICEs need cooling systems with big radiators and good airflow.

 

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

I don't see the economic viability for having one infustracture for   airplane and Commercial  transportation and another for cars. Aside from all the other issues , it does not make sense to me'

We already have that separation. Airplanes, cargo ships, semi-trailers etc.  don't use the same fueling infrastructure as cars. When is the last time you've seen one of those at your local gasoline pump? Heck the airplanes and ships use totally different fuels.

Edited February 21 by eisfeld

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I agree batteries are not the solution for trucks or airplanes, I suspect Hydrogen isn't either.  Maybe Ammonia or some other ecologically produced HydroCarbon that can be burned in a jet engine.

 

 

"Some other"? Ammonia is not a hydrocarbon. Have pity on a organic chemist, please.

 

IMO ammonia would be a horrible choice for aircraft fuel - much more difficult to ignite, extremely hazardous in the event of an accident, spraying NOx all over the shop. Imagine LAX airport with all the smog that would generate, as if it does not have enough already.

 

I think jets are going to need refined fossil fuels for quite a while still. Trucks could be a different story.

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

As I said, the major producers of Lithium have already been locked down, and that happened years ago, what they are doing now is probably going to be too little, too late and too expensive. 

 

 

 

I think major legacy automakers were caught with their pants down.  I don't think they are spending loads of money looking at alternatives, only enough money to look good and try and persuade people BEV's will not be here long term.  First, we had Toyota's Mirai Hydrogen Fuel Cell car, now they have funded an Ammonia fueled car, both of these are loose change investments and the Hydrogen investment is worth it because we will see some Hydrogen vehicles.  BEV's have batteries no higher than 4" in the BYD, they are placed low down and don't intrude on cabin space at all, they contribute to a low center of gravity and stiffen the chassis.  Hydrogen cars have a major issue, the tanks are huge and take away a large part of the interior space.  The center console in the Toyota Mirai is massive to hide one of the 3 tanks, the rear seat, according to road testers, is unsuitable for adults who are sitting directly on top of it, there is another tank in the boot.

 

 

Initially, it was just Tesla and the legacy automakers didn't understand the technology, they dismissed the Tesla Roadster as a fad, when the model S arrived they looked at it and when the model 3 arrived, they understood the danger and deconstructed the technology and planned their own. As they moved forward they found batteries are available from 2 companies at scale, CATL and BYD, you can read that as Tesla & China, or more accurately China/Tesla and China.

 

It's certainly going to take years to ramp up and achieve economies of scale.  In the interim, they either make BEV's and lose money buying other people's batteries (Toyota buy BYD batteries, so does Mercedes), or they plan for the future, trying to slow down the world going BEV and you do that by in saying BEV's are not the solution, the solution is Hydrogen, Ammonia, Water Engines etc etc.  Most of this FUD is sponsored by Toyota.

 

I believe most legacy makers are facing an existential crisis and they know it.  Ford & GM can't sell their EV's for one simple reason.  It's not that they are no good, they are fine cars.  The problem is price.  To compete with Chinese EV's they would probably lose tens of thousands of dollars on each car.  Not even Tesla with it's plant in China can compete with BYD because Tesla buy in batteries, semiconductors, seats, plastics etc whilst BYD make their own, even their semiconductors and BEV's are chock full of semiconductors.

 

Look at Thailand, Ford Mustang Mach E didn't sell well here, the Toyota bZ4x doesn't sell either, it took Chinese EV manufacturers with their competitive products to get the ball rolling.  In Thailand BEV's are already cost competitive with their petrol equivalents the Neta V is cheaper, bigger and more powerful than the Mitsubishi Mirage.  The BYD Seal is cheaper and more powerful than equivalent Toyota Camry/Honda Accord models, this is going to continue with more models coming to market.

 

EV's are not a fad in Thailand, they are already mainstream.  Mr. Toyoda said BEV's would fail and the future was Hydrogen, he said that almost 10 years ago, he was wrong and he was ousted as CEO because of it.  He said recently BEV's will never exceed 30% of new sales. I think by December this year we will be hitting 30% of new sales in Thailand.  It's happened before, in Norway 80% of new sales are BEV's. There is no disaster, no doom & gloom, they buy them and they love them.

 

If there is enough Lithium available, then EV's are the future, if there is insufficient Lithium then we will see Hydrogen cars sold alongside BEV's and those that can afford them will buy BEV, those that can't will buy Hydrogen for the simple reason the BEV is 5 times cheaper per km and there is no wasted time filling up with Hydrogen every week.

Eager to avoid falling further behind Tesla and Chinese car companies, many Western auto executives are bypassing traditional suppliers and committing billions of dollars on deals with lithium mining companies.

They are showing up in hard hats and steel-toed boots to scope out mines in places like Chile, Argentina, Quebec and Nevada to secure supplies of a metal that could make or break their companies as they move from gasoline to battery power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/02/business/lithium-mining-automakers-electric-vehicles.html

Akio Toyoda Says Slowing EV Demand Proves He Was Right All Along

“People are finally seeing reality,” the former CEO said about the dangers of an all-in approach to EVs.

And Toyota have shown they are correct in their 2024 profits

Toyota Motor Corp. raised its full-year operating profit forecast for fiscal year 2024 by almost 9% following a strong earnings report, according to a Q3 earnings presentation released Tuesday.

Toyota Motor Corp. said its full-year operating profits would be bolstered further by cost savings and an improved sales mix.

https://www.automotivedive.com/news/toyota-Q3-2024-earnings-hybrids/706763/

Toyota don't have an issue with selling EV's they have a belief of not putting all your eggs in one basket

EV only manufacturers do have a problem with falling sales as they have only 2 options

At the moment we have seen that when have an overstock of EV or are not hitting their sales target their solution is price reduction which then has a knock on effect with other manufacturers

Good for new customers not so good for existing EV owners as any price reduction has a knock on effect on the value of their present EV

EV only  manufacturers can't afford to scale back their scale back their current production lines mainly to protect their investment/profit margins as all their eggs are in a single basket 

 

https://www.thedrive.com/news/akio-toyoda-says-slowing-ev-demand-proves-he-was-right-all-along

The the total number of vehicles sales in Thailand was 775,780 of which 76,314 were EV sales  which represents  9.8% of the total vehicle sales EV's sales have a very long way to go in sales before they can be considered mainstream  

Any product that is largely reliant on large subsidies to generate sales can't be considered mainstream

in 2022, pickup trucks accounted for 45.7% of all vehicle sales in Thailand, with 388,296 pickup trucks sold. The Thai pickup truck market is dominated by two models - the Isuzu D-Max and the Toyota Hilux

https://www.giiresearch.com/report/cri1339028-thailand-light-truck-industry-research-report.html#:~:text=i

How many electric pickup trucks have been sold in Thailand as far as I know zero 

 

[sirineou]

30 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

It's not a problem as currently mass produced EVs prove.

No disrespect intended but we have a failure to Communicator in this issue. 

30 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

We already have that separation. Airplanes, cargo ships, semi-trailers etc.  don't use the same fueling infrastructure as cars.

As someone who was in charge of of logistics in a major construction company NYC, I can tell you that all my trucks fueled up at the same gas stations as passenger cars

We mainly used TA because we had an account . and cards for my drivers, but the same Gas station. One side was for passenger cars . end the other for trucks. Further the fuel they used came  from the same Petroleum extracted from the ground,  distilled in the same refineries, and delivered by the same trucks . And as a graduate of the New York academy of Aeronautics I can tell you that Avgas is procured, refined and delivered in the same manner 

30 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Heck the airplanes and ships use totally different fuels.

So do ICE vehicles. 

Anyway I said all I can say on the subject. , not sure if I can provide any additional information. 

Time will tell. 

 

Edited February 21 by sirineou

[sirineou]

 

"There is enough natural hydrogen underground to meet all demand for hundreds of years', says US government agency"

"There are trillions of tons of naturally occurring hydrogen in underground reservoirs, a tiny percentage of which would meet all the world’s hydrogen needs for hundreds of years, geologists said last week — arguing that a “gold rush” to exploit reserves is about to start. "

 

" An unpublished report from the US Geological Survey (USGS) — a government agency — has found that there are as much as 5 trillion tonnes of natural hydrogen underground, USGS researcher Geoffrey Ellis told a US conference last week, according to the Financial Times."

 

" However, it has yet to be proven that natural hydrogen can be commercially exploited at scale, partly due to the fact that it always seems to be mixed with other gases such as methane, from which it will need to be separated, and partly due to the size of the reserves discovered to date."

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/there-is-enough-natural-hydrogen-underground-to-meet-all-demand-for-hundreds-of-years-says-us-government-agency/2-1-1600808

[JBChiangRai]

25 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

"Some other"? Ammonia is not a hydrocarbon. Have pity on a organic chemist, please.

 

IMO ammonia would be a horrible choice for aircraft fuel - much more difficult to ignite, extremely hazardous in the event of an accident, spraying NOx all over the shop. Imagine LAX airport with all the smog that would generate, as if it does not have enough already.

 

I think jets are going to need refined fossil fuels for quite a while still. Trucks could be a different story.

 

When I said "some other HydroCarbon" I was referring to something other that what is used now, i.e. fossil fuel HydroCarbons, Ammonia is of course NH₃ and contains no carbon.

 

10 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Eager to avoid falling further behind Tesla and Chinese car companies, many Western auto executives are bypassing traditional suppliers and committing billions of dollars on deals with lithium mining companies.

They are showing up in hard hats and steel-toed boots to scope out mines in places like Chile, Argentina, Quebec and Nevada to secure supplies of a metal that could make or break their companies as they move from gasoline to battery power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/02/business/lithium-mining-automakers-electric-vehicles.html

Akio Toyoda Says Slowing EV Demand Proves He Was Right All Along

“People are finally seeing reality,” the former CEO said about the dangers of an all-in approach to EVs.

And Toyota have shown they are correct in their 2024 profits

Toyota Motor Corp. raised its full-year operating profit forecast for fiscal year 2024 by almost 9% following a strong earnings report, according to a Q3 earnings presentation released Tuesday.

Toyota Motor Corp. said its full-year operating profits would be bolstered further by cost savings and an improved sales mix.

https://www.automotivedive.com/news/toyota-Q3-2024-earnings-hybrids/706763/

Toyota don't have an issue with selling EV's they have a belief of not putting all your eggs in one basket

EV only manufacturers do have a problem with falling sales as they have only 2 options

At the moment we have seen that when have an overstock of EV or are not hitting their sales target their solution is price reduction which then has a knock on effect with other manufacturers

Good for new customers not so good for existing EV owners as any price reduction has a knock on effect on the value of their present EV

EV only  manufacturers can't afford to scale back their scale back their current production lines mainly to protect their investment/profit margins as all their eggs are in a single basket 

 

https://www.thedrive.com/news/akio-toyoda-says-slowing-ev-demand-proves-he-was-right-all-along

The the total number of vehicles sales in Thailand was 775,780 of which 76,314 were EV sales  which represents  9.8% of the total vehicle sales EV's sales have a very long way to go in sales before they can be considered mainstream  

Any product that is largely reliant on large subsidies to generate sales can't be considered mainstream

in 2022, pickup trucks accounted for 45.7% of all vehicle sales in Thailand, with 388,296 pickup trucks sold. The Thai pickup truck market is dominated by two models - the Isuzu D-Max and the Toyota Hilux

https://www.giiresearch.com/report/cri1339028-thailand-light-truck-industry-research-report.html#:~:text=i

How many electric pickup trucks have been sold in Thailand as far as I know zero 

 

 

I don't agree with Akio Toyoda's statement that their profits prove he is right about slowing demand.  They have invested pitifully in BEV's and their profits come from things they can't sell in 11 years.  Demand for BEV's is only slowing from legacy manufacturers, it's going through the roof with China's EV's.

 

Akio Toyoda said nobody would buy EV's..... He was wrong

Akio Toyoda said demand would peter out at 30%..... He is already wrong in Norway, I think he will be wrong in Thailand this year too.

 

I think the man is a dinosaur.

 

Yes I agree pickup sales are huge here and we don't have a BEV pickup here yet, I think BYD are bringing one here at the end of the year.  I can't see any reason why they should be any less successful with pickups than with their cars.

[JBChiangRai]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

"There is enough natural hydrogen underground to meet all demand for hundreds of years', says US government agency"

"There are trillions of tons of naturally occurring hydrogen in underground reservoirs, a tiny percentage of which would meet all the world’s hydrogen needs for hundreds of years, geologists said last week — arguing that a “gold rush” to exploit reserves is about to start. "

 

" An unpublished report from the US Geological Survey (USGS) — a government agency — has found that there are as much as 5 trillion tonnes of natural hydrogen underground, USGS researcher Geoffrey Ellis told a US conference last week, according to the Financial Times."

 

" However, it has yet to be proven that natural hydrogen can be commercially exploited at scale, partly due to the fact that it always seems to be mixed with other gases such as methane, from which it will need to be separated, and partly due to the size of the reserves discovered to date."

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/there-is-enough-natural-hydrogen-underground-to-meet-all-demand-for-hundreds-of-years-says-us-government-agency/2-1-1600808

 

Underground Hydrogen is known as "White Hydrogen".  We have known of its existence for many years, but it's currently impossible to obtain it economically.  That may change, but probably not in my lifetime.  The other issue is it usually coexists with Methane, what do you do with that?  burn it?

[eisfeld]

32 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

"There is enough natural hydrogen underground to meet all demand for hundreds of years', says US government agency"

"There are trillions of tons of naturally occurring hydrogen in underground reservoirs, a tiny percentage of which would meet all the world’s hydrogen needs for hundreds of years, geologists said last week — arguing that a “gold rush” to exploit reserves is about to start. "

 

" An unpublished report from the US Geological Survey (USGS) — a government agency — has found that there are as much as 5 trillion tonnes of natural hydrogen underground, USGS researcher Geoffrey Ellis told a US conference last week, according to the Financial Times."

 

" However, it has yet to be proven that natural hydrogen can be commercially exploited at scale, partly due to the fact that it always seems to be mixed with other gases such as methane, from which it will need to be separated, and partly due to the size of the reserves discovered to date."

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/there-is-enough-natural-hydrogen-underground-to-meet-all-demand-for-hundreds-of-years-says-us-government-agency/2-1-1600808

 

We always have enough of pretty much everything somewhere underground. The question always is if it's commercially viable to extract it. And many times the answer is no. There are tons and tons of diamonds underground. But it's still too expensive to dig most of them up.

[sirineou]

17 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Underground Hydrogen is known as "White Hydrogen".  We have known of its existence for many years, but it's currently impossible to obtain it economically.  That may change, but probably not in my lifetime.  The other issue is it usually coexists with Methane, what do you do with that?  burn it?

Not a chemist, don't know, 

I saw the Article posted in today's Google news page, they seem to be excited about it, I thought I would pass it on. They seem to suggest that there is a lot more than previously suggested. 

I think I also mentioned the other gases  problem. But why is burning methane the only option? 

[eisfeld]

42 minutes ago, sirineou said:

No disrespect intended but we have a failure to Communicator in this issue. 

As someone who was in charge of of logistics in a major construction company NYC, I can tell you that all my trucks fueled up at the same gas stations as passenger cars

We mainly used TA because we had an account . and cards for my drivers, but the same Gas station. One side was for passenger cars . end the other for trucks. Further the fuel they used came  from the same Petroleum extracted from the ground,  distilled in the same refineries, and delivered by the same trucks . And as a graduate of the New York academy of Aeronautics I can tell you that Avgas is procured, refined and delivered in the same manner 

So do ICE vehicles. 

Anyway I said all I can say on the subject. , not sure if I can provide any additional information. 

Time will tell. 

 

 

The fact is they (airplanes, ships) use different fuels, have their own delivery infrastructure including dedicated storage facilities, pipes, delivery trucks, pumps etc. Hasn't stopped them from developing all that infrastructure. That was the point.

[vinny41]

37 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

When I said "some other HydroCarbon" I was referring to something other that what is used now, i.e. fossil fuel HydroCarbons, Ammonia is of course NH₃ and contains no carbon.

 

 

I don't agree with Akio Toyoda's statement that their profits prove he is right about slowing demand.  They have invested pitifully in BEV's and their profits come from things they can't sell in 11 years.  Demand for BEV's is only slowing from legacy manufacturers, it's going through the roof with China's EV's.

 

Akio Toyoda said nobody would buy EV's..... He was wrong

Akio Toyoda said demand would peter out at 30%..... He is already wrong in Norway, I think he will be wrong in Thailand this year too.

 

I think the man is a dinosaur.

 

Yes I agree pickup sales are huge here and we don't have a BEV pickup here yet, I think BYD are bringing one here at the end of the year.  I can't see any reason why they should be any less successful with pickups than with their cars.

I don't think Toyota shareholders will care 2 hoots if you disagree with Akio Toyoda's statements

The main difference I see is you want to force a product on people regardless if it meets their requirements or not where Toyota have a range of products and leaves the final choice to their customers

At the moment people prefer  hybrid over EV

However, that doesn't mean Toyota is abandoning EV investment entirely. It unveiled two EVs concepts at the Japan Mobility Show this week, including a spiritual successor to the MR2, and it recently debuted concepts for an electric Land Cruiser and compact electric pickup. So Toyota is still very much invested in electric cars; it just also believes EVs are part of the answer for a carbon-neutral future. For now, the market appears to be bearing that out.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/akio-toyoda-says-slowing-ev-demand-proves-he-was-right-all-along

I expect EV sales to grow in Thailand this year but I don't think we will see total sales of 152,628 which would be a 100% increase of the 76,314 EV sold in 2023 as its a more cautious customer base that EV manufacturers have to sell to

According to this article BYD look like their 1st pickup will be a gas hybrid

As for the power option that BYD chooses to launch first in 2024, it will be a gasoline engine. It works with a plug-in hybrid electric motor (PHEV), while a pure electric version (BEV) will be ready for sale in 2025.

https://www.headlightmag.com/2024-01-10-spyshots-byd-truck/

Edited February 21 by vinny41
add

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

The fact is they (airplanes, ships) use different fuels, have their own delivery infrastructure including dedicated storage facilities, pipes, delivery trucks, pumps etc. Hasn't stopped them from developing all that infrastructure. That was the point.

Yea you are right don't know hat i was thinking