Toyota unveils first hydrogen-powered car called Mirai

lemonade · 19 Nov 2014 at 11:54

mjt said:
Hasn't BMW made Hydrogen cars for years?

Not really no, think you might be thinking of that 7 series they made, it was some sort of hybrid hydrogen car, not run on fuel cells and it was a very limited production, BMW have joined up with Toyota to use their hydrogen technology.

Honda have had hydrogen technology and fuel cell running cars since the 80's, but again wasn't a production car, the FCX Clarity is probably the closest thing to a production (albeit limited) hydrogen car that has been around for a while. HUK have built some facilities at Swindon for hydrogen support so there will probably be quite a few running when they release their hydrogen car in the UK.

alx · 19 Nov 2014 at 11:54

lemonade said:
If theres no product out there for it then there wont be need for an infrastructure, once there is a product out then it will create demand for an infrastructure, it's at its infancy so give it time.

Honda have been running hydrogen cars in the States and there was development for infrastructure there, not at a mass scale as it wasnt a mass produced car.

The question really is whether it's cost efficient to develop a hydrogen infrastructure vs upgrading the existing electrivity grid and using electric/hybrid cars.

Richdog · 19 Nov 2014 at 11:56

InvaderGIR said:
This is exactly what I think every time he posts on the forum as it's either really badly worded posts or trying to argue some utterly silly point just because nobody else is, even if it's wrong.

I've been saying this for years... glad everyone else has finally caught up.

Skeeter · 19 Nov 2014 at 11:57

alx said:
And if you're using electricity why not cut out the middleman and go straight from power generation to car battery rather than using hydrogen as a middle step.

Because you can use Hydrogen to solve most of the drawbacks of Electric cars to the end users. So while your adding an extra step, your adding a number of benefits too.

Skeeter · 19 Nov 2014 at 11:59

alx said:
The question really is whether it's cost efficient to develop a hydrogen infrastructure vs upgrading the existing electrivity grid and using electric/hybrid cars.

As Jez has pointed out (in a number of threads), upgrading the grid doesn't solve the problem.

lemonade · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:01

alx said:
The question really is whether it's cost efficient to develop a hydrogen infrastructure vs upgrading the existing electrivity grid and using electric/hybrid cars.

Well in my opinion, which doesn't count for much, electric hybrids are a false economy and hydrogen are a better long term prospect, best thing to do is trial a city with hydrogen infrastructure and see how it actually pans out rather than rolling out nationwide infrastructure.

alx · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:02

Skeeter said:
Because you can use Hydrogen to solve most of the drawbacks of Electric cars to the end users. So while your adding an extra step, your adding a number of benefits too.

Fair point, but what's the cost of this extra step?

The overall goal is to reduce emissions, if you're producing hydrogen via an industrial process or using electricity from a fossil fuel power plant are you really reducing emissions?

And who's to say the draw backs of electric cars won't be solved by the time you have fossil fuel free electricity generation?

alx · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:05

lemonade said:
Well in my opinion, which doesn't count for much, electric hybrids are a false economy and hydrogen are a better long term prospect, best thing to do is trial a city with hydrogen infrastructure and see how it actually pans out rather than rolling out nationwide infrastructure.

In what way do you think electric hybrids are a false economy? Not saying I don't believe you, just want to know your reasoning.

If you think electric hybrids are a false economy I don't really see how you can't see hydrogen as the same....

Hydrogen and fuels cells are a great idea when you just look at the small system (i.e. just the car). When you look at the bigger picture of how you produce the hydrogen and get it to the car it falls apart in my view.

Skeeter · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:29

alx said:
Fair point, but what's the cost of this extra step?

The overall goal is to reduce emissions, if you're producing hydrogen via an industrial process or using electricity from a fossil fuel power plant are you really reducing emissions?

And who's to say the draw backs of electric cars won't be solved by the time you have fossil fuel free electricity generation?

The cost will have to be balanced against uptake. There are a lot of people/businesses/situations where pure electric vehicles simply aren't feasable. If you look at Hyrdrogen the number of people who can't use it is less.

Take me, for example. With my current job, where I live, and my current lifestyle, and from my end user perspective, I cannot run either an Electric or a Hydrogen car. However, all the reasons I can't use a Hydrogen car I can see solutions too, whereas most of the reasons I can't use an Electric car I can't see solutions too, without changing my job, house or lifestyle.

Hydrogen has massive problems, but when it comes down to 'a car' doing the job of 'a car' for people who own 'a car', it is a far more appealing option to Joe Bloggs.

alx said:
Hydrogen and fuels cells are a great idea when you just look at the small system (i.e. just the car). When you look at the bigger picture of how you produce the hydrogen and get it to the car it falls apart in my view.

Yep, but isn't the oposite true of Electic cars? In the big picture the energy production infrastructure is there, but when you look at the small system of the car and its usability, its unworkable and impractical to most people.

Effectively we have 2 technologies. One is a good system producing rubbish cars, while the other is a rubbish system producing good cars. Neither are the answer, so should we instead not be combining the good bits of multiple systems together?

StonedPenguin · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:37

~50 years and we'll be driving Cars powered by Nuclear Fusion.

Uncle_Gravy · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:43

Didn't Honda make a hydrogen car? The Clarity?

Jonnycoupe · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:51

I fail to see the demand for fast home charging - IT IS THE REASON to go EV. Chargemaster are charging a fortune for fast charging. Is this opinion formed from user trials or just a guess of what EV ownership should be.

Clearly Tesla offers free superchargers..... but tbh that means you have to GO TO a charger to use it rather than just sleep in your bed.

Richdog said:
I've been saying this for years... glad everyone else has finally caught up.

I had the opinion when he was AcidHell2.

Skeeter · 19 Nov 2014 at 12:54

Jonnycoupe said:
I fail to see the demand for fast home charging - IT IS THE REASON to go EV. Chargemaster are charging a fortune for fast charging. Is this opinion formed from user trials or just a guess of what EV ownership should be.

Clearly Tesla offers free superchargers..... but tbh that means you have to GO TO a charger to use it rather than just sleep in your bed.

I had the opinion when he was AcidHell2.

It doesn't even matter, its impossible anyway.

Most household electricity supplies would limit people to a ~30 hour charge of a Tesla S. A lucky few with beefy power feeds could run the double charger and get it down to ~15 hours.

And if you have 2 EVs in the house? Forget about it.

ci_newman · 19 Nov 2014 at 13:06

alx said:
Fair point, but what's the cost of this extra step?

The overall goal is to reduce emissions, if you're producing hydrogen via an industrial process or using electricity from a fossil fuel power plant are you really reducing emissions?

And who's to say the draw backs of electric cars won't be solved by the time you have fossil fuel free electricity generation?

The overall goal isn't just about reducing emissions, it is also about reducing our global dependence on fossil fuel to power our vehicles and having a viable alternative.

We've already seen the fuel price rises over the last 10 years, what about the next 50?

alx · 19 Nov 2014 at 13:13

ci_newman said:
The overall goal isn't just about reducing emissions, it is also about reducing our global dependence on fossil fuel to power our vehicles and having a viable alternative.

We've already seen the fuel price rises over the last 10 years, what about the next 50?

I agree, but when people talk about hydrogen they tend to ignore how it's produced. Currently the bulk method of producing hydrogen is by steam reforming of natural gas......not really great for reducing the dependance on fossil fuels.

hyperseven · 19 Nov 2014 at 13:15

I'm still waiting for 'Mr Fusion' as promised in the Back to the Future movies

Skeeter · 19 Nov 2014 at 13:24

alx said:
I agree, but when people talk about hydrogen they tend to ignore how it's produced. Currently the bulk method of producing hydrogen is by steam reforming of natural gas......not really great for reducing the dependance on fossil fuels.

Its hardly like the electricity for these 'zero emissions' EVs is produced through capturing the laughter of unicorns either though?

alx · 19 Nov 2014 at 13:25

Skeeter said:
The cost will have to be balanced against uptake. There are a lot of people/businesses/situations where pure electric vehicles simply aren't feasable. If you look at Hyrdrogen the number of people who can't use it is less.

Take me, for example. With my current job, where I live, and my current lifestyle, and from my end user perspective, I cannot run either an Electric or a Hydrogen car. However, all the reasons I can't use a Hydrogen car I can see solutions too, whereas most of the reasons I can't use an Electric car I can't see solutions too, without changing my job, house or lifestyle.

Hydrogen has massive problems, but when it comes down to 'a car' doing the job of 'a car' for people who own 'a car', it is a far more appealing option to Joe Bloggs.

Yep, but isn't the oposite true of Electic cars? In the big picture the energy production infrastructure is there, but when you look at the small system of the car and its usability, its unworkable and impractical to most people.

Effectively we have 2 technologies. One is a good system producing rubbish cars, while the other is a rubbish system producing good cars. Neither are the answer, so should we instead not be combining the good bits of multiple systems together?

I agree that you effectively have 2 technologies, both of which currently have down sides.

Hopefully battery technology will come on leaps and bounds to make it less of an issue.

This is quite an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Use_as_an_automotive_fuel_and_system_efficiency

Skeeter · 19 Nov 2014 at 13:27

Are hydrogen fuel cells really only 40% efficient? Where does the rest of the energy go?

Jonnycoupe · 19 Nov 2014 at 13:45

Skeeter said:
It doesn't even matter, its impossible anyway.

Most household electricity supplies would limit people to a ~30 hour charge of a Tesla S. A lucky few with beefy power feeds could run the double charger and get it down to ~15 hours.

And if you have 2 EVs in the house? Forget about it.

I guess the counter to that is most people if given a Tesla for a week would NOT require a full recharge every day.

I struggle with anything shifting hydrogen around. Its enough of a struggle on a nuclear sub with the embrittlement of normal metals and I also struggle with how you park a fuel cell vehicle if you are reliant on active cooling systems reducing leaking. I guess you make aswell keep the fuel cell going driving the system as you would lose the hydrogen anyway.

Whats the real world use case of parking them in a garage.... Is it allowed?