Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

pcmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#41

Post by seanmcdirmid »

_hypx wrote: post #40
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FCEV requires lots of compression, that compressed tank doesn’t come for free, and a lot of energy is lost to compression.

Compressed gas is its own energy storage method. This is not a fundamental problem. Also, it does not take that much energy to compress gas. Advancements in technology will reduce this to a tiny amount: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...

Those compressed tanks are still expensive, comparable to a battery in cost. Right now power return is like 38% given electricity - hydrogen - compression - convert back to electricity costs.

Sure it can get better, so can BEVs. I don’t see hydrogen winning though, electricity is just so pervasive while the infrastructure for hydrogen would have to be built out, and people might not want to go back to the gas station model after they are used to just charging at home.

They might work out for truck transport given the weight savings, and easier deployment of hydrogen infrastructure at truck stops.

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#42

Post by _hypx »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #41
_hypx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compressed gas is its own energy storage method. This is not a fundamental problem. Also, it does not take that much energy to compress gas. Advancements in technology will reduce this to a tiny amount: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...

Those compressed tanks are still expensive, comparable to a battery in cost. Right now power return is like 38% given electricity - hydrogen - compression - convert back to electricity costs. Sure it can get better, so can BEVs. I don’t see hydrogen winning though, electricity is just so pervasive while the infrastructure for hydrogen would have to be built out, and people might not want to go back to the gas station…

It's literally just a tank. It will be far cheaper than batteries, especially if you want real range.

Most of the arguments against hydrogen cars are just attempts to defend BEVs, not serious arguments against them. BEV advocates can't even acknowledge that millions of people live in apartments or condos, and will probably never have convenient access to charging systems. They pretty much require an alternative.

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#43

Post by seanmcdirmid »

_hypx wrote: post #42
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those compressed tanks are still expensive, comparable to a battery in cost. Right now power return is like 38% given electricity - hydrogen - compression - convert back to electricity costs. Sure it can get better, so can BEVs. I don’t see hydrogen winning though, electricity is just so pervasive while the infrastructure for hydrogen would have to be built out, and people might not want to go back to the gas station…

It's literally just a tank. It will be far cheaper than batteries, especially if you want real range. Most of the arguments against hydrogen cars are just attempts to defend BEVs, not serious arguments against them. BEV advocates can't even acknowledge that millions of people live in apartments or condos, and will probably never have convenient access to charging systems. They pretty much require an alternative.

It’s really not just a tank, it has to be capable of very high pressure storage, at -240C, which is kind of cold. If it were just a tank, Hydrogen fuel cell cars wouldn’t be $50k+. Not only that, but you are now paying a per gallon cost for hydrogen that is similar, if not more, than what gasoline costs, given the infra needed to just hold the hydrogen and then send it into someone p’s tank, as well as deliver it.

Millions of people live in condos and apartments without access to even parking, they park on the street I guess in countries that allow that (many countries require that you show proof of parking spot before they’ll sell you a vehicle). Norway is already at 50%, it’s not going to be even a contest in most countries that don’t have America’s flaky parking arrangements.

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#44

Post by _hypx »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #43
_hypx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally just a tank. It will be far cheaper than batteries, especially if you want real range. Most of the arguments against hydrogen cars are just attempts to defend BEVs, not serious arguments against them. BEV advocates can't even acknowledge that millions of people live in apartments or condos, and will probably never have convenient access to charging systems. They pretty much require an alternative.

It’s really not just a tank, it has to be capable of very high pressure storage, at -240C, which is kind of cold. If it were just a tank, Hydrogen fuel cell cars wouldn’t be $50k+. Not only that, but you are now paying a per gallon cost for hydrogen that is similar, if not more, than what gasoline costs, given the infra needed to just hold the hydrogen and then send it into someone p’s tank, as well as deliver it. Mi…

It literally is a just a tank. Just a strong one. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this basic fact? And what did BEVs cost when they first came out?

These are just excuses that exist to defend BEVs. They are not serious arguments. It is ironically just a repeat of anti-BEVs arguments, just by BEV fans against the next big idea this time. I guess just like Reddit turning into the next Digg, history sometimes repeats like this.

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#45

Post by seanmcdirmid »

_hypx wrote: post #44
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really not just a tank, it has to be capable of very high pressure storage, at -240C, which is kind of cold. If it were just a tank, Hydrogen fuel cell cars wouldn’t be $50k+. Not only that, but you are now paying a per gallon cost for hydrogen that is similar, if not more, than what gasoline costs, given the infra needed to just hold the hydrogen and then send it into someone p’s tank, as well as deliver it. Mi…

It literally is a just a tank. Just a strong one. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this basic fact? And what did BEVs cost when they first came out? These are just excuses that exist to defend BEVs. They are not serious arguments. It is ironically just a repeat of anti-BEVs arguments, just by BEV fans against the next big idea this time. I guess just like Reddit turning into the next Digg, history somet…

A strong and cold tank, literally 90% of the reason the car costs more than $50k compared to the cheap fuel cell and basic EV drive train that they also put into the vehicle.

Hydrogen fuel cells are economically non-starters for all but a few niche applications. Toyota is just so sunk cost on it and behind on BEVs that they are desperate to make hydrogen happen even when it clear isn’t.

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#46

Post by _hypx »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #45
_hypx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally is a just a tank. Just a strong one. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this basic fact? And what did BEVs cost when they first came out? These are just excuses that exist to defend BEVs. They are not serious arguments. It is ironically just a repeat of anti-BEVs arguments, just by BEV fans against the next big idea this time. I guess just like Reddit turning into the next Digg, history somet…

A strong and cold tank, literally 90% of the reason the car costs more than $50k compared to the cheap fuel cell and basic EV drive train that they also put into the vehicle. Hydrogen fuel cells are economically non-starters for all but a few niche applications. Toyota is just so sunk cost on it and behind on BEVs that they are desperate to make hydrogen happen even when it clear isn’t.

[flagged]

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#47

Post by panick21_ »

_hypx wrote: post #35
somewhat_drunk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FCEV "well to wheel" systemic efficiency is significantly lower than equivalent BEV systemic efficiency, and FCEVs are much more complex than BEVs. FCEV's only advantages over BEVs are faster charging times and moderately greater range, both of which are fast dwindling and will soon be gone. Hydrogen is a dead end, a decarbonization distraction being pushed by oil companies, policymakers engaging in the sunk cost fal…

That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple. A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs. They will cost no more than conventional hybrid cars to build. BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy. When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas. In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even ac…

> That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple.

Funny how despite it being so simply all car companies still struggle to actually produce a fuel cell car at sane costs.

> A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs.

This is just factually wrong.

And in the cases its true its because the company selling them is actually losing absurd amounts of money per car. While on the other hand Tesla has a 20% margin on their BEVs.

Lets compare in the real world. I just checked, I can get a Long Range Tesla Model 3 for the same price as a Toyota Mirai and Tesla has far, far cheaper fuel costs and many extras not included in the Toyota.

Tesla live cycle cost are far lower, this isn't up for debate, its a simple fact.

> BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy.

Funny how there are many millions of BEV sold and Toyota can barley sell a few 1000s highly subsidies FCEVs.

And how every industry prediction is suggesting 50% growth over the next couple years for BEV and barley and growth for FCEV.

> When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.

You are a hilarious joker. Pretty much every car company in the world not in Japan is fully committed to transitioning to BEV and are investing 1000s of billion.

FCEV isn't even a rounding error. Tesla produces more Model Y per week then Toyota FCEV sales per year.

> In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.

Everybody knows that FCEVs are EV but FCEV are so irrelevant in the real world that nobody even considers talking about them. Its like saying Birds are dinosaurs, ok I guess that's strictly speaking true but its simply a irrelevant fact for 99.99999999% of the population.

FCEV for cars is dead. You sound like time traveler from early 2000s who has been left behind.

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#48

Post by panick21_ »

_hypx wrote: post #34
panick21_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes and so are vehicles running with flux capacitors and anti gravity devices and those have about the same relevance in the car market. Even the most pro hydrogen people have essentially given up on the car market. Hydrogen vehicles have failed so spectacularly in the market that anybody who still believes in them now is either straight up delusional or has some vested interest. The hope remains alive in the he…

[flagged]

Pff you are so devoid of real world knowlage is astonishing. Hydrogen cars have been on sale for decades. But lucky for the car companies that build them, nobody wants to buy that trash so they advertise them at below cost. These car don't even have real production lines, the volume is to low to actually invest in a serious production line.

Go and actually compare real world sales. Like actually go look at the real world. In the real world BEV sales are increasing 50% year over year and is already many millions every year.

Hydrogen car sales are a couple 1000 at best. And most of those are not even to real costumers but pilot programs and things like that.

Tesla produces about as many Model Y a week as global hydrogen car sales per year. Hydrogen cars are a totally irrelevant rounding error.

Why would anybody buy a car when there are almost no actual gas stations. Toyota is clearly not willing to build gas stations themselves on a large scale. What company in your mind will spend 10 to 100s of billions to out a hydrogen fueling infrastructure

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#49

Post by fwungy »

_hypx wrote: post #40
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FCEV requires lots of compression, that compressed tank doesn’t come for free, and a lot of energy is lost to compression.

Compressed gas is its own energy storage method. This is not a fundamental problem. Also, it does not take that much energy to compress gas. Advancements in technology will reduce this to a tiny amount: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...

FCVs are projected to be cheaper than BEVs by all the modeling in the literature.

Going with a lower pressure tank saves money at the cost of reduced range. The problem is booting a hydrogen station network big enough to support a low range FCV (But even building expensive carbon fiber high pressure tanks is going to eventually be much cheaper than huge batteries filled with semi-rare minerals that will increase in price as battery market demand increases. We should talk about what peak will mean alongside Peak Oil.

Re: Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027

#50

Post by fwungy »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #43
_hypx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally just a tank. It will be far cheaper than batteries, especially if you want real range. Most of the arguments against hydrogen cars are just attempts to defend BEVs, not serious arguments against them. BEV advocates can't even acknowledge that millions of people live in apartments or condos, and will probably never have convenient access to charging systems. They pretty much require an alternative.

It’s really not just a tank, it has to be capable of very high pressure storage, at -240C, which is kind of cold. If it were just a tank, Hydrogen fuel cell cars wouldn’t be $50k+. Not only that, but you are now paying a per gallon cost for hydrogen that is similar, if not more, than what gasoline costs, given the infra needed to just hold the hydrogen and then send it into someone p’s tank, as well as deliver it. Mi…

It only needs high pressure for high range. You could build cheaper FCVs that would cover commuter needs like basic BEVs do without high pressure tanks.
Post reply on HN