Live data from Hacker News

Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

carbuzz.com

411–420 of 520 posts

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why go for long synthetic chains? Methane has good energy density, doesn't demand cryogenics or diffuse through steel, burns very cleanly, and can be used in modified gasoline ICEs - without even sacrificing the gasoline fuel capability.

Without cryogenics, methane has such low energy density that a low-pressure fuel tank would still have to be as big as a bus for your compact methane-powered vehicle to go as far as you could on a few gallons of gasoline.

Why?

CNG ICE vehicles exist, especially in parts of the world that have cheap natural gas and expensive gasoline - often as dual fuel retrofits.

They have to deal with high pressure tanks, but compared to the woes of hydrogen storage, that's downright benign.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#412
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay not driving it around then. But somehow it's worse. You still have to build the special tank and the special pump and also get an electrolysis device that is big enough to create enough hydrogen and also you have to get heaps of power somewhere that could instead be just straight put into a battery in a car. Make it make sense. What's the point? Who is willing to do that?

Don’t forget keeping everything cold enough. On the vehicle side, you can make a gasoline tank in pretty much any shape you want. We have lots of experience making batteries in different shapes thanks to cell phones. High-pressure tanks only want to be in one shape. And it’s not especially convenient.

One of the reasons we use cryogenic liquidfied gases is so the density can be in the same ball-park of more-easily liquified gases which do not need low temperature to keep from expanding until the tank ruptures.

>One of the reasons we use cryogenic liquidfied gases is so the density can be in the same ball-park of more-easily liquified gases which do not need low temperature to keep from expanding until the tank ruptures.

Propane, butane, LPG are all gases but the pressure which needs to be contained as the gas is turned into a liquid using pressure, is not too high for the typical welded BBQ tank. Designed to hold about 350 psi.

The two lighter hydrocarbons, methane & ethane can be compressed way beyond what a high-pressure spun cylinder (like the typical 3000 psi rated heavy oxygen tank welders use) can handle, and still not liquefy.

So similar to oxygen, nitrogen, argon, hydrogen and other "fixed" gases, methane needs to be liquefied cryogenically or any reasonable size tank will still not hold enough to last but a very small fraction of the time compared to the same capacity cryogenic storage.

But "storage" is doing a lot of work here.

Interestingly, with cryogenics you're going to need to handle even less pressure than the BBQ tanks, and the same size container ends up holding way more than the high-pressure cylinder at 3000 psi.

A typical liquid nitrogen cylinder runs at about 50 psi, the tank will be rated quite a bit higher than that but not considered "high-pressure" by anybody. Thinner and non-curved shapes can be fine which can be lighter in weight than higher-pressure ratings would require, but you really have to have plenty of good thermal insulation to boot.

The thing is, once you refill your cryogenic tank with cold liquid gas, you can never actually shut the tank completely. There is no additional cooling. The only thing keeping it cold is the low temperature of the liquid itself, no matter how good the insulation is, heat will gradually soak in and given enough time the whole thing would eventually end up at ambient temperature. Not cold enough to remain as a liquid any more.

That would be eventually explosive whether it was a flammable gas or not.

Instead, the tank is continuously venting a constant stream of gas from top.

IOW the rate of heat absorbtion is compensated for under equilibrium as it boils the liquid a little bit constantly and there has to be a way for that gas to escape. The remaining liquid maintains the low temperature because the boiling point of the gas (at that low pressure) is still in the cryogenic range.

The liquid self-refrigerates by evaporation to the (negative) boiling point of the substance. Which is why liquid helium is so much colder than liquid nitrogen in an identical cryo tank.

That means if you fill a tank with one of these cryo gases, depending on your usage rate the losses to evaporation may be more than the amount you are utilizing.

Or if you fill the cryo tank and don't use any at all for a while, it will empty itself by evaporation anyway and it could be before you got to use any of it.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#413
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget keeping everything cold enough. On the vehicle side, you can make a gasoline tank in pretty much any shape you want. We have lots of experience making batteries in different shapes thanks to cell phones. High-pressure tanks only want to be in one shape. And it’s not especially convenient.

Is the shape round? I bet it's round.

No need as I have shown in my other coment.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#414
post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is suspect large trucks may eventually move to hydrogen [...] They won't, why would they? The number of hydrogen gas stations is going down and the price is going up. Batteries are good enough already - the Mercedes eActros 600 with its 600 kWh battery has a range of 500 km.

Lol yes lets just casually plug into a 1.2MW charger and not take down the electricity of the nearby town while I charge my truck. Nuclear trucks and boats are what I envision so maybe I'm the one who needs a reality check.

Around where I live, we have electric car ferries.

To avoid having to upgrade the grid massively, we use large battery banks shoreside which are being charged at a sustainable (to the grid) rate, then the ferry charges rapidly by depleting the battery bank, leaving the grid alone.

Works a charm.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no it's never been extremely safe by any stretch of the imagination. That's just an extreme interpretation of the way it's not as extremely unsafe as it could be. Plus at the rate it's being addressed by a few enthusiasts, it could be getting remarkably safer, maybe even in one person's lifetime someday. Developments may be positive but it makes the most sense to be realistic and avoid the completely unfounded…

Well, this is just boomer lunatic anti-nuclear FUD. It is not what the numbers say.

Do the math again.

The numbers say that nothing is extremely safe, and experience has shown that having more maturity may not be necessary to recognize that, but it helps.

It just hurts the case for positive progress to mindlessly exaggerate. Especially to the absolute max.

Plus I'm not one of the ones who follow any boomer lunatic trends when I can come up with my own which people of many ages have adopted quite a bit.

Remember wacky lunatic science turns into regular science more often than you think once the dust settles.

But the advantage of that doesn't really depend on elderliness, mainly dedication to science.

Any age can do it if you try.

Well, maybe not if you're completely non-gifted in some way or another.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#416
post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Round trip efficiency of hydrogen is at best 50% In fact, even this level of efficiency may be sufficient. Solar panels are so cheap that if we had affordable, long-term energy storage options, even with such efficiency, we would have completely abandoned fossil fuels. But, unfortunately, storing hydrogen is difficult and dangerous. It is not like natural gas. > It's not nearly as stupid as making ethanol from corn…

> Ethanol is produced from corn not for energy purposes, but for food security Source? First time I read this, might make sense. Although I don't see how this corn should be unaffected by crop failure if all other corn harvests failed.

[deleted]

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#417
post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Round trip efficiency of hydrogen is at best 50% and at worse half that. You have the horrendous efficiency of electrolysis and then the equally bad efficiency in the fuel cell. Efficiency pumping your excess solar into the EV itself is more like 80-85%, most of which is loss in the electronics, not the battery - those typically have a coulombic efficiency of over 95%. Hydrogen a boondoggle. It's not nearly as stupid…

> Round trip efficiency of hydrogen is at best 50% In fact, even this level of efficiency may be sufficient. Solar panels are so cheap that if we had affordable, long-term energy storage options, even with such efficiency, we would have completely abandoned fossil fuels. But, unfortunately, storing hydrogen is difficult and dangerous. It is not like natural gas. > It's not nearly as stupid as making ethanol from corn…

Well... How successful is the US in cutting ethanol consumption on the years the corn production is lower?

Meat usually does that stabilizing. Fuel consumption not even is almost completely inelastic, but corn ethanol on the US is subsidized on every stage to the point that market forces become meaningless.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no it's never been extremely safe by any stretch of the imagination. That's just an extreme interpretation of the way it's not as extremely unsafe as it could be. Plus at the rate it's being addressed by a few enthusiasts, it could be getting remarkably safer, maybe even in one person's lifetime someday. Developments may be positive but it makes the most sense to be realistic and avoid the completely unfounded…

It's extremely safe, except in the event of a black swan event, in which case it becomes extremely unsafe. This is compared to, for example, a coal plant, which is quite unsafe to be near constantly, all the time.

Pull back from the extremes a little bit and it's an excellent synopsis.

Keep in mind an off-white swan can be pretty bad too :)

The main thing about such uncommon or even unlkely events, is that nobody knows what to do about them.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen is the minimum viable atom: one proton, one electron. H2 is a tiny molecule. "hydrogen embrittlement" is when it's small enough to diffuse into solid metal, because it's that much smaller than iron atoms. It's hard to work with because of this, and what's the point? For most uses, electricity supply is already everywhere.

>Hydrogen is the minimum viable atom: one proton, one electron. Wait until you hear about H+

Yes, hydrogen will ionise into loose protons.

The basic point is that a material that is highly flammable, needs to be compressed to high pressure in order to be useful, but also will seep through and damage steel containers because of the fundamental fact that the atoms and charged ions are just too small, is never going to be easy to work with. Compared to electrical battery tech now being widely and cheaply rolled out.

This goes some way to answering the "Why is it such a terrible idea?" question. Or at least it's an idea whose time has passed, due to the abovementioned battery tech maturing.

Re: Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

#420
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen any cost models where green hydrogen is feasible without a lot of super cheap excess electricity. And those situations also boost batteries. Do you have one you can show me? It's not just lack of infrastructure, even if you solved the problem of building everything out green hydrogen is still not worth it under conditions close to the present day. And I didn't say it could never under any circumstances…

Research. Battery tech was terrible. Horrible. It was only through endless research, trillions spent, that battery tech can do what it does today. Now apply the same logic to h2.

I didn't suggest stopping research.

But while research and scaling up made batteries 50x cheaper, batteries are mostly about material costs and technique. For hydrogen there's a huge per-unit energy cost and that limits how much research helps.

Post reply on HN