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

Toyota’s hydrogen-powered Mirai has experienced rapid depreciation

carbuzz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 520 posts

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

#451

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

b112 wrote: post #266
Tade0 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no point. EVs go 50% further on the same amount of energy, are easier to charge and are, of course, cheaper.

EVs take forever to charge, rendering long trips unrealistic. They are not cheaper long term, for they rely upon thousands of pounds of heavy batteries. If they go further now, that is not a given down the road. Were you to employ this logic when electric cars first came out, there wouldn't be a single one on the road. It's only through trillions of research dollars, that current battery tech is where it is. But sure…

Pumping gases is not really fast. That goes for H2 or natural gas. It pumps slowly as to not overwhelm the tank and it needs time to equalize after the pump. Also connecting the nozzle is much more of a hassle because it needs to be a tight seal. Not remotely comparable to pumping gasoline.

Apart from that a modern BEV can charge pretty fast. Just enough time to get a snack and eat it.

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

#452

Post by bryanlarsen »

travisb wrote: post #434
bryanlarsen wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many jurisdictions require that commercial drivers take a 30 minute break every 4 hours. Those that don't should. Those stops make battery trucking feasible. And if you want to stop for 5 minutes instead of 30 you can use battery swapping solutions like the one Janus uses. Batteries are feasible for long distance trucking today. Green Hydrogen trucking uses 3X as much electricity as using it directly. Trucking's bigg…

Using mandated breaks for recharging heavy trucks isn't actually helpful in much of the world. Maybe it is in parts of Western Europe. The problem is that those mandated breaks are mandated and happen (with a small amount of wiggle room) wherever the truck happens to be at that moment. Rolling out enough charging infrastructure to make that work is an even more immense challenge than the already massive challenge of…

Imagine the cost of installing massive diesel depots at half the wide spots on every highway. And yet, there they are. And we already have car chargers every few dozen miles on the highways. A larger number of smaller chargers adding up to likely a larger wattage than what the trucks need.

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

#453

Post by pfdietz »

closewith wrote: post #433
pfdietz wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it does, then it also rules out long distance transmission of electrical power, as that is even more expensive. And the hydrogen advantage is even greater when one considers one can piggyback storage onto this system, as is done in natural gas pipelines. The electrical system would need additional batteries which are much more expensive per unit of storage capacity.

You are simply wrong on this. HVDC losses total ~5% for 1,000km, including step up and step down losses. H2 will experience 20-30% over the same distance of natural gas line including compression and friction losses. DOA.

I said expensive. Total cost is the relevant metric, not efficiency.

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81662.pdf

It's a common mistake to think efficiency dominates all other metrics. It's never just efficiency.

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

#454

Post by NetMageSCW »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #435
Shaanie wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite impressive to quote the guidelines to someone when your first post breaks a whole bunch of them.

[flagged]

Where’s a report button when you need one?

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

#455

Post by panick21 »

belorn wrote: post #203
aunty_helen wrote: post #60

Kinda glad this is the case. When people go out of their way to avoid common sense they should be punished. Hydrogen is such a terrible idea it was never getting off the ground. There seems to be some kind of psychosis around it being the next oil and therefore greedy people want to get in early on. But this blinds them to the basic chemistry and physics.

People looked at how the cost of wind and solar went down and made a assumption that green hydrogen would follow. The reasoning was that the cost of green hydrogen was energy, and thus at some point green hydrogen would be too cheap to meter. The whole energy plan of central/northen Europe, especially Germany, was built for the last several decades on the idea that they would combine wind, solar and cheap natural gas…

> , and thus at some point green hydrogen would be too cheap to meter.

Even if you assume that is true. It will always be more expensive then straight electricity.

> The more sensible project were the green steel project.

Not sure I agree. I think Boston Metal solution is better long term carbon free steel solution.

> natural gas with bio fuels

There was a huge 'bio' fuels hype around like 15-20 years ago if I remember correctly. Huge amount of controversy and false claims with politicians support.

Funny how this now comes back again and nothing was learned.

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

#456

Post by crote »

overfeed wrote: post #255
dotancohen wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to Google what is green hydrogen. It is hydrogen produced by electrolysis. If you've already got the electricity for electrolysis, would it not be more efficient and mechanically simpler to store it in a battery and power an electric motor?

Before the introduction of 800V charging architectures, long charge-time for EVs was a big con. Hydrogen Cell vehicles were supposed to be EVs with drastically faster fill-up times. The tradeoff was more complex delivery infrastructure.

The faster fill-up time of hydrogen was mostly a lie. It could fuel a single vehicle at that speed, but then the filling station would need a significant time to build up enough pressure for the next one.

Turns out having to fill vehicles at 350 to 700 bar (5,000 to 10,000 psi) is a massive pain - especially when you can't keep it cryogenically cooled as a liquid in your storage tanks.

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

#457

Post by panick21 »

HPsquared wrote: post #248
aunty_helen wrote: post #60

Kinda glad this is the case. When people go out of their way to avoid common sense they should be punished. Hydrogen is such a terrible idea it was never getting off the ground. There seems to be some kind of psychosis around it being the next oil and therefore greedy people want to get in early on. But this blinds them to the basic chemistry and physics.

Synthetic fuels (including hydrogen) do still make a lot of sense for heavy stuff like trucks, buses or trains, and aircraft where the energy density is a big plus. Those are where you'd expect to see hydrogen take off first, not passenger cars. Same as how diesel started in trucks - expensive engines but economical when amortized and worth it for heavy usage applications. If they couldn't crack those areas, no chanc…

> trucks, buses or trains

Trains no, electrify everywhere is clearly better. Maybe for really old legacy branch lines, batteries.

Trucks should as much as possible move to rail, much better solution.

For the rest, the waste majority of short-haul trucking, should be electric. In Europe, the amount of stopping trucks have to do already can be used to charge.

Only ultra long haul trucking has to stay on traditional fuels, and that a small %. And then you might as well just use conventional fuels.

Some aircraft is the only really good application. But I think not hydrogen, and instead syn-jet fuel.

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

#458

Post by vel0city »

whatever1 wrote: post #437
vel0city wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Used models for my five year old EV are still selling for ~50% of what I paid for, so no, its far worse than most EVs.

Looking at Ford Mach-E. I don't see the number you are seeing. I can find 2024 Mach-E 50% off its MSRP.

Looking at 2021 Mach E Premiums around me in good shape and normal mileage, most are ~$22k. The car was originally $49k MSRP. So ~45% retained value, I rounded. Mea culpa. But when you factor in that the original owner really got it for $7,500+ in rebates that's more like 52% of retained value. So the truth is really somewhere in between.

2024's around me are listed around $34-36k. MSRP was $47k. Didn't qualify for federal rebates. 34/47 is 72% of retained value, a loss of 28%. Also a 2024 model year is two model years old not one. That's far from 65% lost value.

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

#459

Post by panick21 »

rswail wrote: post #301
aunty_helen wrote: post #60

Kinda glad this is the case. When people go out of their way to avoid common sense they should be punished. Hydrogen is such a terrible idea it was never getting off the ground. There seems to be some kind of psychosis around it being the next oil and therefore greedy people want to get in early on. But this blinds them to the basic chemistry and physics.

Green hydrogen makes sense as a way to ship solar power to places that don't have it. Using it as a car fuel only makes sense as an interim step to full renewable/EVs. Internal combustion engines, no matter what the fuel, are way more complicated than electric motors. Doesn't matter how you slice and dice the argument.

No . No . No. Please No. Absolutely fucking not.

Shipping hydrogen is literally one of the dumbest things you can ever do.

Its pure and utter nonsense that is only getting pushed for political reasons. It has 0 actual viability.

Even if you were willing to pay 5-10x more for hydrogen, shipping doesn't make sense.

The only way we are ever moving any quantity of hydrogen anywhere is with pipelines. Literally everything about hydrogen makes it a complete nightmare to ship.

And nobody is likely ever going to build these hydrogen pipelines.

Hydrogen is completely idiotic as a 'energy move' medium.

> Using it as a car fuel only makes sense as an interim step to full renewable/EVs.

No it doesn't and it never did. Only such a tiny amount were ever sold, and those were only sold because of massive subsidies and sold below value by car companies who wanted to push the concept (and farm subsidies).

EV by 2008 already outsold hydrogen vehicles and have grown every year, hydrogen vehicles never became more then marketing gimick and were never sold in numbers that even approach relevance.

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

#460

Post by crote »

pfdietz wrote: post #374
scraptor wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea was to transition from coal to natural gas while using solar and wind to reduce fuel consumption, thereby significantly reducing CO2 emissions. Any claims of hydrogen being burned were either lies to the public to get the gas plants built despite the non-green optics or lies to investors as part of a fraud scheme.

Hydrogen burning could have a place in an all-renewable grid: it could be much more economical for very long duration storage than using batteries. The last 5-10% of the grid becomes much cheaper to do with renewables if something like hydrogen (or other e-fuels) is available. A competitor that might be even better is very long duration high temperature thermal storage, if capex minimization is the priority.

> it could be much more economical for very long duration storage than using batteries

Yes, but that's not the only option you have. With the absolutely awful efficiency of burning hydrogen you'd need to be building a massive amount of additional wind and solar - which in turn means you'll also have additional capacity available during cloudy wind-calm days, which means you'll need to burn substantially less hydrogen to generate power.

This leads to the irony that building the power-generation infrastructure for generating enough hydrogen means you won't even need to bother with the hydrogen part: you're basically just building enough solar that their overcast supply is enough to meet the average demand. As a bonus, you've now got a massive oversupply during sunny winter days and even more during summer days, so most of the year electricity will essentially be free.

Post reply on HN