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

481–490 of 520 posts

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

#481

Post by ErroneousBosh »

foota wrote: post #474
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The range of most EVs is only about 120 miles, which isn't especially useful when they take around six hours to charge.

Maybe most EVs in the wild, but no way for EVs being sold today. There are only 5 cars on this list below 200: https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons... , and more than half above 300.

"Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consu..." on this server."

But I mean, you say that but if you test a car advertised as having 200 miles real-world performance then in practical terms that's about 120 miles.

You might get 200 miles if you're driving in a perfectly straight line on a perfectly flat motorway at a steady speed.

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

#482

Post by pfdietz »

closewith wrote: post #469
pfdietz wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Capex for H2 pipelines is higher than new HVDC, and opex is 5-10x HVDC per MWh-km so you're just wrong on this. H2 makes sense for feedstocks but not energy distribution.

The reference I gave you completely disagrees with your statement. So, present a link justifying it or I will just go with the link I have.

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

#483

Post by ssl-3 »

crote wrote: post #478
ssl-3 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the everything, yeah. There's a lot working against using hydrogen as the local energy source for automotive propulsion in the world that we presently have. Some advantages are that a fuel cell that accepts hydrogen and air at one end and emits electricity and water at the other can be lighter-weight than a big battery, and it can [potentially] be refueled quickly for long trips. Some disadvantages: We need a co…

> A quick Google suggests that a regular 120v US outlet might charge EVs at a rate somewhere in the range of 3 to 5 miles per hour. So a dozen or so hours sitting, plugged in at home every day, is enough to cover most folks' every-day driving. And this gets significantly better once you start using 240v sockets - like the US is already using for dryers. Got a dryer in your garage? Guess what, you are only a weekend p…

Right. There's faster ways and the specifics vary, but I think people are broadly aware of this: When EVs come up in my conversations, I often hear ruminations about needing a special outlet or charger-box or some kind of infrastructure that needs (must be) installed or upgraded. They seem to know very well; it is, in fact, something that turns them off of EVs.

My main point is that many of us have a perfectly-usable method within reach that provides enough juice to keep the car going day after day for the driving we normally do, which can be used right now without knowing what a screwdriver even looks like.

Just buy the car and drive it to work tomorrow (and the next day, and the day after that), and leave it plugged in while it sits there at home. This is exactly what the folks I know who drive EVs and who do fast chargers already do; it's a habit for them. They get home, and if they don't plan on leaving again soon then they plug their car in.

Except: There's not even necessarily any weekend project required -- for most drivers, faster charging at home is completely optional. Needs vary, but for most people it maths out fine to just use the regular ass-plug[1] that's already right there on the wall.

Even for longer trips: Visiting family, out of town, overnight? No problem. Plug your car in after you get settled in. No big deal. It doesn't matter if they're an EV family or not; while the car is just sitting there, it may as well also be taking a charge. (As to the cost: Buy them a beer or something and fuhgettaboutit.)

[1]: https://xkcd.com/37/

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

#484

Post by closewith »

pfdietz wrote: post #482
closewith wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capex for H2 pipelines is higher than new HVDC, and opex is 5-10x HVDC per MWh-km so you're just wrong on this. H2 makes sense for feedstocks but not energy distribution.

The reference I gave you completely disagrees with your statement. So, present a link justifying it or I will just go with the link I have.

The PDF you shared actually agrees with my point if you care you to read it. It models the cost for a specific HVDC implementation, but the HVDC line selected is more expensive when transporting just 3% of the energy of the pipeline.

The same capex and opex can support 100x more Wh-km via HVDC, making HVDC at least an order of magnitude cheaper then the H2 pipeline.

What's interesting to me is that this is completely uncontroversial and incontrovertible, so I wonder where your insistence otherwise is?

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

#485

Post by fuzzfactor »

ACCount37 wrote: post #426
fuzzfactor wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. It's just the physical properties of methane. That's why they use high-pressure tanks because with low-pressure gas storage, the tank needs to be bigger than the car. Energy density of methane is still lower than any other hydrocarbons.

Again: current day CNG ICEs don't actually have "fuel tanks bigger than the car".

That's because they use high-pressure tanks.

Actually higher working presure than regular welders' oxygen tanks.

Too bad the higher the pressure, the heavier the tank, especially steel.

I had a pretty good job offer from a company that was going to start building CNG tanks out of carbon fiber.

This was a few years before the failure of the Titan submersible.

CNG has made some progress since then, here's the kind of thing there is now:

https://steelheadcomposites.com/sites/default/files/2024-01/...

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

#486

Post by fuzzfactor »

elzbardico wrote: post #397
fuzzfactor wrote: post #381

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.

Not my downvote btw, you owned it yoursef.

I like the idea of getting better at math every decade.

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

#487

Post by wisplike »

margalabargala wrote: post #423
fuzzfactor wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect it's all a moot point. Prices of solar and battery are plummeting. If anything they are dropping faster than they were 5—10 years ago. 10 years from now I suspect the grid will largely be transitioning remaining fossil fuel base load to solar and wind backed with batteries, because the economics will be there to overbuild the solar and battery to the extent needed to provide reliable base load through the w…

The land/Wh required for solar/wind and battery compared to nuclear is strikingly different.

Nuclear will always be in the backseat for the foreseeable.

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

#488

Post by pfdietz »

closewith wrote: post #484
pfdietz wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reference I gave you completely disagrees with your statement. So, present a link justifying it or I will just go with the link I have.

The PDF you shared actually agrees with my point if you care you to read it. It models the cost for a specific HVDC implementation, but the HVDC line selected is more expensive when transporting just 3% of the energy of the pipeline. The same capex and opex can support 100x more Wh-km via HVDC, making HVDC at least an order of magnitude cheaper then the H2 pipeline. What's interesting to me is that this is completely…

I'm sorry but you appear to be completely deranged. The paper says nothing of the sort. Let me give the abstract:

"This paper compares the relative cost of long-distance, large-scale energy transmission by electricity, gaseous, and liquid carriers (e-fuels). The results indicate that the cost of electrical transmission per delivered MWh can be up to eight times higher than for hydrogen pipelines, about eleven times higher than for natural gas pipelines, and twenty to fifty times higher than for liquid fuels pipelines. These differences generally hold for shorter distances as well. The higher cost of electrical transmission is primarily because of lower carrying capacity (MW per line) of electrical transmission lines compared to the energy carrying capacity of the pipelines for gaseous and liquid fuels. The differences in the cost of transmission are important but often unrecognized and should be considered as a significant cost component in the analysis of various renewable energy production, distribution, and utilization scenarios."

I'm to read this as supporting your assertion that electrical transmission is several times cheaper??

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

#489

Post by margalabargala »

wisplike wrote: post #487
margalabargala wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it's all a moot point. Prices of solar and battery are plummeting. If anything they are dropping faster than they were 5—10 years ago. 10 years from now I suspect the grid will largely be transitioning remaining fossil fuel base load to solar and wind backed with batteries, because the economics will be there to overbuild the solar and battery to the extent needed to provide reliable base load through the w…

The land/Wh required for solar/wind and battery compared to nuclear is strikingly different. Nuclear will always be in the backseat for the foreseeable.

The land available for solar and wind is immense, especially because wind can be put in the ocean. The land required for batteries is tiny, especially compared to a nuclear power plant.

The challenges are going to be political, not spatial or geographic. China could put enough solar panels in its western deserts to power the whole country. The US could do the same in its southwest. It would take about 15% of the land area of Arizona to power the entire US.

That's physically achievable but politically difficult.

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

#490

Post by sandworm101 »

vel0city wrote: post #477
sandworm101 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. All those parts work at basically 100% until failure or replacement. Some even improve with a bit of use (tires, brake pads, seals). They wear, they dont degrade. Batteries drop in performance from day one.

So tires with 2/32nds will have better grip in the rain than warmed up fresh ones? They just get better until they pop? That must be the reason why race cars only use heavily worn tires instead of fresh ones when they race. Engine lubricant is better at 5,000mi than 1mi? You only bother buying heavily used motor oil and tires right? After all they perform so much better. And springs and shocks are perfect examples of…

Mold release needs to be rubbed off. And the bead needs a few weeks to harden. That's why the tire people tell you to go easy on new tires. As for other stuff, work on cars for few decades and you will learn which parts are more reliable once proven than when brand new, which need time before being pushed to limits.
Post reply on HN