Live data from Hacker News

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

pcmag.com

51–56 of 56 posts

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

#51
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 w…

A claim that is categorically false. The Mirai was the first commercially available FCEV, and that happened around 2014. Meanwhile, BEVs are older than internal combustion cars.

The whole argument could easily be a repeat of the argument in favor of diesel cars. There was a time when millions of them sold per year, and BEVs were just a round error at the time. But the facts don't change: diesel cars are unsustainable and had major fundamental limitations. The answer became the BEV, despite being sold in nearly no quantities at the time.

This time around, it is become clear that BEVs are also unsustainable, and have their own limitations. And it doesn't matter how many millions it sell. There need for something even better than the BEV still exists, and that will be the catalyst for FCEV sales.

One of the biggest upside is that they are in reality much simpler and lighter than BEVs. A FCEV will cost no more than internal combustion cars to build. And because it refuels so fast, it can easily be a car for everyone, and not just people with garages. As a result, it is a matter of when and not if it replaces BEVs.

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

#52
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.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

Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost. They cost around the same as regular luxury cars despite being made in tiny numbers.

The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make. Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars. Making it a far better economic choice.

Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion. It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s. Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.

FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea: A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery. That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.

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

#53
post #49
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...

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…

Even carbon fiber isn't that expensive anymore. We can make whole airplanes out of them. Needing high pressure isn't that big of a challenge anymore.

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

#54
post #50

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 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.

It would require a bit of space to do that. FCEVs already don’t have much storage space, I’m not sure what less compression (and less range) would lead to. Maybe a baluga car design like they did for hydrogen powered planes?

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

#55
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would require a bit of space to do that. FCEVs already don’t have much storage space, I’m not sure what less compression (and less range) would lead to. Maybe a baluga car design like they did for hydrogen powered planes?

Hydrogen tanks are physically smaller than li-ion batteries. There will come a time when we will use small tanks that fit underneath the passenger compartment. At which point an FCEV has no packaging disadvantage compared to BEVs.

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

#56
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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%…

Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost. They cost around the same as regular luxury cars despite being made in tiny numbers. The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make. Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars. Making it a far better economic choice. Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion. It is not a new…

> Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost.

I'm sorry but evaluating production cost when only a few 1000 are produced is pointless.

No independent company has done a public costing of these cars.

The sales price is not reflective of production cost on such low volumes.

> The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make.

You are just straight up disagreeing with every automotive engineer that I have seen talking about this topic.

It literally has every interface a BEV has plus a lot of very, very complex stuff on top of that.

> Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars.

Assertions without evidence.

> Making it a far better economic choice.

The fuel cost alone will make sure its never the economic choice.

> Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion.

The lithium ion battery is the innovation and that has been commercialized in 1991. Fuel cells have been commercialized for far, far, far longer.

> It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s.

Except you know, like totally different batteries, far more advanced electronics and so on.

Its just an utterly silly comparison. The range was the issue with BEV in 1900 and now we have better batteries. And as a bonus far better electronics.

> Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.

Exact that the fundamental weakness was that batteries back then were heavy, short range and slow charge. And now batteries are comparatively far lighter, have a range that is more then sufficent and charge rates have gone up by a gigantic amount.

So quite literally ever issue has been addressed.

And reality reflects this, as today millions of EV are sold every year.

> FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea

Yeah a revolution from 1960 rather then 1920. How advanced.

> A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery.

FCEV do need a battery. Jesus have you actually at how a FCEV works in the real world?

> how loudly you boast about the BEV

> That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.

I'm not 'boast', I'm just point out basic facts.

The real world and the real world has already decided. The technology race is over, you are like somebody advocating for Betamax in the late 1990s.

We are not even talking about a 10x difference, not 100x difference more like a 1000x difference in total sales. Pretty much ever car maker except those in Japan have made up their mind. Research in FHEV has essentially collapsed.

You are literally living in a delusional fantasy land you have constructed in your had that is just utterly devoid of reality.

Post reply on HN