patrick.net

John Bailo says

New Renter says

...Except you are limited to driving it in LA or Berkeley.

Toyota's hydrogen car gets ...US filling stations

Toyota is now making a huge bet on FCVs. It has teamed with Air Liquide to build 12 hydrogen stations in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The stations will be "strategically placed" so that drivers of the 300-mile-range Mirai can tool around the region without (much) anxiety. Previously, Toyota said that 19 hydrogen stations would be installed in California.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/17/toyota-mirai-hydrogen-network-us-northeast/

And what happens if the sales numbers don't support keeping the network open? The article insinuates welding grade hydrogen is not recommended, where will drivers fill up if the stations close?

New Renter says

where will drivers fill up if the stations close?

But, Mr. Jobs, what if I buy your computer and no one writes any software for me to use?

John Bailo says

New Renter says

where will drivers fill up if the stations close?

But, Mr. Jobs, what if I buy your computer and no one writes any software for me to use?

Buy a PC and you can write your own damn software.

Better yet Linux.

New Renter says

Buy a PC and you can write your own damn software.

Better yet Linux.

These guys have done just that:

Hydrogen House, New Jersey
http://hydrogenhouseproject.org/

Hydrogen Island, Stuart Island, WA
http://www.siei.org/

B-b-b-but-but there will be further improvements in hydrogen fuel cells. Also, battery technology will never improve in the future!

I enjoyed Hydrogen House, where that guy is pissing away 75% of the energy he would have if he used battery storage!

New Renter says

Driving around a little loop in downtown LA, this thing just feels like a bigger Leaf, or Plug-in Prius in EV mode.

For this kind of money the car must be interesting to drive. "Bigger Leaf" just doesn't cut it.

New Renter says

I'm surious why Toyota has such a hard on for hydrogen myself when fuel cell natural gas vehicles make so much more sense.

Because like many big car makers, this is a "compliance car". The Rav4 EV doesn't give them NEARLY as many compliance credits as a hydrogen car. So they produce a much smaller number of vehicles, and reduce their legal exposure for a small-volume product, and I'm sure they end up saving money in the big picture.

Hydrogen is so bullshit

I drove the Honda Clarity in 2009, it’s a brilliant car, in fact one of the nicest cars I’ve ever driven. Smooth, quiet, powerful and all that came out of the diminutive tail pipe was water vapor.

It had a massive hydrogen tank in the boot (trunk) and an equally massive lithium-ion battery pack underneath the tank. Yes, a very big battery which, strangely was not mentioned on TG. It needed the battery to back up the power from the hydrogen fuel cell.

But wait, you can’t buy this car because it cost well over $2 million, also not mentioned on TG. $2 million is the estimate made by engineers in the automotive business.

Of course it was expensive, it was a test vehicle and Honda produced less than 100 and we don’t hear much about it now. But I predict that we will start hearing more and more about hydrogen, because it is the future, if you run a global fossil corporation, it’s almost the only future as more and more cities around the world continue to either introduce or tighten emission levels due to local area tail pipe pollution.

Hahaha!

Since 1972 when I first heard the term hydrogen is the future I have been waiting. I'm not even mentioning things like infrastructure, the various methods of producing hydrogen, the energy costs associated with splitting water etc etc.

I've been waiting since 1972 and I’m pretty damn certain I’ll be waiting for a long while yet and in the meantime we are producing record numbers of fossil burning cars.

So I’m going to say this. It’s very simple. Batteries are the future.

The drive train in the FuelCell Vehicle Mirai is electric, just like that of the Tesla and Chevy Volt. The electric motors can be made to arbitrary size for performance/range/cost trade-off. The difference among the 3 cars is in the "battery":

Tesla uses a Li - ion battery, which loses 25% of its charge capacity every year just like cell phone batteries and laptop batteries.

Volt uses a gas tank and a small internal combustion engine for "battery" extender in addition to its Lithium Ion battery.

The Miriam uses a fuel cell and a hydrogen tank for battery extender in addition to its Nickel Metal Hydride battery.

Fuel cell as "battery" has the theoretical advantage of lower combustion temperature therefore none of the NOx in tail pipe out of a conventional ICE. Gasoline, methane and even hydrogen are all volumetrically and by weight more energy dense than either Lithium Ion or Nickel Metal Hydride batteries. And there is no charge capacity loss over time like almost all rechargeable batteries (especially Lithium Ion). I do wonder though after the initial craze about zero CO2 emission for political reasons dies down, unless we get some kind of breakthrough in hydrogen storage tech, the way forward for Fuel cell vehicle is having an on board preprocessor to strip away the carbon from Methane before feeding to the fuel cell itself. Methan/natural gas storage is much easier than hydrogen, AFAIK.

Vicente says

New Renter says

I'm surious why Toyota has such a hard on for hydrogen myself when fuel cell natural gas vehicles make so much more sense.

Because like many big car makers, this is a "compliance car". The Rav4 EV doesn't give them NEARLY as many compliance credits as a hydrogen car. So they produce a much smaller number of vehicles, and reduce their legal exposure for a small-volume product, and I'm sure they end up saving money in the big picture.

Natural gas powered vehicles should get the same "compliance credits" as hydrogen cars:

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/NG/US

Again most of that hydrogen comes from natural gas.

Reality says

Fuel cell vehicle is having an on board preprocessor to step away the carbon from Methane before feeding to the fuel cell itself.

Then the carbon will either end up as soot or CO2. You can't just dump the soot on the ground as it would be a respiratory hazard. The carbon would be collected in a waste container which would then require disposal

No it makes more sense to just use the methane as is.

Tesla is a car company. It does not reinvent chemistry. Check the battery charge capacity of your own cellphone or laptop, and you should have a good idea how Li Ion batteries hold up over time in real life. IMHO, Tesla is making a big bet on driving down the cost of replacement batteries before existing owners file lawsuit on the real life charge capacity loss of their battery packs. There is a very good reason why Toyota is sticking with Nickel Metal Hydride batteries in their conservative business approach.

It's also utter lunacy to claim NiMH is lighter than Li-Ion. The author, and the citer, just proved the utter hollowness between their ears.

Really? You need a citation to tell you NiMH batteries have lower charge density than newly produced Li Ion battery? Do you need a citation for the sun rises in the east too? Are you so limited in personal experience or so ignorant at age 40+ as not to remember NiMH batteries for cellphones, laptops and digital cameras more than a decade and half ago? Li Ion batteries took over those fields a decade and half ago precisely because of light weight. Also exactly the same reason why electric car makers use Li Ion batteries despite declining charge capacity over service life and potential fire hazard.

As for that alleged patent disallowing automotive use, you are apparently not aware of the GM EV1 Gen2 actually had NiMH battery, both from the factory, and as retrofits for earlier EV1. That was circa 1996!

How dumb do you have to be to believe in that ridiculous article? We are talking about batteries. You can put multiple batteries together to make a bigger battery pack. In fact, for heat dissipation reasons, it is not a good idea to have one single giant cell anyway instead of multiple cells. Even the existing EV's using Lithium-Ion batteries have multiple cells, not a single cell.

The real reason why the industry chose Lithium-Ion over NiMH for EV was the same as the reason why some mfrs are considering Fuelcell: energy density.

NiMH batteries have an energy density of 0.288 MegaJoules/kg, 0.504–1.08 MJ/Liter;

Li-Ion batteries have an energy density of 0.36–0.875 MJ/kg, 0.9–2.63 MJ/Liter; in other words, up to 3 times as high per weight, and more than twice as high per volume, compared to NiMH batteries

Now let's look at the energy density of fuels:
Gasoline 44.4 MJ/kg 32.4 MJ/L
Hydrogen (compressed at 70MPa) 142 MJ/kg 5.6 MJ/L

As you can see the rechargeable batteries are orders of magnitude less energy-dense than chemical fuels.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

There is even a chart to help you visualize. NiMH is literally off the chart because it would be to the left and lower than even the Li-Ion battery (near the zero point)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#mediaviewer/File:Energy_density.svg

Here is a PopularMechanics article dating from 2012 on Lithium Ion battery charge capacity degradation over time:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to/tips/why-your-gadgets-batteries-degrade-over-time-6705747

"Over time, this process wears out the cathode, which results in reduced capacity. A high-end lithium-polymer battery can lose about 20 percent of its capacity after 1000 charge cycles. Another way to think of this is to imagine that every time you recharge your laptop, you shave a few seconds off its maximum battery life. Erratic charging and heat speed up this degradation.

And batteries degrade even if you don't use them. According to battery-testing firm Cadex Electronics, a fully charged lithium-ion battery will lose about 20 percent of its capacity after a year of typical storage. Increase the temperature to just above 100 degrees Fahrenheit—as in a hot attic, for example—and that number is 35 percent. "

Reality says

It's also utter lunacy to claim NiMH is lighter than Li-Ion.

Don't they mostly use NiMH is portable power tools because (supposedly) they work better in applications where the current draw is high? Or is it just because the cost less?

zzyzzx says

Reality says

It's also utter lunacy to claim NiMH is lighter than Li-Ion.

Don't they mostly use NiMH is portable power tools because (supposedly) they work better in applications where the current draw is high? Or is it just because the cost less?

Mostly for cost reasons. The expensive models often have Li-Ion batteries that are much smaller and lighter; the new sleek look instead of the big old "free hammer" attached to every cordless power tool. LOL

Reality says

Li - ion battery

Here's what they don't want you to know about batteries:

Something We All Have In Our Homes Started This House Fire

http://themotherlist.com/fire-safety-video-must-watch/

John Bailo says

Reality says

Li - ion battery

Here's what they don't want you to know about batteries:

Something We All Have In Our Homes Started This House Fire

http://themotherlist.com/fire-safety-video-must-watch/

Oh dear, more fear mongering...

Well if you insist:

Oh the humanity!

New Renter says

What exactly does your link do

He's trying to say Chevron's patent protection is "big government" not "free market".

Bellingham Bill says

New Renter says

What exactly does your link do

He's trying to say Chevron's patent protection is "big government" not "free market".

"Big government" would be akin to the EPA trying to squash a new technology because it might affect the reproductive cycle of a rather common and unremarkable nematode.

Bellingham Bill says

Bush touts benefits of hydrogen fuel

At the time this news made me re-think the cost-benefits of hydrogen

Since if the Bush Admin was behind it there had to be an angle for them.

My thoughts at the time as well. Also for his push for a manned expedition to Mars. Seriously Mars? WTF?!?!?!

Patent is a government-granted monopoly. There are arguments on both sides regarding the effect of patent system vs. trade secrets.

Reality says

Patent is a government-granted monopoly. There are arguments on both sides regarding the effect of patent system vs. trade secrets.

A good patent lawyer can often find a workaround.

For example I attended a company seminar given by our company's patent attorney. He showed a real world case where a company (Company A) had a patent on an ultrasound machine. It had pictures and everything. Then he showed a patent later filed by a competitor (Company B) which described EXACTLY the same machine...EXACTLY except the new machine had a flat screen monitor instead of a CRT. The company A sued company B...and lost.

It can work the other way too - a large company can just start producing the product of a small company and when sued for infringement even if the big company is clearly in the wrong they can drag the proceedings on long enough to bleed the small company to death.

It usually comes down to how good your lawyers are and how long you can afford to pay them. I'm guessing Chevron has some damn good lawyers. This is an example of big oil, not big government.

New Renter says

It usually comes down to how good your lawyers are and how long you can afford to pay them. I'm guessing Chevron has some damn good lawyers. This is an example of big oil, not big government.

Sounds like the problem is big government if all patent law (which is a government creation) does is rewarding whoever has more resources for lawyers. i.e. contrary to the usual government-apologist narrative about government helping the little guys against the big guys, it is a system set up by the government to reward the big guys at the expense of the little guys. Whatever specific field the big guy happens to be in is quite immaterial.

For what this hydrogen system costs (at least right now) it probably makes more sense to run things like trains or 18 wheelers off of it, or natural gas, since I don't see electric working for either one of those anytime soon (except commuter trains, of course). We could put a serious dent in our oil imports if all our 18 wheelers and delivery vehicles ran off something other then gasoline or diesel.

Reality says

New Renter says

It usually comes down to how good your lawyers are and how long you can afford to pay them. I'm guessing Chevron has some damn good lawyers. This is an example of big oil, not big government.

Sounds like the problem is big government if all patent law (which is a government creation) does is rewarding whoever has more resources for lawyers. i.e. contrary to the usual government-apologist narrative about government helping the little guys against the big guys, it is a system set up by the government to reward the big guys at the expense of the little guys. Whatever specific field the big guy happens to be in is quite immaterial.

Fine, start a class action against a big corporation. Maybe if you annoy them enough they'll pay you a few million to go away. Then you can cluck about how the "little guy" finally won a round.

zzyzzx says

For what this hydrogen system costs (at least right now) it probably makes more sense to run things like trains or 18 wheelers off of it, or natural gas, since I don't see electric working for either one of those anytime soon (except commuter trains, of course). We could put a serious dent in our oil imports if all our 18 wheelers and delivery vehicles ran off something other then gasoline or diesel.

18 wheelers are heading down the natural gas path:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094087_why-arent-natural-gas-powered-long-haul-semi-trucks-selling-better

The adoption is slow due to high capital costs and lower fuel prices. Those costs should come down as the technology matures. Since natural gas is also far cleaner than diesel there is a push for urban natural gas heavy vehicles. That is where I imagine the technology being matured as well as in Europe where emissions regulations are more stringent.

Why not hydrogen for long distance trucks? It would be even more expensive, more complicated, with questionable benefit vs. natural gas.