Toyota comes out with the most powerful and efficient fuel cell vehicle to date (150hp, 300 mile range, can refuel in 5 minutes), employees much of their hybrid technology, releases it commercially. Sure $10k more than the Tesla after rebates but Toyota will pay for fuel for the first 3 years. Nobody gives a shit.
Tesla releases a glorified golf cart, 150k pre-orders.
Americans... literally the most gullible people on earth.
Tesla is apple of cars
Hip and trendy
>Japanese designed made in China
>American designed made in America
Gee I wonder why Tesla is selling so well.
It would be hilarious if hydrogen came from behind and cucked battery electric and tesla when they're so certain they have the answer.
>>14766431
implying american made, is better quality than made in china
>>14766431
>Tesla is apple of cars
>Hip and trendy
>I want to buy technology from a technology company
>>14766431
I actually wonder the same 2bh
>>14766443
Ayyy
Tesla make its compomnents in China too (like everyone does) and assembly lines will be built there in the future.
The problem with this FCV concept is that a hydrogen fuel filling station isn't as cheap as the electrical power outlet. Therefore Toyota isn't able to build such dense network as Tesla does. Not mention that independent home hydrogen generators with all the compressors and tanks are also an expensive dream now i think.
>but i can imagine that there could be an electrolyzer and compressor integrated into a car, to fill it in slower speed from regular outlets, that would be fine to see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#FCV_concept
This looks like a far better alternative to the Tesla.
>>14766492
If they can push the technology of the actual fuel cell as far ahead as they have, I don't think making the home electrolyzer/compressor setup practical will stop them.
Look at this car in different terms. You could use it to power your house for a week off one fill up. I know it is 2016 and all but that blows my fucking mind.
>>14766492
gigafactory is in nevada
their assembly plant is in cali
they might get some components from china though, it's likely an american operation
>The power output of a direct injected hydrogen engine vehicle is 20% more than for a gasoline engine vehicle and 42% more than a hydrogen engine vehicle using a carburetor.[13]
Yay we can keep our 90s shitboxes forever.
>>14766492
>The problem with this FCV concept is that a hydrogen fuel filling station isn't as cheap as the electrical power outlet.
No but as they can refill a car as fast as a traditional fuel station they can have fewer bays per location and a higher customer throughput compared to a supercharging station, which is really just going to need to be a big carpark with plugs.
They could also take energy from on site renewables and make use of cheap night time grid power and make the hydrogen on site with the ability to store it in high quantities like a traditional fuel station.
>>14766511
>gigafactory
a name that gets gayer the more times it is said
>>14766492
Also the supercharger is so cheap to install, we will see a ton of them in gas stations in the near future. Also the 30 mins is for 0%-100%, most cars will refuel before that and the guage will be from something like 30% to 90% which only takes like 5-6 mins.
>>14766527
>They could also take energy from on site renewables and make use of cheap night time grid power and make the hydrogen on site with the ability to store it in high quantities like a traditional fuel station.
Imagine a world with out tanker trucks.
>>14766533
Does repeated fast charging fuck the battery at a faster rate than normal charging?
>>14766531
It's supposed to be Japanese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sEI1AUFJKw
>>14766533
Bud, its 40 minutes for 0%-80%. Says so on the Tesla website.
On Li-pos you have to slow down 80%-100% because the internal resistance goes up.
>>14766543
No as long as the battery gets re-calibrated on regular intervals it shouldn't do much damage compared to normal charging. The battery will still only last for 10-12 years however, and we have yet to see a price for replacements. I've been hearing $12k being tossed around which is an automatic deal breaker for me. I can do $3k or $3.5k like the Prius, but 12k is just ridiculous for me.
>>14766343
There aren't any fucking Hydrogen stations anywhere, dumbass.
Hydrogen adoption is where electric charging stations were five years ago. Hydrogen will be where EVs are now in five years. EV is the next-stepping stone to hydrogen, but you won't see hydrogen vehicles proliferate the market until at least 2025
>>14766554
Interesting. As the Tesla is being sold in much the same way as iProducts I can imagine they wouldn't expect anyone to keep the car for that length of time.
Also does anyone know if fuel cells degrade over time?
>>14766561
It would be easy as fuck to build them or add them to existing service stations if thats the way the market went. You only see ev charging points now because it's so easy for companies to virtue-signal a couple of bays with a box next to them. No company other than Tesla (which has an interest in doing so) has really invested in either at this point.
>>14766571
>Also does anyone know if fuel cells degrade over time?
Everything degrades
and all animals can scream
>>14766580
I meant do they degrade like a lipo battery does or like a well maintained ice does.
>>14766514
It is not much more effective than classical combustion engines, but hydrogen has way more energy density. Tanks are much simpler than large arrays of 16850 Li-Ion cells. The cells will wear faster than a fking tank.
Also the fuel cells are simpler than classic ICEs, so maintenance could be cheap.
And with respect to Tesla, their cars are very simple (just battery, two fixed-gear motors, AC/DC charger and some electronics around) and they still have problems with maintenance. Toyota has more experience in making cars.
>>14766588
If the big Jap automakers start making a move towards hydrogen for everything but tiny city runarounds (as they seem to be doing) then that's where I'd bet the technology is going.
Imo the game changer will be the first technology to allow commercial vehicles to do what they do now but with electric. And hydrogen is far more promising in that regard.
>>14766588
In a given volume, gasoline has more energy density than any commercial form of hydrogen storage.
>Toyota has more experience in making cars.
But anon, I want to buy my technology from a technology company :)
>>14766508
>You could use it to power your house for a week off one fill up
This is fantastic. But if you want to refill it up, you will either drive to station and buy taxed hydrogen, or you will buy a large tank, compressor and electrolyzer and hope that this tremendous amount of energy close to your house is not going to explode.
>hydrogen
fucking japs get out reeeeeeeeeee
>>14766616
>hope that this tremendous amount of energy close to your house is not going to explode.
honestly the pressure makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck more than the flammability.
>>14766619
PEOPLES OF /o/
ONLY THE JAPANESE CAN SAVE YOU FROM REDDIT IPADS ON WHEELS
INVEST IN HYDROGEN
>>14766343
1. There are virtually no hydrogen refilling stations outside of California
2. The Mirai costs $57,000 and it could barely be called a luxury vehicle
3. The only other two manufacturers with mass market hydrogen vehicles are Hyundai and Honda, no word on whether this will change or not
4. Tesla's Model 3 actually looks decent compared to the Mirai, and though what was shown off on Thursday is still pre-production its impressive that you could have that for $35,000
5. Though I have to hand it to Toyota for being so dedicated to Hydrogen tech, I don't think they'll win against EVs. EVs have many advantages over Hydrogen vehicles, and battery technology is improving with charging times shrinking. With the added convenience of charging at home, its almost a no-brainer, especially when compared to the sheer expense of setting up a full Hydrogen infrastructure system
>tfw Toyota will never make a fully electric corolla in my lifetime
I just want a boring affordable electric car
>>14766343
But that golf cart goes 0-60 in 5 seconds. This spaceship stuffed with complex technology does it in 9 ?
Toyota could add some more batteries (or supercaps) and double the power - then it would sell more.
>>14766630
>1. There are virtually no hydrogen refilling stations outside of California
Between Honda, Hyundai and Toyota this is not going to be a problem for long.
>2. The Mirai costs $57,000 and it could barely be called a luxury vehicle
About $44k after Fed and CA incentives
>3. The only other two manufacturers with mass market hydrogen vehicles are Hyundai and Honda, no word on whether this will change or not
This is way more industry than Tesla.
>4. Tesla's Model 3 actually looks decent compared to the Mirai, and though what was shown off on Thursday is still pre-production its impressive that you could have that for $35,000
It looks like a ford focus with the grille smoothed over.
>5. Though I have to hand it to Toyota for being so dedicated to Hydrogen tech, I don't think they'll win against EVs. EVs have many advantages over Hydrogen vehicles, and battery technology is improving with charging times shrinking. With the added convenience of charging at home, its almost a no-brainer, especially when compared to the sheer expense of setting up a full Hydrogen infrastructure system
The thing that is nice about hydrogen is that it is a gaseous storage medium. You could set up a ton of solar panels near a water source and make hydrogen all day, then store or transport it to where you need it.
The inconsistent energy supply of renewables doesn't lend itself as much to battery charging. Yeah if it is sunny out, or windy out you can charge RIGHT NOW but you can't capture every bit of sun or wind and use it later when you need it.
>>14766665
The Toyota reacts hydrogen and water to make electrical energy
The Tesla uses electrical energy
One is a power plant, the other is an appliance.
>ultra-progressive styling
>triple retarded (hydrogen-battery-electric-vehicle)
>useless outside of commifornia
>slower than a 30-year old Camry
just. buy. gasoline. you. cucks.
>>14766751
Shut the fuck up faggot.
Everyone keep buying electric and alternative fuels
I want more gas for me, cheaper
>>14766765
>As something gets rarer it gets cheaper
>>14766769
>not taking advantage of when demand falls prices are low before they shoot back up
>not buying a shit ton of gas and storing it away
>not becoming a door to door gasoline sellsman
Its like everyone on this site is born pleb, but its okay. I forgive you
>>14766785
>Storing gasoline
Enjoy your water
>>14766635
Literally this. I want a nice cheap shitbox EV to do boring commutes and then have the weekend ICE car for fun.
That seems like a realistic option for car enthusiasts for the future who aren't rich as fuck, right?
>>14766798
I'm sure there will be convert-your-own EV kits in a decade or so so you can take your old shitbox and make it a super-efficient old shitbox.
>>14766692
>The Toyota reacts hydrogen and water to make electrical energy
wut
>>14766839
* hydrogen and oxygen
Its very late and I am very drunk
Mirai confirmed for edgy alternative for people too anti-establishment for Model 3.
>>14766917
>Mirai confirmed for practical alternative for people too anti-hipster for Model 3.
ftfy
>>14766343
Fuel cells are a meme, moron. It takes more energy to create hydrogen than you get out. Why not put that electricity straight into your car?
tl;dr: develop a brain, fool
>>14767281
protip: there is always loss when converting from one form to another. It's the same with batteries, with solar cells, with fuel cells. And with ICEs too.
>>14767281
>It takes more energy to create hydrogen than you get out. Why not put that electricity straight into your car?
There are conversion losses in all forms of energy transfer, moron.
>>14766431
>nigga thinks american made stuff is bettjer than china made stuff
>>14766443
>>14767532
Just how cucked do you have to be to believe this.
>>14767522
So called "grid-to-motor efficiency" is the interesting point here.
For an electric car with batteries: 86%
For a fuel cell car fueled by hydrogen coming from H2O electrolysis: 25%
In that case, a fuel cell car is total nonsense compared to an electric car.
The fuel cell cars won't be able to compete with battery powered electric cars.
>Range
The argument that fuell cell cars have better range than electric cars is not true anymore (see Tesla)
>Quick recharge
Building infrastucture for battery exchange is easier, cheaper and safer than H2 "gas stations" and changing a battery takes the same time as tanking H2
>H2 production
From natural Gas: relatively high C02 emission in the process, not any cleaner than an ICE
From electrolysis: miserable efficiency compared to storage in batteries
From "green", regulated energy sources (wind, solar): not profitable as of today.
>>14766571
>>14766584
>Also does anyone know if fuel cells degrade over time?
It's mostly the PEM that wears.
>>14766616
>or you will buy a large tank, compressor and electrolyzer and hope that this tremendous amount of energy close to your house is not going to explode.
It's ridiculously hard to store hydrogen since it diffuses through everything so easily. Having a large tank is just wasting hydrogen.
>>14766431
This x 100.
If toyota would have made the car look like a normal car, that is not an emberessment to drive, i'd buy one.
But nope
>retarded front
>very very odd proportions on that hood and black side line
>the fucks going on with that roof?
With time, fuel cell cars will get better, the bad design just shows that toyota does not believe that they are worth investing.
I know it's dangerous and all, but if they managed to create a fuel cell system where you could go to the station and switch cells kinda of like propane, that'd be genious. Leave the other charging and only pay for the energy.
I've seen the fuel cell concepts at a couple of shows recently and it doesn't seem impossible if they address the danger. No one's scared of a propane tank or a gas tank, so I'd say it's possible.
Want to post pics but even after editing it's still like 12MP
Damn good phones
Electricity can be produced in countless ways across the world, be distributed across an already existing network of power lines that reach everywhere where there is civilization and can be transfered to the electric car while power is in low demand anyways.
Hydrogen needs to be made through electrolysis of water and then be compressed to an extreme degree before being transported with a truck to a filling station. There it will be pumped down into an even larger tank under ground (which because of the pressures involved will require even stricter standards than the fossil fuel stations out today. Then it will be pumped over to a car. In this case the Toyota Mirai.
The gas will "combust" in the fuel cell as it meets Oxygen, resulting in electric power and water.
Then you can finally use that power to drive your car.
The more links in an energy-chain, the worse. In this case, the chain both starts and ends with electricity, so why do the detour through hydrogen?
To satisfy the need for filling stations?
You can burn fossil fuels to make it too, with more efficiency, but that would sort of negate the point
It takes around 5 kWh to produce one cubic meter of hydrogen through electrolysis. It will cost you 56 kWh to make ONE KILOGRAM (2.2 lbs)
Toyota Mirai, which must be said to be the newest/best example of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, takes 5 kilograms of hydrogen (11 lbs) and has a maximum range of around 500 km (310 miles)
This means we're talking about 280 kWh of energy to "greenly" make the hydrogen this 155 horsepower car can drive a little 500 kms with.
In comparison, the Tesla Model S can drive just as far in 85 kWh of energy.
Did you catch that? It takes over THREE (3) times as much energy to make a Mirai drive 500 km (310 miles) as it takes today's Model S with the same range.
(other energy losses in transfer not taken into account, either as power-line losses on the Tesla or the transport, compression, pumping losses and combustion losses on the Mirai.
>>14766431
Japanese cars are 100% made in Japan. When you buy a new Japanese car, even the air in the tires is Japanese. Get fucked.
Toyota needs to re-design the Prius Prime (Their 2017 plug in) to have a 100-250 mile electric only range instead of fucking 22 miles. THEN they will sell a lot of them. An EV with a gasoline engine backup is what people really want right now (Or at lest, should want). Electric charging stations are not prevalent enough to make full EV practical for most Americans, but people still want it. Have the gasoline engine for backup.
>>14768192
>It's ridiculously hard to store hydrogen since it diffuses through everything so easily
You can utilise Fischer-Tropsch process and store methane instead of plain hydrogen. The polymer cell membrane then converts it back to hydrogen. This process was tested by BMW.
>>14768261
underrated post
>>14768261
>To satisfy the need for filling stations?
Because batteries don't charge in 5 minutes. The conversion to hydrogen allows very fast energy conversion once it's actually in the car. It's less energy efficient and more time efficient.
>>14768262
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Honda_assembly_plants
>two in Japan
>these plants exclusively make Honda bikes
LMAO
M
A
O
>>14766793
>being this retarded
>>14766343
I thought this was a dead technology.
>$10k more
lol oh really? only $10k?
>>14766343
Because toyota is stupid and stuck on hydrogen, for which there is no infrastructure for in the US. Meanwhile you can buy an EV today that isn't vaporware and charge everywhere and even go cross country if you have a tesla.
>>14768362
>Implying 99.9% of most commutes and daily usage would require more range than a single charge would provide.
If you're driving over 300 miles in one go, you're not gonna sit there and be antsy for the supercharger to be done so you can get back in the car quickly and drive 300 more miles.
>>14766431
80% of Tesla car is made in China.
But Toyota's contents are >80% Japanese
>>14766785
gas lasts about 3 years. not a viable business, because by the time you are profitable, the time will have passed
>>14766343
>Nobody gives a shit.
And neither should you. Among many reasons hydrogen cars are inferior to EVs, here are four:
1) Hydrogen cars seem beholden to natural gas, a fossil fuel, in order to extract the hydrogen fuel, while electric cars get cleaner over time as electricity production gets cleaner.
2) When it comes to energy density, driving range, and cost, the best case scenario for hydrogen cells is similar to where EV batteries are now, and EV batteries will get better with time.
3) Hydrogen is a somewhat dangerous and difficult-to-handle substance that’s a nightmare compared to the simple wall-outlet electricity EVs use.
4) Down the road, when the norm is to charge the car up in your garage, it’s going to seem primitive to have to go to a station to fuel up.
If you take electricity coming from a solar panel and charge a battery, you can get ~90% efficiency. Simple and cheap. Instead, if you use that electricity to split water, separate the hydrogen with extreme purity, pressurize it to crazy levels (or, even worse, liquefy), transfer it to a giant (even in liquid form) hydrogen storage tank in the car and then recombine it with oxygen to generate electricity, you would be lucky to get ~20% efficiency. Expensive, complex, bulky and super inefficient. It loses on every dimension, including refuel time when pack swap is factored in.
Cost is bad for fuel cells, but that is only one of many bad dimensions. If fuel cells were in any way better than lithium batteries, they would at least be used in satellites, some of which cost over $500 million. They are not.
more people should ride motorcycles
>>14768492
>Hydrogen cars seem beholden to natural gas, a fossil fuel, in order to extract the hydrogen fuel
Full retard.
>>14768492
>When it comes to energy density, driving range, and cost, the best case scenario for hydrogen cells is similar to where EV batteries are now, and EV batteries will get better with time.
Full retard again. In fact why am I even bothering continuing with your shit.
>>14768527
You can produce hydrogen through electrolysis of water (which consumes 3 times as much energy pr. mile driven in comparison to using the electricity directly, see >>14768261
OR you can create it by steam-reforming natural gas, which is much more efficient, but dumbfuck stupid if you're trying to be eco-friendly, since it releases a bunch of carbon monoxide.
>>14768554
Energy consumption and worrying about it is a meme. We orbit a giant fusion reaction. We have more than we could ever use.
The problem is storing it densely, which hydrogen does better than electrochemical batteries.
>>14766435
It won't. It's either electric or some kinda biofuel, probably algae, or maybe some other shit that doesn't need prime arable farmland to grow like corn does.
>>14768565
>Energy consumption and worrying about it is a meme.
Your mom is a meme. Seriously, stop using that word if you don't know what it means.
Daily reminder that LPG is better than all this retarded shit.
>>14768583
It is a meme. Banging on about achieving maximum efficiency of everything so we use less energy is fucking retarded as it doesn't matter.
![europe[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/XknVzg6.gif "europe[1].gif")
>>14768591
you silly fuck.
>>14768622
>using energy means green house gasses
hippies pls fuck off
>>14768591
Meme does not mean stupid idea. It's, and I'm quoting Wikipedia because I'm lazy, '...an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture'. It's NOT a evaluative term and using it as general-purpose derogatory term makes you instantaneously lose all credibility. And btw., this is about cost - energy might be theoretically abundant but it is not free. If efficiency doesn't matter, why do people buy LEDs and fuel-efficient cars? Hint: it's not because they fucking worry about using up Earths energy.
>>14768586
Why are you fossil-cucks insisting on a huge chain of tanks, transports, fillings and pumping stations, when you have a perfectly good electricity grid that will take the "fuel" anywhere where sivilisation exists and straight to the end-user, easily as fuck?
>>14768653
>'...an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture'.
Yes, within green culture. The idea that energy usage is inherently bad and should be cut, regardless of where that energy comes from.
>>14768659
What is the equivalent energy usage in KW of the global transportation network? Could the grid handle this? No. So saying it already exists is a bit redundant.
>>14768661
until every source of energy is from a co2 free source it's a good route to take
>>14766670
>The thing that is nice about hydrogen is that it is a gaseous storage medium
Uwotm8. You do *not* want your fuel to be gaseous, because how the fuck do you store large amounts of it without it being incredibly dangerous or hilariously oversized?
>>14768261
You do know that when the majority of the energy required for electrolysis is supplied by heat, the process ends up being much more efficient than you cite, right?
You do know most power plants (including concentrating solar) operate above that temperature threshold, right?
You do understand you are a Tesla fanboi, right?
>>14768659
Not all people live in California and not all people want to only be able to drive 100 miles from their house.
>>14768674
Most transport is done during the day. This means most charging must be done during the night. The grid is under its lowest load at night.
>>14768417
>If you're driving over 300 miles in one go,
Take your making decisions for others bullshit and fuck off.
Every time I do road trips I treat fuel stops like F1 pitstops. I run out of the car, I undo the gas cap while my credit card is processing so I don't waste time there, peel out of spot and do my damnedest to maintain 100% throttle until I am back up to cruising speed.
Not everybody is a sedate numale like yourself.
>>14768661
>Yes, within green culture.
Calling it a meme doesn't imply it's not true. I know what you mean from context alone, but it's still the wrong word and nothing you say will make it suddenly right. Words have meanings and just because some meanings have changed over time doesn't mean anyone can just make shit up as they please without being called out on it.
>The idea that energy usage is inherently bad and should be cut, regardless of where that energy comes from.
Nobody says that - that's a goddamn straw man and you should feel ashamed for using it.
>>14768695
Electrolysis is still done by ELECTRICITY not by heat. And that electricity would be better used directly for charging.
>>14768717
you probably just have social anxiety mate
>>14768492
>If you take electricity coming from a solar panel and charge a battery, you can get ~90% efficiency.
M8... Solar panels are 20% efficient. Given noontime intensity under perfect conditions you are only going to be able to make 200W per square meter. How many square meters will you need to recharge a 85kWh battery?
>>14768699
I'm not him but that's not how it's going to be. If the entire fucking history of humankind is any indication, we will develop comparatively cheap batteries that give you a range even above current combustion powered cars rather sooner than later. We're at the very beginning of the age of EVs and you're arguing like all is said and done.
>>14768731
You don't understand. It's 90% efficiency for the charging, not the panels.
>>14768731
electric fags grossly overrate the efficiency of their shit.
>>14768726
Yeah okay you are a dumbfuck.
You do understand that if you heat water to 2500C it falls apart by itself, right? The closer you get to that threshold the less electricity you need to input. The heat from the sun, fuel your are burning or nuclear reaction is going directly into making what you want.
>>14768740
Lol it's not like batteries were invented 20 years ago, we have been developing them since the 1700s. If you were in the 1790s and holding a galvanic cell you could say we are at the very beginning of the battery age.
Protip, we are there, we have already arrived. Commercial batteries will not get much better than they are now any time soon. There will be slow incremental progress.
>>14768767
Yeah and I am talking about a complete energy cycle. When you take a bunch of heat energy and convert it to mechanical then convert it to electrical energy, then transfer it, then charge a battery with it you are using an inferior system to one that can directly put that heat energy into the fuel.
>>14768740
>cheap batteries that give you a range even above current combustion powered cars rather sooner than later
They will have unlimited range?
I will only be interested when charging won't take more than a minute and when batterries will be "cheap" cheap, not like 5k.
Oh and batteries have been around for over a 100 years, and they're still shit, so we better start making progress.
TL;DR as they are right now, EVs are shitty products.
>>14768792
>You do understand that if you heat water to 2500C it falls apart by itself, right?
I wonder what kind of tea you can make with that water?
>>14766343
Wow the hate for tesla must flow pretty strong here for this thing to be pushed as a superior alternative.
>>14768819
>pour 2500C water on your tetlys
>pyramid bag catches fire, mug explodes, melts through your kitchen counter
>your mum shouts at you
>>14768804
>They will have unlimited range?
Who the fuck even implied that?
>batteries have been around for over a 100 years, and they're still shit, so we better start making progress.
There was practically no demand for batteries that can power a car until now. Batteries already made huge progress since smartphones took off and it's only been a couple of years. Saying we had batteries for 100 years doesn't mean shit if you don't specify what kind of batteries and what they were being used for.
>>14768873
>Who the fuck even implied that?
Nobody, I was just poking fun at you saying that EVs will have better range than ICE powered cars, when you can just fuel up in less than 30 seconds with an ICE car.
And while batteries are making some progress, it's really slow, and we're nearing the limit of lithium powered batteries' potential.
![41oesXdzH4L._SY300_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Iyvp2lq.jpg "41oesXdzH4L._SY300_[1].jpg")
>>14768867
>tetleys
wow wot a shitter
>>14766343
>300 Mile range.
How far do you think a full tank of gas gets you...
>>14768900
You sound like one of those people who said that Apple shouldn't make phones. Or those old timey computer guys who though there's no need for more than a couple of computers in the world. Let's say for the sake of argument *lithium* batteries won't get decisively better - who's to say we won't just use another element? Or another kind of (electricity storing) technology entirely?
>you can just fuel up in less than 30 seconds with an ICE car.
Only a very small amount of people - as in they don't really matter - needs to refuel their car more than once or twice a week (or less) and I don't get why that weak argument keeps getting brought up by petrolheads. I, for one, want to plug my car in over night, just like I do with my phone.
>>14769000
also >>less than 30 seconds??
I usually stand a few minutes at the pump, and also spend time paying for my fuel, either at the pump or at the counter inside.
>hydrogen cells have to be pressurized to near 10k psi to really be worthwhile in energy density
>they're magnitudes more dangerous and volatile than packs of lithium batteries
>HURR DURRR SO MUCH BETTER THAN TESLA GUYS
>>14768966
>How far do you think a full tank of gas gets you...
That's why I said that. It is a breakthrough to have a hydrogen fuel cell car that equal what you get in a average gasoline car.
>>14768659
Tesla cucks can't even spell civilisation
>>14769196
>cucks
*clucks
>>14766343
>but Toyota will pay for fuel
that's great, where can I get some of this fuel
>**crickets**
>>14769233
http://cafcp.org/stationmap
>>14766492
the problem is that extracting hydrogen takes a lot more energy than you get back from it
>>14769320
depends on the source. You could easily extract hydrogen from natural gas. Natural gas is how more than 32% of US electricity is made.
>and now where the efficiency is
>>14769421
Might as well run the car on NG and save all the fuckery
>>14769444
Yeah, you're right. There are NG fuel cells right now. I think that the FCV and Li-ion madness are sign that the "political correctness" of the technical solution is now more important than the actual usefulness of that solution.
>>14768792
>It's not we have been developing fuel cells since the 1840s and they have been in commercial usage since the 1950's.
Protip we are there we have already arrived. Fuel cell technology will not get much better than they are now any time soon there will be slow incremental progress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m29s
>>14769463
>>14769320
http://www.helmeth.eu/index.php/technologies/high-temperature-electrolysis-cell-soec
>>14769463
places like india and argentina/brazil ngvs are pretty commonplace
>>14769486
>yfw people are too stupid to do their own research and just quote their man-crush
>>14768369
>The biggest letdown ahead awaits the longtime Tesla fans who hope that they may finally be able to stretch the family budget just enough to buy the affordable Tesla they have been waiting for since 2006. In order to bring the cost of a Model 3 below the $35,000 mark, buyers will need to qualify for a $7,500 federal tax credit—but that credit begins to expire after Tesla sells 200,000 qualifying vehicles. At current sales projections, Tesla will run out of those tax credits sometime in 2018—just as Model 3s start rolling off production lines.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/tesla-s-model-3-could-destroy-elon-musk-s-company.html
Maybe the difference will be $2500ish
>>14769554
Elon Musk is smarter than you ever will be - unless you're literally Steven Hawking or motherfucking Nikola Tesla. If you did the slightest bit of research on him you'd realize that.
>>14766828
there are already?
It's just why would you put 15k into a shitbox
>>14769610
Jesus Christ just fuck him and get it out of your system.
>>14768823
4chan is a haven of extreme and often retarded contrarians.
>>14766431
MAGA
How does the hydrogen car sound?
There are 3 hydrogen filling stations open to the public, in the United States. They are all in the same general area of California.
Electricity if fucking everywhere!
Toyota doesn't promote for shit, unless it is the Prius.
Musk does major promotion events attended by hundreds and watched by millions. Tweets, Reddit, full Press coverage.
hydrogen is a meme.
>>14766343
Seriously, just look at these fucking taillights
GODDAMN Toyota, why can't you do stuff like this on the cool cars
>>14772032
>it hasn't been widely adopted yet so it's shit
You are so fucking retarded
>>14772165
who is going to spend trillions of dollars to build the hydrogen infrastructure?
while EVs continue to get better and cheaper.
making hydrogen waste massive amounts of energy. more efficient and cheaper to just charge EVs with that energy.
>>14766443
kill yourself faggot
>>14772165
Tesla has put a huge infrastructure in place to support their cars. There are superchargers every 100 miles on the vast majority of main highways in the U.S.
The prius has a shitty reputation in the U.S. That will never be fixed.
Tesla wins every time.Hydrogen will never be a thing. Why the fuck would we take electricity, use it to compress hydrogen, transport the hydrogen with a diesel truck, then use that to fill our fuel efficient vehicles when we could skip the middleman and use electricity in the first place?
fucking stupid. Replace one fuel with another shitty fuel. Just use electricity.
>>14766630
>battery technology in improving.
No it isn't. Its chemistry. There are improvements to be made, but basic battery capacity is fixed by the chemistry of the batteries and charge time is similar.
Evfags say this shit all the time, but it isn't true. And EVs are useless for commercial loads. Hydrogen Cells are tons better. Hence why the companies with actual resources are researching renewable energy sources, which is new science, vs just chucking an electric motor and a bunch of flashlight batteries in a Mazda 3 and calling bit revolutionary, even though it's still using coal power to generate the power.
>>14772446
battery chemistry research was basically stagnant for 100 years.
only the military and space exploration ever bothered to get better batteries developed.
cellphones, laptops, and now EVs have provided the market demand for better batteries in the civilian sector.
15 years ago it was lead acid, alkaline, and NiCads. Now we have various lithium batteries. Which shit all over old battery types.
Though the real breakthrough will be if something like Cambridge Crude works. Which is a gel that holds electrical charge. Allowing you to charge your car like a normal EV, or pump out depleted gel and get charged gel.
>>14772500
>cellphones, laptops, and now EVs have provided the market demand for better batteries in the civilian sector.
>15 years ago it was lead acid, alkaline, and NiCads. Now we have various lithium batteries. Which shit all over old battery types.
Not really anon. There were two decades of lab development on Li-ions since the 1970s before Sony started selling commercial units in 1991.
It was researchers at University of Texas and MIT through the 90s into the mid 00s that really found more capacity in the chemistry. It absolutely was not the commercial sector doing its own research in an attempt to meet demand that resulted in Li-ions being the current state of the art. You have that completely wrong.
Battery chemistry also was not stagnant over the 20th century. Yes NiCads were discovered in 1899 but they were gradually refined over the course of the century.
NiMH batteries were invented in 1967 and gradually developed over 20 years into a commercial product by 1989, Daimler-Benz and Volkswagen sponsored development.
>>14772446
>even though it's still using coal power to generate the power.
>you can crack hydrogen on an industrial scale using moonbeams and fairy dust
Hydrogen is a battery, and a shitty inefficient battery at that. Even before you get into the logistics of building a nationwide hydrogen pipe infrastructure, it takes about 1.5 kWh of electricity to crack 1 kWh of hydrogen. From your big bad coal-fired plants.
And then you have to compress it into liquid, which takes a fuckton more energy. And then pump it through those pipes that don't exist to the hydrogen stations that don't exist. Or you could compress and pump it into trucks, and then burn more energy to truck it around to the nonexistent hydrogen stations where you could pump it into the nonexistent storage tanks there.
Or, you could run the same amount of electricity through the already-existing electrical grid that covers every square mile of habited land and charge batteries with it, whichever.
>>14772500
>Which is a gel that holds electrical charge
>capacitance gel is going to be real
>>14772743
>high five!
>>14772757
/thread
>>14768731
Not the one you're replying to, but you might be able to get more wattage based on the panel you get (mono-vs poly for example), obviously the mono panels are more costly since they are more efficient, but if you have enough panels to power your home, you might have enough generation to power the car without seeing a huge impact on your electric bill (depending on energy usage), and you wouldn't have to worry about a ridiculous charge time either
>>14766343
>most powerful and efficient fuel cell vehicle to date
OXYMORON
X
Y
M
O
R
A
N
>>14766445
>I want to buy technology from a marketing company
fixed
>>14766343
The only reason people give a shit about hydrogen is to be contrarians. If you think electric power production is filthy, then you'd be surprised how bad hydrogen can be. You get that shit from coal.
>>14774266
current means of mass production of hydrogen is through steam reformation of methane.
So you use a crap ton of energy generated by a power plant. To crack methane into hydrogen and and CO2. Then spend a crap ton more energy to compress, store, and transport the hydrogen.
>>14774274
All of which can be generated from alternative sources, such as solar, wind, and/or geothermal.
>lrn2engie
>>14774289
You can also cut the middleman out and send that energy directly to electric cars.
>>14774266
hydrogen is the most abundant element on the universe
you can get it from many places other than coal
for example: the vacuum of space
Why burn dinosaurs when you could be using the same fuel that drives stellar fusion? Why dig into and destroy our planet when we could get fuel from the sky?
>>14766431
This Tbqh!
MAGA
>>14774310
We'd be pumping it out of Jupiter at that point. At this moment, we're stuck with ripping it out of stuff instead of getting it pure, which is pointless as you're wasting energy.
>>14768261
Underated Post.
>>14769233
Haha
>>14772112
I know, right?
