At a car factory in this city named after Toyota, the usual robots with their swinging arms are missing. Instead, workers intently fit parts into place by hand with craftsmanship-like care.
The big moment on the assembly line comes when two bulbous yellow tanks of hydrogen are rolled over and delicately fitted into each car's underside.
While much of the world is going gung-ho for electric vehicles to help get rid of auto emissions and end reliance on fossil fuels, Japan's top automaker Toyota Motor Corp. is banking on hydrogen.
Toyota sells about 10 million vehicles a year around the world. It has sold only about 4,000 Mirai fuel cell vehicles since late 2014, roughly half of them outside Japan.
Is Toyota going to build the network of hydrogen-refueling stations to serve its hydrogen-powered cars?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday November 17 2017, @04:14PM (5 children)
Toyota's been working on this hydrogen crap for ages, and apparently their management doesn't understand the Sunk Cost Fallacy, as it seems they think they have to stick with it because they've done a lot of R&D on it already, even though hydrogen has proven to be a terrible "fuel". It has horrible energy density, requires a giant highly-pressurized tank to store enough H2 for only a fraction of the range of gasoline, and it needs an infrastructure that simply doesn't exist, and probably never will. On top of all that, the stuff just isn't very efficient: it takes a significant amount of energy to create H2 gas from other sources, since unlike gasoline and diesel, you can't just pump it out of the ground and refine it a little bit. It's a bit like antimatter used in Star Trek (even in ST, they admit that antimatter isn't naturally occurring anywhere where it can be mined, so they have to create it in other ways), except instead of having a huge energy density like antimatter (compared to fusion), it's the exact opposite, as it has much lower energy density than competing contemporaneous sources.
Battery-electric is the future, hybrids are good for the transition time, and for applications where the charge time is an issue (assuming they don't get their acts together as an industry and move to quick-swappable batteries), other fossil fuels like CNG would make more sense than hydrogen. They're already working on electric tractor-trailers; once that's realistic, the days of anything besides battery-electric vehicles will be numbered.
Finally, this isn't the only place where Toyota is exhibiting extreme stupidity. They refuse to support Android Auto and CarPlay in their infotainment systems, unlike most other makers.
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2018-toyota-camry-use-open-source-infotainment-platform/ [automobilemag.com]
http://www.autonews.com/article/20170227/OEM06/302279971/can-toyota-stave-off-carplay-android-auto%3F [autonews.com]
https://www.cars.com/articles/which-2017-cars-have-android-auto-1420691731381/ [cars.com]
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Friday November 17 2017, @06:04PM (1 child)
I'm sorry, are you arguing that batteries have better "fuel" density than hydrogen? Or that the "filling stations" are convenient, cheap, and fast? Or maybe you are arguing that battery-electric is simpler than a hydrogen power plant? Maybe you are arguing that battery-electric is efficient and loss-free from power station to battery charger? Because NONE of that is true.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday November 17 2017, @06:51PM
I'm sorry, are you arguing that batteries have better "fuel" density than hydrogen? Or that the "filling stations" are convenient, cheap, and fast? Or maybe you are arguing that battery-electric is simpler than a hydrogen power plant? Maybe you are arguing that battery-electric is efficient and loss-free from power station to battery charger? Because NONE of that is true.
Wrong.
Batteries now have pretty similar range to hydrogen-powered vehicles, and batteries are getting better as energy densities increase. Hydrogen isn't getting any better.
Batteries don't have filling stations now, but you can charge them at home. Try that with hydrogen or gasoline. Regardless, batteries are just as good as hydrogen here: hydrogen filling stations don't exist either.
Battery-electric is most certainly simpler than a hydrogen power plant. With hydrogen, you either burn it in an internal combustion engine (which means you have the same situation as today, but with a much heavier fuel tank), or you use a fuel cell to convert it to electricity, which means you now have the same drivetrain as an EV, plus a fuel cell and heavy tank. Battery EVs are simpler than either version.
Battery-electric is efficient from power station to charger, in the 80-90% range. Hydrogen is not; it has to be trucked around (it leaks too much to use in long-distance pipelines), and the production process uses a lot of energy. Electricity however can be generated by numerous methods: solar, hydro, nuclear, etc., and you aren't stuck with one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @07:13PM
you're complaining because toyota is helping to build an open source infotainment system? are you fucking brain damaged? it's dumb ass, little, wallowing pigs like you who keep the whole world enslaved by technology, instead of freed by it. apple or google in my car? fuck you!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @07:54PM
I think a better solution is ethanol or chemically produced gasoline from catbon snd hydrogen. We could build giant solar farms in deserts to provide input energy to create it anf pull the chimicals to crack into carbon and hydrogen from the air and wayer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @10:04AM
Compressed hydrogen has about 80 times the specific energy as lithium ion batteries which is what makes it attractive.
(Score: 4, Informative) by WalksOnDirt on Friday November 17 2017, @04:14PM (6 children)
The main motivation looks to be government subsidies. Japan is pushing hydrogen, California gives out more credits for hydrogen than electric cars, and Germany also offers some support. When that's gone I expect the hydrogen cars to go, too.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday November 17 2017, @04:46PM
Maybe the government needs to read the first post right before yours.
During flu season be sure to take plenty of Vitamin C++
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @05:30PM (1 child)
Classic Lefty-government-does-business "success story." It may be terribly inefficient, horrendously impractical, but it is our duty to do the just thing, and use other people's money to try to make it work!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Friday November 17 2017, @06:49PM
In California they have Crazy Jerry. Who isn't as crazy as he looks. He makes a big show of how Green he is. He's not Green, he's Brown. He files to Paris, flies to Bonn, flies to the Vatican and says "Oh no, the Trump factor! Oh no, the climate is changing!" While in California they had a big, big leak. They had a TREMENDOUS gas leak at Aliso Canyon by Los Angeles. The biggest. Folks, the company that leaked it was Sempra Energy. Which is one of their gas companies. And Crazy Jerry's sister is on the board of Sempra. His sister Kathleen. So he lets them do what they want. When their family is on your board of directors, they let you do what you want.
I'll tell you, a lot of our hydrogen comes from gas. It's a great thing for our gas companies. Of which Sempra is one of the biggest in California. So hydrogen is a great thing for them. It looks very Green because there's no exhaust. It's not Green. But it's great for our fossil fuel industry. So it's great for Kathleen Brown. #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday November 17 2017, @06:52PM
Maybe. OTOH, it's good to have a backup plan. It appears that various material shortages may limit the total number of energy dense batteries that we can build. That said, I don't trust a backup plan that relies on a platinum catalyst. But maybe they're working on that.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday November 17 2017, @07:05PM (1 child)
I can think of a simple reason why Japan's government would be pushing Hydrogen. They can produce it locally from seawater and not have to import petroleum for auto fuel.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday November 18 2017, @10:44AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Friday November 17 2017, @04:14PM (4 children)
As appealing as battery electric is, it isn't going to become standard overnight. We still have a long way to go infrastructure wise as we have yet to solve the charger problem in large, dense cities. Anyone without a private parking spot where a charger can be installed will be the target market for 'fueled' vehicles. Gas and liquid fueled vehicles be they fuel cell, hybrid, or strait ICE, will remain competitive as they can be fuled quickly at existing gas stations which can more easily adapt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @05:33PM
It's all fun and games till your hydrogen infrastructure blows up. This is one problem. Another is that liquefying the hydrogen will require plenty of energy making this a crazy endeavor. Not that such considerations ever stopped anything...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday November 17 2017, @06:39PM
Or will be a target market for Johnny Cab.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 17 2017, @06:58PM (1 child)
People in cities are the main target for EVs. They don't need a lot of range, and charging infrastructure can be installed (legislatively if necessary, to force apartment owners to upgrade their facilities, and incentivize businesses to install chargers in parking lots). It's the people who live in exurbs or rural areas that will have problems with EVs due to range, and they can just stick with hybrids for a while, though even here many of them can use EVs for commuter cars (like in 2-car families), as the range is still generally good enough for most uses, just not weekend trips.
The main problem I see with all these arguments is that there's a bunch of stupid people out there who have this idea that for electric vehicles (or any alternative to today's gas-powered cars) to actually take off, that they must cover every single use-case out there, and be usable as-is by 100.000% of all gas-car drivers in society, in exactly the same way they currently use gas cars (refueling at stations in less than 5 minutes). That's a plainly stupid notion. Just like no one vehicle type (car, pickup truck, van, etc.) covers all use-cases, EVs don't need to cover all use-cases either, they just need a critical mass.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday November 17 2017, @08:10PM
The city has many more detailed problems than people think about. There are loads of smaller apartment and multi family homes without tenant parking. There are also many homes built in the 20's in my neighborhood with driveways so narrow they are useless. These people are forced to park on residential streets. Then add to that the people parking for the train station down the block or the large public school around the corner with zero on premises parking with well over 100 staff. Parking in New York City is a luxury.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday November 17 2017, @05:09PM (4 children)
No but the oil companies/gasoline suppliers will reluctantly step up to the mark if it looks like there's a danger of electric cars eating their lunch.
The only appeal I can see for hydrogen is that the infrastructure for delivering it is going to look reassuringly like the infrastructure for delivering gasoline - filling stations on street corners and at rest stops, with pumps, big underground tanks festooned with yellow fire safety stickers and operator's licenses; big tanker trucks delivering hydrogen made from oil or coal at big industrial complexes. The details will change considerably (and expensively) to handle hydrogen, but the business model stays the same.
If electric really takes off, charging is going to happen mostly at home, overnight, supplemented by chargers in parking lots at "destinations" and rest stops for long trips. Filling stations could become a thing of the past. Installing that infrastructure is still gonna cost money, but its likely to be a hell of a lot simpler than installing huge underground hydrogen tanks at every filling station, and can be rolled out incrementally.
The good news is that the land that those in-town filling stations are sitting on is probably worth money...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @05:37PM
You mean they will step up to the mark when the government FORCES them to supply these fuels at the barrel of a gun, and they will pass on this as cost of doing business to you and me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @06:58PM (1 child)
> Filling stations could become a thing of the past.
I think just the opposite -- given the relatively long time to charge batteries, I think e-filling stations will look like old time drive-in movies. Huge areas to park many cars, with many charging points (instead of the posts that held little speakers to listen to the soundtrack). Instead of a movie screen, the entertainment will be free wi-fi, byo device.
Since land is expensive in cities, these will be in the suburbs (or integrated into city parking garages).
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday November 17 2017, @08:28PM
The main use for recharging stations is going to be for long trips - with most charging being done at home overnight (if street charging for driveway-less areas happens) - so they'll mainly be at "destinations" and rest stops (or motorway services in the UK - which typically have a couple of recharging bays already - outside the shop/restaurant area, not the filling station).
My point was that these will be parking lots, not existing filling stations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:52AM
Ok, I'll follow the money.
It's highly unlikely the oil companies will "step up" as you maintain.
Since hydrogen is such a small molecule, it requires components like stainless steel for everything the hydrogen comes into contact with.
Therefore, the installation of Hydrogen filling stations will require expensive infrastructure and investments that few companies will risk, even to supply several thousand hydrogen vehicles on the road throughout the country.
At best, it will become a regional roll out, and those poor consumers who own hydrogen powered cars, will be stuck unable to travel long distances without proper pre planning to find obscure hydrogen filling stations.
I promoted hydrogen as as fuel storage medium for years, but I eventually saw that it's not the way to go, for many quite valid reasons.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday November 17 2017, @08:40PM
Toyota is simply working to insure that we have 3 vehicle energy infrastructures rather than 2. Because more is better.
Helping to save us from a violently imposed monopoly!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:34AM
If I was a board member at Toyota I'd be screaming right about now, this will prove to be a huge money loser for Toyota.
Because hydrogen isn't as an efficient energy storage medium as batteries are.
And hydrogen fuel cells are more complex, thus expensive.
And there is basically no hydrogen supply infrastructure outside of industrial areas.
I have some knowledge in this area, speaking as a former spokesperson for the American Hydrogen Association, and member of a failed start up in 1992, building Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells.