COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.

Ministers at hydrogen meet set ambitious target for green transport


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.


©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

The idea of running cars on hydrogen was first vetted in the 1930's. The first hydrogen engines were produced in the late 70's and early 80's. Now, some 40 odd years later, after oil is becoming scarce and the atmosphere is so full of CO2 that it has screwed up the earth's climate are they considering further developing and producing hydrogen engines on a commercial basis. What a complete bunch of idiots!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The international oil companies are some of the most nasty and powerful on the globe and will stop at nothing to ensure their oil remains essential, and at high prices.

Hydrogen will only be viable when more energy is produced than it takes to make it. We are not there on that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The international oil companies are some of the most nasty and powerful on the globe and will stop at nothing to ensure their oil remains essential, and at high prices.

Exactly. A necessary evil these days, and it’s not just the oil companies but all of the major industries dependent on them like autos and plastics, as well as the natural gas interests too. They are only a sect of the warmongering globalists.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Great news. So long as it is produced with excess renable energy that might otherwise go to waste or would need to be stored in batteries which at the moment is relatively expensive and inefficient.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carbon based society's days are numbered.

Oil companies are well aware of it.

Creating Hydrogen through electrolysis is neither difficult or expensive a bit time consuming but it can be done almost anywhere as long as you have a body of water and electricity. In fact you can create your own hydrogen with tap water and some solar panels for personal usage. This is in fact part of the ideas for incorporated into developing hydrogen station placing panels on the roof and add the obtained hydrogen into the storage tanks. It might not be enough for all but it sure will reduce the amount bought from the big hydrogen companies.

With hydrogen you do not need to import it from vast distances consuming fuel along the way nor do you need to process it like oil after the electrolysis process to obtain the end product like petroleum (gasoline) which also requires vast amount of energy.

It's just a transition period which people society needs to go through and the fast the better.

With the transition, there will be no more need to go to the middle east or Russia or any other far fetched places. It can be produced in your own back yard.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Except hydrogen isn't green, it's made from fossil natural gas. It's also not a fuel but a battery. It takes energy to make it then energy again to use it. You were better off keeping it in the form of electricity so you don't lose so much conversion energy.

This is a way the gas lobby can be a playa instead of being replaced by actual green tech

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Hydrogen is also highly corrosive. No matter what storage system you make eventually it'll corrode. Our engineering skills are vast but basing an energy system on such a corrosive element continues to be laughed at behind the scenes and will never be a long term solution. Maybe for trains as at scale it evens out but even then you could just have electrified the roads and rails instead.

Make roads the battery, the electrical field to receive from, then you can move freight without oil and that'll make it cheap to move goods, along with driving.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you make a comparison between oil and hydrogen, hydrogen is much more clean then any other chemical energy including Oil and for your information oil is the exact same in which it got it's energy from the sun through photosynthesis then went into another chemical process.

So in that sense it is a battery as well.

Oil requires to be excavated, transported and refined which means it needs to be boiled requiring LOTS of fuel.

Batteries is the same with oil in which it needs to excavated, transported, refined, processed and then go through a recycle process at the end which requires fuel at each and every process.

Hydrogen it is much more simple with much less step resulting to much less requirement of energy which can utilize any type of green energy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is!

The technical challenges in reality were too great which is why so many car companies abandoned hydrogen to focus on EV's instead. Fewer moving parts, longer lasting. You can do whatever you want to make the electricity, it merely is the conduit for energy.

These types of announcements have been going on for years but the technical challenges are too great.

Better get installing recharging stations and get a Tesla

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And no hydrogen is not corrosive they induce Hydrogen embrittlement to metals.

That is not a problem since all fuel tanks have inner organic casing. Toyota went one step ahead and introduced a carbon fiber hydrogen tank for their Mirai cars.

And you are showing your ignorance, FC does not have many moving parts. Much less then internal combustion engines and mostly the same as electric battery models. Basically the larger number of components is the valve that regulates the hydrogen to the fuel cells. That is about it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Dear S. Korea

The future is waiting with hydrogen being at the front, join hands with Japan for a brighter future. Your letting history and past grievances affect our relationship, security and economy. Wish the Korean people would wake up and realize this path of attacking Japan on everything is the wrong approach for better relations, for a brighter future.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

When BMW abandoned Ng cars 7 series, they cited "simply too complex and costly" so yeah. It'll never compete with electric unless a government gives the fossil fuel industry subsidies

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is all about maintaining the old boys network, not actual innovation

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry hydrogen, not ng. They had cited high conversion costs, problems with liquid hydrogen storage, sublimation losses, no infrastructure, reduced horsepower by almost 40%. Too costly versus EV which instantly doesn't have these problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2kToday 04:14 am JST

When BMW abandoned Ng cars 7 series, they cited "simply too complex and costly" so yeah. It'll never compete with electric unless a government gives the fossil fuel industry subsidies

Now comparing apples with oranges to justify your argument?

Pathetic move. BMW Hydrogen car 7 was an internal combustion type engine burning hydrogen within the engine to move the car. FCV generates electricity through chemical reaction to feed an electric motor to move the car which is basically the same as electric battery cars.

Burning anything is not energy efficient only able to gain 30~40% energy conversion while electric motor has a 70~80% conversion rate. FCV do not carry around liquid hydrogen either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites