tech

Toyota unveils revamped hydrogen sedan to take on Tesla

52 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

Yes please. The estate version if possible.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Looks sensational and sporty! I want one. I would like to see the performance figures. Its has "Japan Quality", so its much better than TESLA.

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

Toyota has been on a roll with these designs. Stunning. As @Ganbare Japan! said, this is that Made in Japan quality.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

I think Tesla owners are very satisfied based on what I read and the opinion of my friend who has one. It has instantaneous torque, good performance and an excellent safety record. Toyota may make good cars but what is the benefit of using hydrogen? That need to translate the value to me. Anyways I currently don't have a car...

2 ( +5 / -3 )

RecklessToday  05:21 pm JST

Toyota may make good cars but what is the benefit of using hydrogen? 

Price notwithstanding, compare the absolute very best mileage you can get in a Tesla, and then compare it to the average milage Mirai FCV. That's basically what is preventing EVs like the Tesla from being a mainstream automotive proposition. One day electic vehicles will be everywhere, but until then it goes hybrid -- FCV -- EV.

FCVs are re-fuellable like ordinary cars, but are zero emissions vehicles and have comparable mileage. They are just like hybrid cars but instead of a combustion engine for propulsion they use an electric motor. So they have all the benefits of electric cars you mention (instant torque, good performance) but they have double the mileage on a bad day.

Also hydrogen is being considered by F1 as a future power unit for 2024 in deference to Formula E which has exclusive rights with the FIA as the top level EV formula until 2039.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

loving Ganbare Japan’s blanket statements.

No chance this is taking off. Just some halo effect to boost sales.

FCVs are too expensive

4 ( +7 / -3 )

As Hillclimber explained, burning hydrogen gives only water, and therefore zero emissions. Hydrogen is abundant and cheap, but it has the big issuethat it is extremely explosive. Toyota just compresses it in cylinders and they claim it is safe, but I would not want to get in a big accident with basically bombs in the car. The future are fuel cell based on electrolysis, basically split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then react them to power the engine. The problem is that the cycle is overall negative in energy at the moment, but there is some serious progress being made in catalysts, so I believe there will be a breakthrough soon

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Toyota unveils revamped hydrogen sedan to take on Tesla

That's a big compliment to Tesla, saying that the second largest car maker in the world is "taking on" Tesla! True, Tesla is the top ranked plug-in passenger car, but still.

I'm all for healthy competition!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Comparing the 2 is of slight interest only.

One is a fuel (hydrogen) cell electric vehicle and the other is a plug in Li-Ion battery electric vehicle.

Both have merits and demerits, like diesel vs gasoline.

According to Japanese Nobel recipient Yoshino, he expects li-ion batteries technology to go thru the roof in the foreseable future, making EVs far more attractive.

The infrastructure required for FCVs including hydrogen processing, storage, distribution, and at the pump is beyond huge. Not un-doable, but a big task over a long time frame.

Both systems could proliferate, but I'm hedging bets on the EVs, esp over the next few decades, just because of simplicity of energy-to-vehicle delivery - ie a power outlet.

Beyond that who knows.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I had the chance to test drive a Tesla. The only thing I can it’s an amazing car and to be honest not the quality you’d expect in an Americans sports care with the exception of a Corvette, but I would be interested in trying out this car. Would like a closer look at the interior.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It's certainly better looking than the current generation, which is hideous.

Why does it always take the makers 2 or even 3 generations to make good looking alternative fuel vehicles?

The 1st gen Leaf was hideous. The 1st gen Prius. The 1st gen Insight. All hideous. The Mirai was not much better.

It's as if they think they need to make it "high tech" looking because it incorporates new technology.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Price notwithstanding, compare the absolute very best mileage you can get in a Tesla, and then compare it to the average milage Mirai FCV.

Are referring to "range"? Because "mileage" is a measure of efficiency, such as L/km.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's certainly better looking than the current generation, which is hideous.

This one's hideous too. The 1981 DeLorean looks way better.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If you have grid connected vehicles and make the highway the battery you don't use your onboard electricity and would be able to deliver freight without oil at huge transportation cost savings in a $700Billion market.

hydrogen is a desperate technology from existing oil and gas companies who don't benefit from home recharging of electric cars nor the thousands of car chargers out there. The future is electric not hydrogen. Too many negatives including safety from an odourless colourless flammable gas

No matter the tank coating, hydrogen will break it down eventually, making the longevity of any vehicle in doubt.

Also the recent Nobel Prize was for the lithium-ion when the team of Goodenough just made another solid state battery that will come on market in the next few years. Thus making battery powered vehicles even more attractive and easier to make.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Why does it always take the makers 2 or even 3 generations to make good looking alternative fuel vehicles?

Think low medium and high fidelity prototypes. It takes making something to learn about it. The lessons learned survive into the next iteration. That's how design works

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If homes become the powerplants of the future with net zero buildings then recharging at home increases in practicality. Hydrogen not so much. You'd need large systems to make it for both practical sale issues and for any safety. As the world goes green hydrogen will be left behind and not be involved in the designs and implementations of the green transitional economy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I doubt FCV will become mainstream, FCV still require more maintenance costs than a electric vehicle, and there isnt nearly enough filling stations for them. As batteries become more advanced the range will get longer and charging times shorter. You can always charge your vehicle at home while you sleep

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Thus making battery powered vehicles even more attractive and easier to make.

its attractive now, electric manufacturers give the option of leasing your battery instead of buying it, battery being the most expensive part of a EV. So if you ever run into any problems with those batteries theyll replace them free of charge. Ive never purchased a new vehicle in my life even though Ive owned over 30 different cars, If the day comes when I decide to purchase a new car itll be an EV

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Electric are the power of the future for cars. Hydrogen can used for generating power.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

sf2kT:

As the world goes green hydrogen will be left behind...

No so fast. With 70% of our universe made of hydrogen, human being will not easily give up their effort to find an efficient way to retrieve engergy from it. Plants and microorganisms create hydrogen seemingly effortlessly through the process called photosynthesis, of which we still do not know fully its mechnism. Hence, advancements in nano technologies and genetic engineering are considered crucial for the break through, and the scientists in the world are in a fierce competition today. You'd better not ignore these efforts in basic science. Toyota is only waiting for the coming opportunity by keeping Mirai technology alive.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As Hillclimber explained, burning hydrogen gives only water, and therefore zero emissions. Hydrogen is abundant and cheap, but it has the big issuethat it is extremely explosive.

Hydrogen has to be created (e.g. by electrolysis) first, and that takes energy. And that energy in our modern economies comes typically from.... drum roll.... coal. So "hydrogen cars", like "electric cars", are fundamentally coal cars.

I am always amazed by the short-sightedness about these environmental claims. Afaic, they are just feel-good claims. Of course, industry will bend towards whatever the Zeitgeist wants.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hydrogen has the benefit that you do not need to rely on the Lithium cartel also mining lithium like any other type of mining would damage the environment. At least hydrogen, you can just use rain water, etc - no need to do any mining.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The 1981 DeLorean looks way better.

With or without a flux capacitor?

But on a serious note, FCV's have a huge hump to get over that they may never be able to conquer... infrastructure.

EV's can operate on the current electrical grid, or even independent of the current grid through solar panels, etc. As 'green energy' systems grow in usage, they'll be able to become even more independent.

Meanwhile, FCVs are dependent on hydrogen, and compressing it. Set aside the explosive nature of hydrogen, this means that FCV's are still 'gas station' dependent. Current gas stations will have to install FCV compliant storage tanks, pumping machinery, hoses, etc. Basically, systems capable of handling liquid hydrogen (not the easiest thing to deal with).

While some stations currently deal with propane, hydrogen is even more difficult to deal with. Can FCV tech be able to grow fast enough to make it economical or advantageous over EVs faster than EV battery tech can improve?

Currently, I doubt it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japanese Companies need to stop test releasing products to Japan only. I've been here long enough to have encountered many such issues particularly with Computers, where you buy a new item, and find a few months (or even a year later) that it's been discontinued and Support for it becomes non-existent pretty quickly.

If Toyota is going to release a product, it should have the balls to do so globally, anything else is typical whishy/washy fumbling around looking for an answer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

160 hydrogen stations may not seem like much, but there is probably one near you. I've checked out mine!

http://fccj.jp/hystation/#list

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hydrogen delivery infrastructure:

Governments are and will subsidise its rollout. This is inevitable especially in Europe.

Toyota FCV patents:

Just like they did with THS-II, Toyota will release the technology to the global market so other manufacturers can benefit by investing zero money into R&D trying to create their own FCV tech. This is calculated move by Toyota in delivering maximum benefit from their R&D investment. The German manufacturers have all (happily) benefitted from this and a similar thing will happen with FVC tech. This is not saying Toyota have the best solution, only that they have been developing it the longest and have put a huge amount of investment into something that the experts on JT keep ignoring.

Exploding tanks:

To even suggest that the proper safety tests were not done, or someone allowed the composite tanks to pass crash safety testing without actually passing it absolutely ridiculous. Toyota have banked on FCV tech for 20 years, they are not going to waste all that on a 'iffy' easily exploding trio of tanks in each car.

The Mirai has been on the market for 4 years. 10,000 are on the roads and none have exploded in an accident.

Hydrogen handling:

Why is it that so many people say that battery tech will get better over time in terms of production, recharging times, capacity etc etc, yet when the topic changes to hydrogen, it's a dead-end and it cannot be developed any further because 'reasons'? This is just denial working overtime to categorise something new as a failure. Just like batter tech advances, so does hydrogen tech. It's an alternative method of propulsion and it will bridge the gap to (very long range) EVs in the future.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

sf2k

"Why does it always take the makers 2 or even 3 generations to make good looking alternative fuel vehicles?"

Think low medium and high fidelity prototypes. It takes making something to learn about it. The lessons learned survive into the next iteration. That's how design works

I was referring to aesthetics, not technology. Hideous appearance is a deliberate choice by the makers. It is totally unnecessary, and completely avoidable.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Seeing that this thing will need a compressed hydrogen tank, can we call it the Toyota Hindenburg?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

WilliBToday 07:30 pm JST

Try sticking a nail in a lithium Ion battery?

You should try it, it's quite "Illuminating" really!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hydrogen delivery infrastructure:

Governments are and will subsidise its rollout. This is inevitable especially in Europe.

So in other words, Toyota's whole gamble hinges on multiple governments forking over money to pay for an alternative to EV, which requires far less investment into existing infrastructure in order to make a reality?

Maybe in Japan, where Toyota can depend on the J-gov to nurse them along. But most countries in the rest of the world? No.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Transitioning to hydrogen vehicles is the future, since hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are essentially electric cars with batteries fuel cells use as a range extender reducing the weight of the vehicle using carbon fiber tanks reducing the size of the battery pack and be able to refuel it in 5 to 10 minutes and get 400 miles makes a lot of sense building a Nationwide infrastructure building thousands hydrogen refueling stations along with fast charging electric Chargers this also could work in the commercial Trucking industry the yachting industry also the Aeronautics industry. And the only byproduct is water vapor versus carbon monoxide and Sulfur.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

David Varnes:

So in other words, Toyota's whole gamble hinges on multiple governments forking over money to pay for an alternative to EV, which requires far less investment into existing infrastructure in order to make a reality?

Yep, looks like it. Of course, when the taxation and redistribution by governments is not counted, the promoters can present this new technology as economically viable.

Maybe in Japan, where Toyota can depend on the J-gov to nurse them along. But most countries in the rest of the world? No.

Alas, European countries are also on the PC bandwagon. And all bets are off if the nutcase party wins and starts their "new green deal" in the US.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Steve Huisenfeldt

are essentially electric cars with batteries fuel cells use as a range extender reducing the weight of the vehicle using carbon fiber tanks reducing the size of the battery pack and be able to refuel it in 5 to 10 minutes

....so if you carry tanks and burn fuel, how are the resulting emissions different from a combustion engine? Does it matter if the fuel is oxidized by combustion in a motor or in a fuel cell? The result should be the same. Honest question.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Does it matter if the fuel is oxidized by combustion in a motor or in a fuel cel

Not sure if I understand your question, but if the fuel is hydrogen, then only water is emitted, whether by combustion or chemical reaction in a fuel cell. A tank to store the hydrogen would be needed in both cases. I'm not sure whether anyone is developing hydrogen combustion engines any more. I've read that they are not very efficient.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

albaleo:

Not sure if I understand your question, but if the fuel is hydrogen, then only water is emitted, whether by combustion or chemical reaction in a fuel cell.

That was the question. If the result is the same for combustion engine and fuel cell, why claim that fuel cells have less emissions than combustion engines? I have not seen an explanation yet.

(Par for the course for the typical climate activist claims though...)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That was the question. If the result is the same for combustion engine and fuel cell

It's not. The byproduct of the burning of hydrogen is water. You don't get water from burning oil.

why claim that fuel cells have less emissions than combustion engines?

Because they do. See my above comment.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Strangerland:

It's not. The byproduct of the burning of hydrogen is water. You don't get water from burning oil.

Actually, yes you do. Both CO2 and H2O are produced when burning hydrocarbons. And you can burn hydrogen in a combustion engine. I suggest reading before commenting...

So my question remains: why claim that fuel cells have less emissions than combustion engines?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Too much reading, too late, but here are my replies to some of the above posts:

The reason hydrogen produces only water vapor emissions is because the reaction is between H2 (hydrogen) and O2 (oxygen), which creates H2O. Unlike carbon-based fuels, there are no other chemical elements involved, so no way to create CO2 (carbon dioxide) - no carbon.

Next, the explosion thing... If the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen didn't produce energy, it couldn't be used to power a car. The Hindenburg always seems to come up in these threads, but that was a much larger quantity of hydrogen being used for a much different purpose, with a much different storage device. In modern 10kg fuel tanks, designed and tested for liquid hydrogen, even if something did go wrong it would certainly not rival the Hindenburg. Besides, has it occurred to anyone that gasoline and diesel are also explosive? Given that knowledge, why does the Pinto not come up every time someone talks about a new gasoline powered car? Even Tesla had problems with batteries catching fire, but that doesn't seem to have turned everyone off of vehicles with batteries.

Finally, as mentioned above, it does take energy to separate the hydrogen to use for fuel, and yes, that will probably come from a power plant (whose generation method will vary according to region). Unfortunately, the energy to charge the battery of an EV probably also comes from that power plant. Even if someone manages to build a home that is completely off the power grid and still produces enough energy to charge the car, is it really feasible that they would never need to charge it anywhere else? Those charging stations out in the world are still connected to the local power supply.

I'm not trying to say that everything else is bad and that HFC is the only way to go, but I want a Mirai. I have for years. They weren't made available where I live, or I would have one - even if they're ugly. My research said they are safe, practical, and set to last into the future. Hopefully this US release will finally give me a chance to own one, and hopefully other drivers out there will respect my choice and will ask questions about my car before trying to tell me why it was a stupid choice. A little tolerance goes a long way, even when we're talking about our cars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finally, as mentioned above, it does take energy to separate the hydrogen to use for fuel, and yes, that will probably come from a power plant (whose generation method will vary according to region). Unfortunately, the energy to charge the battery of an EV probably also comes from that power plant. Even if someone manages to build a home that is completely off the power grid and still produces enough energy to charge the car, is it really feasible that they would never need to charge it anywhere else? Those charging stations out in the world are still connected to the local power supply.

In short: electric cars and hydrogen-fueled fuel cell cars = coal cars.

Am I wrong in suspecting that a large number of the people who clamor for electric and FC cars are also clamoring against coal-fired power plants? Gotta love the irony!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In Japan does not generate electricity 100% from coal fired plants. The current level is about 40%. Many homes are now capable of generating power which can be used to recharge EV.

Some countries like Iceland have power 100% from renewables. Canada is about 80% renewable.

America has shut down 50 coal fired plants and generating about 30% of power from renewables. The UK is another not using coal fired plants and generating 30% of power from renewables.

It's far from real to claim that EV's are nothing more than coal cars.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

zichi:

Some countries like Iceland have power 100% from renewables. Canada is about 80% renewable.

Add Norway to that list, and you are about done. That is the small list of countries with low population density and an enormous amount of hydro or geothermal ressources (in case of Iceland, both).

To claim those exceptions are a model for every country is absurd.

Again: electric car = coal car.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

WilliB

To claim those exceptions are a model for every country is absurd.

I made no such claims but you are when you say

Again: electric car = coal car.

Which isn't accurate even in Japan since only 30% of total power is from coal.

https://www.isep.or.jp/en/717/

Therefore if EV's were charging from the supplied electricity then only 30% of it comes from coal.

But it is now possible to buy power from 100% renewable source. Many homes are becoming self sufficient for power generation which is the best option for recharging EV's overnight.

The UK is a country with a population of about 65 million but on most days does not use coal fired plants. Check it out for your self.

https://gridwatch.co.uk

Good country for EV's. France produces 80% of its power from nuclear not coal. Again a high population country not using coal.

I never suggest there is one answer for all countries. Same with renewable energy. Use the best of what is available.

There is a future for EV's to replace fossil fuel one's. I also think they would work better than hydrogen.

You wake up in the morning and your car is charged and ready to go. Going on a long trip. Less of a problem with super fast super charging stations.

What is there not to like about it?

For the time being, coal fired plants are necessary here in Japan but they will be replaced by other means. Coal fired power plants have to run 24/7 the load can not be increased or deceased until LNG. Overnight power generation from coal has a high waste factor because of less demand. So even if they were charging EV's it would reduce that waste factor and provide cleaner cars for the city streets.

When I was a building engineer I had to change very large filters for the AC systems because they would become black and blocked from the outside polluted air mostly caused by cars. Those filters need weekly changes. They are expensive and you can multiply them by the trillions. Cleaner air from EV's would be good for everyone.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Zichi:

For the time being, coal fired plants are necessary here in Japan but they will be replaced by other means.

By what means? I agree that modern nuclear technology should be promoted, but am I wrong in assuming that majority of the "electric car" fans are also against nuclear?

Looking at your link about Japan (why did I waste the time...) I notice that "LNG" and "oil" are listed separately from "coal" and adding those, we get to about 80% energy supply from fossil fuels for Japan. So how is burning fuel to power a grid to power an electric car better than burning fuel to run a car??

I notice that Japan has a high percentage of hydro and geothermal, nothing wrong with that, but those resources are local and limited. The wonderful windmills and solar panels that people think modern economies can run on are 0.7 and 0.1 in your link.... and the link does not list how much artificial subsidies flow into those.

So if cut through the wishful thinking, we still see:

Electric car and fuel cell car = coal and oil car

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

WillB

you have moved your goal posts because firstly you said EV's=coal cars.

Now you are saying EV's= coal and oil car.

Which once again isn't correct. So lets assume that you are saying EV's=fossil fuel cars.

That is exactly what the current situation is and has been for many decades. The majority of vehicles run with internal combustion engines which burn oil.

Oil is the prime energy import at about 40%. LNG 30%. Coal 25%.

But oil is used mostly by vehicles, for heating and other industrial uses. Oil is only for generating power when there is a sudden peak demand because they can start and shut down instantaneously. Oil only generates about 9% of total power. The largest is LNG 43%. Coal 32%. Hydro and renewables 15%. Geothermal about 3%. Nuclear 1.7%.

There are cost benefits of EV's regardless of which fuel is used to generate the electricity needed for recharging. There are benefits to the environment with cleaner air. As I pointed out to you about the need to frequently change air filters for large office buildings. There are many advantages of having cleaner air.

They are also quiet. There are people who live near expressways and highways who need double glazing to keep the noise out. The vehicles are releasing large quantities of lead which contaminate the soils and get into the food chains. Especially with salads like lettuce.

The Japanese power companies sign long term contracts for fossil fuels in the hope of controlling the prices paid but then they can't secure supplies from the spot market. The current prices of LNG were lower and could be used more for power generation than coal.

You didn't respond about many homes generating their own power with solar and or fuel cells. I see many homes in our location with them. They use gas or propane where we live. Hydrogen is extracted from the gas to generate electricity. The heat generated is used to produce hot water. Electricity and hot water from gas. A home like that could use and charge its own EV. Solar in the daylight or the fuel cell over night.

Looking at your link about Japan (why did I waste the time...) I notice that "LNG" and "oil" are listed separately from "coal" and adding those, we get to about 80% energy supply from fossil fuels for Japan. So how is burning fuel to power a grid to power an electric car better than burning fuel to run a car??

You can't just add up all the fossil fuels into one group and say Japan gets 80% energy supply from fossil fuels.

Coal, oil and LNG are not all the same.

I have informed you the primary energy import is oil at about 40% of all imports. About 95% of that is for burning in vehicles. Only a very small amount, low sulphur types are used for power generation. LNG is clean when compared to coal.

So only about 42% of total power is generated from coal and oil or dirty fossil fuels. 43% from LNG or clean fossil fuels.

The amount of renewable energy available in this country if used could generate 30% of total power demand.

Which is better clean quiet EV's that are not polluting the environment or millions of fossil fuel cars polluting everywhere like mad dogs on a Saturday night.

There remains the problem of generating the 24/7 baseload from coal but if all the dirt is in one place then easier to deal with than millions of cars everywhere. Cleaner coal burning plants which are more efficient. Collecting the dangerous particles and gases before being released.

The future is EV's not fossil burning cars which even the American car companies are now investing in big time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Currently and for many decades all vehicles burn oil.

With EV's and better battery technology will be cleaner and less polluting.

Changes will hppen with power generation. Most homes williB energy self sufficient and EV will be part of that.

When the motor car was first invented, people claimed it would never replace horses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, it looks better than the 3rd gen Prius.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichi

Currently and for many decades all vehicles burn oil.

Yes, that is what I said. Electric car = coal and oil cars. So what is the point?

With EV's and better battery technology will be cleaner and less polluting.

That is a non sequitur. Why is it "less polluting" to burn fossil fuel to create electricity, send the electricity of long power lines with losses, and then store it in expensive and inefficient batteries, instead of creating it on the spot?

Changes will hppen with power generation. Most homes williB energy self sufficient and EV will be part of that.

So you are arguing for creating energy locally. Well, that is what combustion engine car does.... according to your previous argument, should it not be better to create energy centralized to send it to the invididual homes? That will be "cleaner and less polluting" after all, no? Got to love the logic here, LOL!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

WilliB

Yes, that is what I said. Electric car = coal and oil cars. So what is the point?

no wrong again!

The largest energy import is crude oil which is then refined for use in vehicles with combustion engines. A small amount of the oil import is used for electricity generation. Combustion engines are dirty and polluting with dangerous releases of elements like lead. The total costs of using oil in vehicles is very high.

I don't understand why you keep claiming

Electric car = coal and oil cars.

Totally incorrect.

Electric cars don't use any coal or oil. They are recharged with electricity generated in a number of ways.

You could try making the claim if EV's are connected to mains power for recharging then about 30% of the total power is generated using coal. But even that would still make for cleaner more quiet vehicles.

That is a non sequitur. Why is it "less polluting" to burn fossil fuel to create electricity, send the electricity of long power lines with losses, and then store it in expensive and inefficient batteries, instead of creating it on the spot?

Another misguided post? Electricity needs to be generated with or without the EV's. It's the way we live. You don't drive into a gas stand with your gas car and fill it up from some well under the ground that gets refined on the way up without using any electricity. The extraction of crude oil, its transported across the globe, the refining, and storage, the delivery to gas stands, all uses enormous amounts of electricity in the millions of GW's.

Coal only generates about 30% of total power. LNG more, which is a cleaner energy. In fact LNG can totally replace coal.

Gas for vehicles just isn't created on the spot has you have claimed.

and then store it in expensive and inefficient batteries, instead of creating it on the spot?

the price of batteries are falling and becoming more efficient and can be used for other uses when removed from the EV's.

Most Japanese homes already have gas supplies, LNG or propane. Many are installing the fuel cells to generate power and hot water. Many also have solar panels. Recharging an EV at home, is clean, easy, cost effective.

The cost per kilometer for an EV is less than a gas filled car.

The more homes can be 100% energy sufficient for power the less need for central power plants including the coal fired ones.

Companies like Apple, are 100% renewable energy as are many of the other fortune 500 companies.

Self sufficiency in power generation reduces the load needed from central power plants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The cost of EV per kilometer/mile is less than 50% of gas filled cars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Electric cars don't use any coal or oil. They are recharged with electricity generated in a number of ways.

There is not a "number of ways". Fundamentally, the electricity comes from the grid. If want to run a car with solar panels on the roof, look at the ridiculous contraptions that actually do that.

And as your own statistics confirm, the grid is fundamentally supplied by fossil fuel. How much electricty gets lost in transmission of power lines? There must be statistics out there, but you ignore that point.

The cost of EV per kilometer/mile is less than 50% of gas filled cars.

Well, if that is so, you dont need to promote them, the market will take care of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To add to that: If battery vehicles were 50% cheaper to operate than combustion engine vehicles, we would see battery operated trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes everywhere. Or do you seriously think any manager would pass on the option to save 50%, and manufacturers would not jump into this market full speed?

So tell why we see none of these things...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only hydrogen filling stations that I have seen in Japan are operated by Eneos, an oil company. That should tell you something.

The "hydrogen economy" is a scam. It's a way to greenwash fossil fuel and make it look like an eco-friendly solution. The secret that none of the promoters of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles want you to know is that the only economical route to produce hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles (FCV) is from fossil fuels such as coal or LNG. Almost all the hydrogen produced today is produced through steam reformation of natural gas, which is not a carbon-free or renewable energy source. A car like the Toyota Mirai run on hydrogen produced this way actually produces more CO2 per km than a regular gasoline powered car!

Yes, you can also produce hydrogen from renewable energy sources like solar panels or wind turbines, but the conversion losses of electrolysis, fuel cells and high pressure gas storage are such that this technology would consume three times more electricity per km than equivalent battery powered cars.

That is why FCVs are a dead end. Even if you ignore the scarcity of hydrogen fuel stations, the high cost of fuel cells, this technology is simply to inefficient to be competitive with batteries, unless you ignore the climate disaster from skyrocketing CO2 levels and produce hydrogen from dirty fossil fuels instead of from renewable sources.

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