Toyota's new hydrogen sedan will be on sale next year for $57,500, free fuel for 3 years

[rashdanml]

It's just dumb, it's more efficient to simply create the electricity and call it a day. 

 

 

Even if they accomplish it it'll be very difficult to scale up platinum to the point where vehicles cost $15,000 like Toyota's current Yaris.

 

There are other issues too but the main point is that fuel cell vehicles are a bad technology to invest in and the research is better spent on pure evs. 

 

1) I agree, Electric cars are more logical as I mentioned in a previous post. The only way fuel cells make any sense is to produce hydrogen using renewable and sustainable methods. That way, while you're still using electricity to produce hydrogen and getting it back, you're using a limitless source of electricity to do so. 

2) Time and mass production. The technology is still a novelty. Platinum is only one reason the technology is expensive, there are plenty more issues to be worked out. 

3) Different options for consideration. The world's power is still mostly run on fossil fuels, and electric cars will only increase the demand for that electricity. Fuel cells and EVs both have the potential to be sustainable through the use of renewable energy sources, but the planet as a whole should move towards completely using renewable energy. When that happens, it wouldn't really matter which type of car you used. 

 

In a perfect scenario, the electricity you use to produce hydrogen comes right back when you use it in a car. This will be true if you produce hydrogen using electrolysis of water. Meaning the net electricity use is zero (the electricity is equal only in this scenario because you get water back from the cell). 

 

With Electric cars, you take advantage of the existing grid, which is easier to implement. Tesla's super chargers are opensource and are small enough to be placed anywhere on the highway. If you leave your car plugged in and it doesn't need the electricity, it can supply energy back to the grid if needed. 

 

Long term, both are good options as they're sustainable with the right approach. 

[bomerr]

1) I agree, Electric cars are more logical as I mentioned in a previous post. The only way fuel cells make any sense is to produce hydrogen using renewable and sustainable methods. That way, while you're still using electricity to produce hydrogen and getting it back, you're using a limitless source of electricity to do so. 

2) Time and mass production. The technology is still a novelty. Platinum is only one reason the technology is expensive, there are plenty more issues to be worked out. 

3) Different options for consideration. The world's power is still mostly run on fossil fuels, and electric cars will only increase the demand for that electricity. Fuel cells and EVs both have the potential to be sustainable through the use of renewable energy sources, but the planet as a whole should move towards completely using renewable energy. When that happens, it wouldn't really matter which type of car you used. 

 

In a perfect scenario, the electricity you use to produce hydrogen comes right back when you use it in a car. This will be true if you produce hydrogen using electrolysis of water. Meaning the net electricity use is zero (the electricity is equal only in this scenario because you get water back from the cell). 

 

With Electric cars, you take advantage of the existing grid, which is easier to implement. Tesla's super chargers are opensource and are small enough to be placed anywhere on the highway. If you leave your car plugged in and it doesn't need the electricity, it can supply energy back to the grid if needed. 

 

Long term, both are good options as they're sustainable with the right approach. 

electrolysis uses too much electricity. 

[peanutsrevenge]

It's ugly hydrogen is stupid, electric's the only one that makes sense.

[TheSLSAMG]

It's ugly hydrogen is stupid, electric's the only one that makes sense.

Why so? Can you pull scientific fact to show that hydrogen is stupid and that electric makes sense, even though a majority of our electric power comes from the burning of fossil fuels/coal/natural gas?

[peanutsrevenge]

Why so? Can you pull scientific fact to show that hydrogen is stupid and that electric makes sense, even though a majority of our electric power comes from the burning of fossil fuels/coal/natural gas?

Yes, but I'm not going to spend time doing so right now.

Why set up a whole new infrastructure for hydrogen when we already have an infrastructure for electricity.

 

Why generate electricity on a small, portable scale when it's far more efficient to do so on a mass scale.

Why carry explosive materials around?

Why do the clean energy thing in just personal transport and ignore mass energy generation? Wouldn't it be better to push for clean, efficient mass energy production and use that everywhere?

E2A: When cars can be charged at home easily (need next gen battery tech), we can get rid of fuel stations, that's space that could be used for schools, homes etc....

[ClakeyD]

 

Them angles... I should get one, paint it black and red, and call it the STRIX Corolla. That'll provide a huge bump in sales.

 

 

 

This made my day.

 

+1 internets to you good sir

 

 

[rashdanml]

electrolysis uses too much electricity. 

No, it doesn't.

 

Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen requires a voltage of around 0.7V. Increasing current, and therefore power, speeds up the rate of reaction, producing more hydrogen. Obviously physical limits to how fast you can go. The more power you throw at it, the faster the hydrogen production, barring physical limits.

 

Recombining Hydrogen and Oxygen gives back that same voltage. However, if you want higher power output, you'll need to speed up the reaction (more electron flow = higher current), which reduces the voltage due to various loss mechanisms. 

 

You're using electricity to split water into hydrogen, then getting that electricity back elsewhere. The water used in splitting to hydrogen comes back when recombined in the fuel cell.

 

"Too much" is a non-issue when we have access to limitless sources of energy: Solar, Hydro, Wind, Geothermal, to name a few. Sun will continue to provide energy. Hydro is sustainable - the extracted energy from water flows into oceans, evaporates, forms clouds and refills reservoir = cycle repeats itself. The Earth's core is continuously generating energy, which we see as many forms (tectonic energy is one of them, we can harness that movement to generate electricity). "Too much" is an issue when we rely on fossil fuels, because the current deposit of fuels was being produced over hundreds of millions of years. Replenishing it will take just as long, and mankind cannot afford to wait that long. 

[Subcola]

Does anyone else think that this is a driving hydrogen bomb?

[Photonic]

Its so ugly why do car maufactors have to make there cars look like spaceships on wheels

[Photonic]

Does anyone else think that this is a driving hydrogen bomb?

 

If you understand the physics of hydrogen gas then no hydrogen is safer then Gas because hydrogen raises quickly and burns very quick while Gas burns big and is hotter 

 

and a hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb not a bomb filled with hydrogen that combusts