845 miles on a tank of hydrogen
 

.

Toyota Mirai drives 845 miles on a tank of hydrogen, sets world record

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/ele...s-world-record
Full review here.

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/toyota/mirai


:turtle:

>

.

As a kid, we'd sometimes have a slow race. Whoever got to the finish last without actually stopping was the winner.

I feel like that's what these "accomplishments" are. More of a test of patience than of technology.

Mirai elucidations
 

I went to Toyota's official Mirai site and found it useless as far as technical specifications for the car.

Pffft . . .

I got 700+ mile tanks in my twenty year old G1 Insights in daily driving in traffic

Before I became too lazy to record my daily data I was getting 150+ mpge in my G2 Volt and had the estimated EV range up to almost 80 miles, also while driving real world traffic back and forth to work

Yea, I like Horst Lünings record attempts more.
Getting >2600 km out of a Tesla on normal roads in 24h shows the capabilities better than crawling for 2 days.

.

🧐

Tough crowd...

lol...

🤓


>

.

wow, those things must be all over the place!

Just enough to get to the closest fueling station and home again! :D

I think that's pretty cool, even if there are 0 hydrogen stations and hydrogen vehicles where I live.

(I'm not trying to start a political debate, just mention a hypothetical situation. If you don't like hypothetical situations, please stop reading this immediately.) If a government were to impose a no-ICE or no-fossil fuel law in the future then long range drivers would be severely handycapped by BEV technology. Hydrogen could fill that gap for those that need to go long distances but can't or don't want to use ICE technology and that don't want to wait for the frequent and long charge times of BEV's.

It doesn't solve any problems because 95% of hydrogen is derived from natural gas. That process is about 80% efficient.

Hydrogen fuel cells are about 50% efficient.

Might as well simply burn the natural gas directly than to do a bunch of energy conversions.

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs...busch_2018.pdf

Not to mention the energy required to implement safety measures to a safe storage of hydrogen.


Some 18 years ago I used to believe hydrogen would be the new CNG, then 15 years ago I was more favorable to ethanol (even though CNG might be worth for some operators).

I live for hypothetical situations. Extra points for unicorns that poop rainbow sherbet.

I'm always excited for new things... until they turn out to not deliver what they promised.

I went through the same process of thinking H2 would be the greatest fuel, then ethanol, but at least in the US ethanol production consumes too much land area and doesn't deliver enough energy to displace fossil fuels.

While you can argue that that's where most of hydrogen comes from today on average in most parts of the world, you can't argue with the possibility of running a hydrogen vehicle off of hydrogen made 100% from renewable sources.

The same argument can be said of battery electric vehicles. Sure, you can go get a generator from Harbor Freight and charge your EV off of that. Or you could install solar panels and charge your EV off of those. Just because in country A 95% of electricity comes from coal and 95% of it's hydrogen comes from natural gas doesn't mean that in country B 95% of it's electricity can't come from wind and solar and 95% of it's hydrogen can't come from wind and solar powered electrolysis. (Again, I'm not trying to start a political debate, I'm just saying it's hypothetically possible.)

On the flip side, fuel for internal combustion engines can also come from renewable sources, (e.g. bio fuels, carbon capture, etc.).

The question is, what would I do if, hypothetically, I as an individual, company owner, city, state, or country, etc., decided I wanted to use up to 100% renewable fuels and move away from fossil fules, granted I have the economical and technological means to do so?

Say I run a fleet of trucks that drive long distances and want to stay away from fossil fuels. Would solar to battery storage to battery electric vehicles make the most sense, seeing how I'd have to charge often for long charging times, and the weight of the batteries would make me have to take along less cargo? Or would solar to electrolysis be better, even though I'd need more solar panels? But at least I wouldn't need to store the electricity in stationary batteries since hydrogen is already a storage medium. The trucks could haul more cargo and drive farther distances between refuels since hydrogen is much lighter than lithum ion batteries and refuelling would be much, much faster. Or would fields of corn to produce bio fuels make the most sense? This is all hypothecially speaking of course.

Placing all the bets at a single fuel to become the "miraculous" one-size-fits-all replacement for petroleum was a mistake. Just like there was no gasoline-only or Diesel-only strategy going to succeed, different operating conditions might turn out to be more beneficial to either ethanol, biomethane, biodiesel or synthetic fuels made through carbon sequestration from the atmosphere.


Relying on a single feedstock for ethanol has always been a problem. Ethanol made out of corn is not so bad, once we look at the usage of distillation grain to feed livestock for instance, but outside the United States it's often pointed out as an environmental disaster mostly because of politics. Even in Brazil, nowadays some sugar and ethanol mills also process corn while sugarcane is out of season, and the distillation grain yelds a faster weight gain for beef cattle.

That's what we call a give up or discouraged attitude. Something doesn't work out the way you'd like, so you give up.

The thing is that we wouldn't be where we are today if people gave up at their first failed attempts. How many failed attempts were there in making the first internal combustion engine, the first road car, the first air plane, the first diesel engine, the first electronic fuel injected systems etc.? Look at how many failed attempts there were in making a production worthy EV back in the 70's, for an example. If everyone gave up on thier first failed attempts then then cars like Telsas would not exist. Actually vehiclular transportation wouldn't exist at all.

One thing is for sure, and that is that things change. Many of us didn't think things would change this fast. I remember when nobody had a cellphone and cars were carbureted.

Sure I can, because it's not happening. Arguing against something that isn't a reality is simple.

Arguments that we should stop doing something now because something in the future might be better aren't reasonable. I could say we should shut down all fossil fuel power generation now because we might have cheap and abundant fusion electricity in the future, but it wouldn't be rational.

A country could go 95% wind and solar and they would be broke, which is why none do it. I could have my lawn mowed with fingernail clippers, and it would consume no fossil fuels, hypothetically.

That's a relatively simple question to solve mathematically. Even more simple is Energy Return On Investment (EROI). It's the amount of energy invested divided by the amount of energy returned expressed as a ratio. If it takes 1 unit of energy to harvest 10 units of energy, that is cheaper than if it takes 1 unit of energy to harvest only 3 in return.

The nature of competition is those who spend the least to extract the most have the market advantage. Those who have to spend more or extract less have to increase the price of their product, and people largely aren't willing to pay more for commodities.

https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com...eroi.jpg?w=584

What in the world are you arguing against? It's not only possible, it's already been done. Solar panels, wind mills and hydro exist. Electrolysis exists. Hydrogen fuel cells exist. Which of those components isn't a reality? And if they are a reality, how on earth could using them together not be possible?

Maybe I don't understand you or you don't understand me. But I never said that we should stop doing anything. On the other hand, you sound like you're saying we should stop trying anything new.

But that's the beauty of choice. If you want to burn gasoline, go ahead, have at it. If I want to drive an EV, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, or a bike should I be banned from doing so? Should I be banned from putting solar panels on the top of my house or banned from installing a battery bank or a (safely built) hydrogen fuel electrolysis generator and compressor for my hydrogen fuel cell vehicle?

The other day someone told me I shouldn't have the right to ride my bicycle and should drive to work in a car like everyone else... Is that really the case?

Why can't we let people use what they want to use? What's so wrong with that (as long as it's not malicious).

Doesn't Norway get 95% or more of it's energy from renewables?

True. But spending more and having a more exepnsive product or service can build an image others may still be willing to buy. A couple examples are organic foods and companies like Apple and Tesla.

On the other hand, nonacceptance can also kill cheaper products and services. For an example, it should technically be cheaper to build a station wagon over a crossover SUV. But nobody want's a station wagon, so station wagons are no longer available brand new in the USA anymore.

The same can be said of gasoline, vs. electric, vs. hydrogen vs. coal. vs. solar. vs. wind. vs natural gas, and so on. If you can build up enogh of a good image of something that it gets enough people to buy into it, it will take off.

Kind of like this thread about a hydrogen fuel cell car going over 800 miles on a tank. That will catch people's attention. It will contribute to their interest in the technology. It doesn't prove it's better in every way shape or form. But maybe they're be a group tha benefits from it some day. Or we could just ignore innovation and dictate that everyone needs to stop riding their bikes and all drive gasoline power car,s because that's what's proven to work and there's no point in reinventing the wheel.

It hasn't. 95% of worldwide hydrogen comes from natural gas.

Pretty sure I understand you; that we should embrace much less efficient technology and become less prosperous for the greater good of reducing CO2 emissions.

I'm saying that just because something can technically be done doesn't mean it's the superior method. Things are the way they are because better alternatives haven't been discovered.

We're in agreement here. Liberty means freedom to decide what's best for oneself. Forcing me to pay for Paul's solar panels is the opposite of liberty though.

Norway has a population of Wisconsin and tons of hydro power resources. We could be like Norway if we invaded to take their natural resources and then culled 85% of our population.

Perhaps it slightly attones for their #1 economic product; oil exports.

Right, which is why the hydrogen Mirai has sold a few thousand examples.

Obviously progress requires change, but most new ideas are terrible. I'm not saying everything new is a failure, just the vast majority. After enough time, it becomes more obvious which of the new things has more potential.

H2 looks pretty dead from my understanding. Even with super cheap H2 from natural gas, it isn't widely adopted for transportation. How much less popular would it be if the fuel came from more expensive renewables?

That still makes zero sense. As I said before, it makes as much sense as saying all electicity comes from coal.

Hydrogen stations in California have to dispense at least 40% of their hydrogen from renewable sources. And of those stations, currently both FirstElement and Equilon are procuring 100% renewable hydrogen for their existing 28 open retail stations. So if you buy a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle, like the Toyota Mirai, and live near a FirstElement or Equilon station, your hydrogen will be 100% renewable. And that's available today, right now.


Everyone's idea of superior is different. No one has to embrace what others think is superior.

I suppose. But that also works the other way around. I'm forced to pay for coal fired power plants I may not want.

Agreed that it looks that way. And I have no idea if Hydrogen will ever take off or not. On the other hand, as long as there's growth there's a chance it might. There are more hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road now than ever before. And although that growth may currently be artificial, possible only through grants and subsidies and the like, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't getting slowly closer to becoming a selfsuficient profitable industry. The same can be said of EV's. And although EV's are still very expensive, many experts think they could actually become cheaper than ICEV's within the next decade.

That's the problem with numbers. Things can start very slowly, seemingly dead for quite some time, and then suddenly hit a growth spurt.

When GM's EV1 and several other California EV compliance cars were killed off back in 2004 I thought EV's were dead, never to become a thing ever again. Then companies like Tesla, Zap, Zenn and Aptera popped up and Nissan came out with the Leaf and GM with the Volt. And even though Aptera folded, Zap and Zenn disapeared, GM stopped making the Volt, Tesla always seemed to be holding on by a thread, and Nissan made really crappy batteries, now several companies are wanting to get in on a piece of the EV pie. So maybe the EV didn't die after all.

Could the same eventually happen with hydrogen? I don't know. But I'm not going to shout out to the world that another technology is dead again because you just never know when it might spring to life, especially when it still has benefits to offer over other technologies.

At this stage, I consider hydrogen as "specialized" as LNG.

Nuclear power can make both zero emission grid electricity for power to charge EVs, power for homes, heat for homes, and hydrogen for hydrogen zero emission cars and trucks. It's 1000 times safer than oil drilling, proven 80 year old technology, and could in the matter of a few years supply all the world's needs.

Makes me think it's not really about zero emissions.

1. Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly shown that it is not safe.
2. The global plan for zero emission is not purely about emission, but more about recoverable sources and energy independence. Nuclear is not recoverable.

Is the harm from the only and worst accidents you can list as bad as the harm from climate change? These were early technology and in the case of Japan stupidly placed, like really, really stupid. It like saying we can't have BEV cars because a few earlyTeslas and Bolts have burned down.

Why wouldn't nuclear be good for energy independence? Or do you mean it's about going back to the stone age where all energy was human or animal powered? Independence from all artificial energy. How are solar or wind any more recoverable than nuclear? Do those panels and mills just grow on trees?

Panels and mills are not the energy source, more like a tool for transformation.
In order to avoid any arguing, just put it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

Is "safe" a binary condition? What things in the world are 100% safe, or 100% unsafe?

Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly show 2 ways in which accidents involving nuclear power generation can occur, and nothing more.

Fukushima is the 2nd worst nuclear disaster in history and it killed... zero people.

What metric do we use to determine if something is "safe"? If people fall of wind turbines and die, do we say they are unsafe? How about the roof of houses while installing solar? Do people that die in construction accidents building dams prove they are unsafe?

A skilled thinker would evaluate safety in terms of deaths per x number of delivered terawatt hours, and that skilled person would find nuclear has about the fewest deaths per delivered energy.

If nuclear is "not safe", then nothing is.

That's a dumb global plan then, because it should be about delivering energy humans need to flourish.

As an aside, zero things in the universe are recoverable. Entropy will scatter everything.

You wouldn't even be allowed to build such a dangerous reactor type in the west.

Any form of energy has a degree of "danger."

Even a AAA alkaline battery can, in the right conditions (stuck in jar with paperclips and hole punches) cause a fire, which could cause a house to burn down or even an entire city.

Sometimes the "most dangerous" forms of energy become the safest because so much more attention goes into safety features that prevent a disaster.

That's a good point. Well, sometimes I look at fuels trying to figure out what would be the most "dumbproof" one for instance.

And a nuclear power plant is just the tool to transform it's energy source. Which happens to be 100% zero emissions all by itself.

Trust me, it will be the actual main energy source that is used 100 years from now when fossil fuels are depleted and wind and solar can't maintain the ever growing global demand.

How could we know if the global demand will be ever growing. Now scientists seem to be saying that global population is expected to start dropping. Less people could mean less energy required.

Based on nothing but my hunch, I expect global population to decline within my lifetime due to non-violent factors.

Humanity will consume whatever energy we can get our hands on though; especially once real autonomy gets going full steam.

Population doesn't have to grow at all, but billions of people living without all the amenities found in "western" civilization will sooner or later all achieve a similar standard we hold today. Cars, houses, AC, heat, lights, pumps, pavement, highways, etc, etc. Just like we live better than our ancestors 100 years ago, they will too. The more it happens, the less likely large scale war is as well. People with something to lose are more peaceful than people with nothing to lose.

Best I was able to get on my 2015 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid was 825 miles on a tank.

Used to break 800 in my Golf before it was neutered.

Besides a handful of self-proclaimed "intellectuals", the average Joe always wants comfort, and could really care less about how much carbon emissions would be tied to his usage of an air conditioner for instance.

If you look at it from the right angle 'Western_Civilization' is crude and wasteful. If they can become ever more successful for more days forward with less input, then good on them.

Your wasteful is someone else's comfort level. But I'm not even going that far. Just fresh water supply, clean waste water, basic heating and cooling, and transportation to billions living with almost zero power usage. It will happen faster than people stop having kids across the world. This also will lead to fewer and fewer wars which leads to people living longer and using more power too.

Maybe. On the other hand who knows what the future will actually bring. One third of millenials think the world is flat. What's next? Humankind might follow the way of the lemming.

Some byproducts of waste water treatment can be used as agricultural fertilizer, enabling a lower cost for food and biofuels. Not to mention biomethane can also be obtained from waste water treatment.


And some cultural concerns make people feel "entitled" to own a conventional vehicle once they can afford it, even though sometimes a simpler and more affordable one could serve for the same purpose in a less "wasteful" way.