this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
193 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

59300 readers
4713 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why hydrogen? Why not electric at this point?

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because Toyota invested a lot into hydrogen instead of EV, and they need to recuperate at least some of it.

[–] Kushia@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly I'm glad that somebody is exploring other environmentally friendly alternatives too, nothing wrong with having options.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Kind of? Hydrogen can be environmentally friendly, but EVs have big advantages:

  • Creating and burning hydrogen is way less efficient than EVs (almost an order of magnitude)
  • Hydrogen is much cheaper to create in environmentally unfriendly ways (using natural gas etc.)
  • Unless we have massive overproduction of power, the additional energy can be better used to de-carbonify other processes with larger impact
[–] xenspidey@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why generating hydrogen during off-peak hours from a nuclear power plant will be very beneficial. It may be less efficient but way better for the environment then lithium

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You still have all the transport and storage costs associated with hydrogen. I'd need to see a study that actually determines the environmental impact of lithium to believe you.

[–] Geobloke@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They've invested heavily into a partnership with Panasonic to build solid state batteries too . They hand just spread their risk

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While most car companies initially believed liion batteries isnt ready for the market, and wanted to wait for a more safe and dense battery tech to hit market (solid state battery), toyota invested in hydrogen. Then Tesla took the bullet and sort of went against thr grain and created the liion based evs, and the rest of the companies are scrambling to catch up due to the demand for them.

Any push for hydrogen is because toyota invested into it and doesnt want for it to go to waste.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not just Toyota that invested in the tech, a bunch of other big names did as well. Hydrogen makes sense for everyone who doesn't live in cities.

[–] KnowLimits@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you figure? Everyone who doesn't live in big cities has the ability to charge an EV overnight, or in half an hour when road tripping. Absolutely none of them live within hundreds of miles of hydrogen refueling station.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Unless you have a quick charge at your house, or live in an area with one, you're not getting 30min quick charge at all. I'm 50 miles from the capital city in my state and we don't have any quick charge stations here. Anywhere. You really seem to be underestimating the size of the USA.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because some companies just can't get rid of the idea of ICEs. And they don't like that their expertise in making high-quality ICEs doesn't give them much benefit in making electric cars. So they prefer hydrogen to win over electric otherwise they'll have a very hard time competing against newcomers.

In my opinion, it's dinosaurs clinging to their old ways while the asteroid looms large in the sky.

[–] Destraight@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there is an asteroid in the sky then everyone dies. Not just the "dinosaurs". This is not a good analogy

[–] ours@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Us mammals did pretty well all things considered.