Regardless of whether hydrogen processing and distribution are feasible, this is one cool as hell look into the guts of a fuel cell-BEV truck. Awesome that Toyota showed you how it all would fit together in a truck.
Thanks Travis. For the most part, I like my hydrogen mixed with oxygen. 2 portions of hydrogen mixed with one portion of oxygen makes a refreshing drink on a hot day. If you are not thirsty, you can also use H2O to wash the dishes or irrigate the garden. 😁
I will believe the future when I see the hydrogen distribution infrastructure in place. It's not as easily done as electric expansion and will require either big investment in pipeline or having to rely on trucking deliveries of hydrogen. Good luck with both to make it cost effective given existing pricing.
No doubt there's a lot of work to be done but it also doesn't need to power every vehicle on the road. That would help with infrastructure stress. -Travis
@@EVBuyersGuide As an electric utility rep in CA, I can't emphasize enough how much power is required (upwards of 20-30 MW, dedicated substation onsite taking transmission level voltage for service) to build hydrogen processing/distribution facility. If it's only used for large fleets/trucks, that is a huge waste of investment/resources.
Build it and they will come(Tesla)/Don’t Build it and they won’t come(Toyota FC). - I Figure for Hydrogen to take off Hydrogen to take off they would need atleast 1 station for each county in America (3143) plus one station for every 100,000 people (3418) or 6551 stations roughly speaking. Until I see Toyota build 1000 station hydrogen ain’t happening. PHEV is more likely to be around than Hydrogen till solid state batteries are perfected and manufactured at scale.
3 месяца назад
11:25 If natural gas is coming in then CO2 is coming out. You did not mention that.
Originally Toyota used biogas methane.... Which meant the CO2 produced, came from the atmosphere and was returned back to the atmosphere.... And therefore had net-zero emissions.... If Travis's statement is correct and they are now using natural gas instead that's a totally different story now....
The point is that this product could only work in the US where people want to invest in it. In many parts of Europe the top speed for the plus 3.5 tonne category is limited within a range of 50-62mph. Also in the EU, truck drivers have a mandatory break after 4.5 hours of driving, which must be at least 45 minutes. So a vehicle that can travel 480km (~300 miles) on a single charge with the ability to charge 410km (~255 miles) in 45 minutes is sufficient for almost the entire market. The entire hydrogen industry is a decade behind its original promises.
Don't look now, but H2 trucking is also being developed in EU-land. And in other parts of the world such as Korea. Trying to make this just about the US, is missing the point.
@@nc3826 I know they are developing and testing, but it took them longer than they promised in the past. There should have been fleets of hydrogen buses, trains and trucks 5 years ago, but it didn't happen. The first prototype of hydrogen bus was on our roads back in 2009. 15 years later they are still in the prototype and testing phase. Meanwhile, battery technology is advancing at such a pace that for last-mile delivery or city buses, the entire ecosystem (chargers, service point, vehicles) is cheaper in electricity than in hydrogen. The video implies that the main advantage is fast refuelling and long range, but this is not a problem in EU due to mandatory breaks for drivers. So you don't care if the car can fill up in 10 minutes if you have to take a 45 minute break.
@@DqtubeWADR, you're missing the point of my inquiry to you. Since you believe the only advantage of hydrogen is fast fueling and the EU doesn't require that. Due to required break periods for drivers Why is hydrogen powered trucking "still" being developed in the EU? And Korea and other parts of the world? (Sorry none of what you said seemed to address that key issue) (FWIW the US transports more of its long-distance cargo via trains than the EU. And US semi truck drivers are also required to take mandatory breaks. And not just for 10 minutes.) I don't see hydrogen powered trucking becoming viable or cost effective in any part of the world without massive subsidies. (Since for one thing, battery swapping trucking is already being done at a much more cost effective rate.) I just find it amusing your Europhile perspective spin on the story, for why it's being developed in the US. When it's happening on a much broader scale. Toyota's not an American company and they're not hoping to develop it just for the US.
@@nc3826 You should read my first comment again and better because you are assuming things I didn't write. When did I write that Toyota is an American company? When did I write that development is taking place in the US? I just stated that what they consider to be the main advantage of the technology becomes irrelevant because they are behind in development and slower than the alternatives. If you do not have a better argument than to misinterpret what I have stated, save our time and do not respond.😉 What's the key issue? Just because something is in development doesn't mean that the technology will have a big impact on the market. They continue to develop it because in some parts of the globe hydrogen will have the potential to be a cheap fuel because it can be used to store excess energy from offshore wind farms or large solar arrays. So in places where hydrogen will be available it may be a workable alternative, but everywhere else it will be expensive if you factor in the cost of infrastructure.
@@Dqtube I was just pointing out how the differences you mentioned between the US and the EU.... relative to hydrogen development were erroneous.... But since you brought up an interesting NEW subject..... where in the world is this magical cheap hydrogen going to be produced? Please get back to me when it's being produced, so cheaply that it can compete with energy stored in batteries.... So we can all celebrate... As a geek I would love to see that... fwiw You need to read my comment. I never stated that you said that Toyota was an American company.... I just pointed it out..... I'm sorry that it confused you.... But since it's an irrelevant peripheral matter it doesn't really matter anyway... I just figured I'd mention it. In conclusion, I think we dug this rabbit hole deep enough.... Have a nice day.....
This type of infrastructure installed in most city and town would not only produce fuel for vehicles, buildings and many other applications including providing clean water for them locally without a lot of contaminates & pollution by products. If the fueling is as quick as petrol I can see that the current fuel stations would be more willing to adapt to this technology as it will not have soil contamination in the future and does not take away their current income like the EV charging stations that has long turn around time for each station (it they are ever working in optimum condition) per vehicle. Glade to see the technology is going in the correct direction. I appreciate the diligent of the OEM making the tanks safe; however, what is the estimate damage radios & effect if one should malfunction?
At 3:32 in the video you say “…the tanks are one of the easier components to scale and unlike batteries they don’t take infinitely more materials as they increase, certainly it’s going to be more difficult to put together but that’s one of the benefits here of hydrogen is the ability to scale it without using nearly as many resources…”. I guess we better tell Tesla, CATL, BYD, and all the other BEV makers that it's pointless to try to compete against the hydrogen juggernaut 😊.
Everyone keep in mind that hydrogen is a HUGE cornerstone for Japan to create their own energy independance without having to rely on hostile (china) or expensive (US) material suppliers. It's their goal for hydrogen to displace forgein oil depenancy for heavy machinery and not be reliant on battery technology based on rare earth metals.
Thanks Travis. Some of the ones you talked a new to me. It appears their tanks look built to last, but I'm wonder the longevity of the rest of the H2 plumbing system. Idk how pressurized gaseous H2 cause embrittlement like LH2, and leaks inside garage can turn into instantaneous fatal event.
I was curious about the tanks myself but based on what I saw and was told I'm pretty confident in them. Things do happen though so having a solution for when something goes wrong is important. -Travis
hydrogen is notoriously hard to contain. This may make leaks more likely, but it also makes hydrogen gas almost certain to escape the garage. Unlike propane (much heavier than air) and methane (more than 7x heavier than hydrogen, but still lighter than air) and gasoline vapors (much heavier than air), hydrogen quickly dissipates. All are problematic, but the worst tend to be the heavier than air explosive vapors that tend to pool on the ground and flow until they find an ignition source. The next worse are the ones that mix with air and stay suspended to fill a space like methane. Hydrogen is comparatively quick to just go away.
@@Sylvan_dB That's good to hear. I vaguely remember BMW Hydrogen7 was not allowed to be garaged due to its Hydrogen venting. That was a continuously boiling off liquid H2, but I was wondering if the same safety measures applies to Toyota's system.
@@MistSoalar That's a good point. BMW did design their system with an "interesting" feature. I haven't heard of that with existing Toyota hydrogen vehicles, but definitely something to consider and find out before purchase!
Hydrogen production is very energy intensive (hence being less efficient than a BEV) but it has other benefits like water emission (instead of fumes) and it's much easier to scale storage. -Travis
This vlog about hydrogen power should not be on the EV Buyers Guide channel. Although the motive power of hydrogen vehicles is an electric motor, most hydrogen today is produced from fossil fuels, natural gas and petrol. So a hydrogen-powered vehicle is not an EV. Using a fossil fuel to create electricity, which is used to produce hydrogen, is thermally inefficient. And burning a fossil fuel to create electricity adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
@2:40 So, about 12 pounds of hydrogen is the equivalent energy density to about 36 pounds of gasoline? That's an excellent weight savings to help the efficiency of the car.
I understand the refueling time advantages vs an EV. I assumed weight would be another benefit but the Mirai is 4300 lbs. I don't think any of the 400 mile range EVs are lighter but the Lucid Air Pure isn't far off.
Battery swapping for large commercial trucks is done in less time. For example Geely does it for cement trucks... But there are other examples. HFCV does have a gravimetric advantage (ie weight), but not volumetrically. And they are far more costly and inefficient. (And with Toyota apparently now using natural gas to produce it, it's not even a truly clean option) Hydrogen, the transport solution that's always been 5 years away for the last 50 years. And with the improvements in batteries, it's hard to see that paradigm ever changing.
You can already do this in a basic electrolysis experiment, but for hydrogen as an energy source this is not possible for safety reasons related to gas storage. You need extremely high pressures or low temperatures for the liquid phase.
I'm a layperson trying to figure out the comparable battery size of that Kenworth. Not having much luck but I did figure out the Mirai is carrying ~ 188kWh of energy in it's 5.6 kg of H2 (73 MPGe with 406 EPA range). That's ~33.5 kWh/kG. The Kenworth has 58.8 Kg on board so with the Mirai drive train that'd be 1,974kWh.
Gleey in China has its cement trucks swap out, about megawatt battery packs. with a crane. In a few minutes several times a day. It's just one of many semi truck BEV options. So that begs the question why are inefficient and costly natural gas/hydrogen fuel cells needed, for semi trucks?
H2 is an important step to zero CO2 emissions. BEVs are the way to go for passenger commuting appliances but for heavy transport industries like long haul cross continent trucks and ocean shipping H2 is the best solution. There needs to be a lot more government incentive (like at the BEV level) put into green H2 though, more than 90% of it come from brown and grey sources. Turquoise H2 has a lot of promise since the high quality carbon black is used for "cheap" graphene for next gen BEV batteries and low quality can be used as a soil additive for farming.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill did include some money for hydrogen stations because Jim Manchin likes things that drill. Probably will take a long, long time.
If they use pyrolysis to produce the H2 using natural gas is actually a boon. The relatively clean solid carbon precipitate can be used for a lot of good things including EV batteries so we won't have to mine and process as much graphite. If RNG is used, it's actually carbon neutral/negative depending on the feed stock.
Originally Toyota used biogas methane, and the last I heard they still were using it.... So maybe Travis misspoke when he referred to as Natural Gas? Or maybe they switched over to Natural Gas as the feedstock?
Let's face it, the RU-vid narrative that "current batteries are not energy dense enough for heavy trucking routes across the continent, is devoid of reality.... Go tell China (and a few other places), where they already do battery swapping of megawatt battery packs in a few minutes.... (And trains are more efficient for transcontinental transportation anyway) BTW, I enjoy the RU-vid channels that are trying to sell that narrative... If they can develop their trucking businesses based on that myth,, I wish them well, since it will be a step in the right direction..... But it just isn't true...
@@nc3826 In the USA battery swap never worked: look at Tesla attemp. The electric trains do not need batteries. They have wires. It is stupid to use batteries or Hydrogen cells for trains. Efficient electric trains on steep grades were used in Switzerland from 1878. So no need to look at China for trains. China optimized high speed trains for very long distance, once again wired. In the USA in the beginning of 1970ties were scrappedal all wires for electric trains and locomotives for copper since copper became very expensive. Instead were introduced Diesel-electric locomotives one can see today in 2024. That was an artificial problem. There is no need for batteries, Hydrogen cells for trains when proven wires DO work efficiently for 150 years, reliably. If you are commenting here you might have known about batteries degrading in time as Hydrogen fuel cell having the same issue. The above head wires can be used for 50-60 years or more.
@@nevco8774 you seemed to delete your comment directed at me.... But i'm glad you referenced China.... Go check them out in terms of what they're doing with battery swapping.... To edify yourself on the subject matter..... Fwiw... Tesla, never attempted true battery swapping, they just produced enough to get some government money.... And good luck with your train fixation...
I'm not sold. The Tesla semi has recorded a 500 mile trip with 82k lbs total weight with a ~900kWh battery. They can add ~350 miles in around 40 minutes with 600kW charging. They seems very very competitive. It's going to come down to how easily is it to build 1mW charging vs hydrogen stations and how big of a deal 30 vs 10 minute fueling is as well as the fuel cost. EV seems to in on about every one of those other than refueling time and I can't figure out how an extra 20 minutes is a big deal given required breaks.
One of the key points to me is the difference in battery capacity necessary. The truck runs off an electric motor but is using a 200kwh battery versus the almost 5x larger battery on a BEV truck. -Travis
I am excited to hear about the hydrogen vehicles about to cone online and when there is an infrastructure built in 50 states I will be more than happy to switch to hydrogen
As a geek I always enjoy a good science fiction story. But this one had me shaking my head and laughing throughout for numerous reasons. Especially at the end where you stated that Toyota used natural gas instead of the Biogas methane, which Toyota originally used at the facility. Cost and inefficiency has always been a non-starter for fuel cells. (Except in a few niche cases.) But also using an unsustainable hydrocarbon such as Natural Gas as the feedstock and calling it zero emissions is just greenwashing.
Toyota is "using" Biogas in the same way that most utilities offer green energy options. They pay for it but they aren't specifically utilizing it. -Travis
@@EVBuyersGuide Travis, thanks for the correction. And thanks for the story, it brought back memories of one of their earlier trigen plants. Still the least cost effective or viable option, but at least it can be considered, NetZero.
I'd like hydrogen reformer from natural gas at home. In the 1990s it looked like Plug Power would soon have natural gas fuel cells for home use, but there have been problems... 30 years and still not widely and economically available means hydrogen and fuel cells may have missed their mass adoption window. Hydrogen is the least energy dense of all "fuels" but when liquified it still has enough to make batteries look bad. But batteries are catching up, and dropping in price at the same time. There isn't much charging infrastructure out there, but there are far more chargers than hydrogen fueling stations, and you can charge at home. Hydrogen now might be too little, too late.
Rube Goldberg called and he wants his truck back. Diesel truck (1 powertrain): 150 gallons of fuel, 1000 miles range, >400hp until depletion Hydrogen truck (2 powertrains): 200kWh battery+60kg hydrogen, 400 miles range, ~1hr at 400hp then ~230hp to depletion Tesla Semi (1 powertrain): 800kWh battery, 500 mile range, ~1hr at >1000hp then tapering to depletion All of these trucks have similar weight and hauling capacity, only 2 make any sense. You can already charge a Tesla Semi in more states than you can fuel a hydrogen vehicle. Hydrogen always has been and always be a joke for road transport.
In 10-20 years I would probably look back into this, assuming law makers put together a bill to help fund all this. I can see Most Republicans putting up hurdles for this type of innovation.
Nice science project, but hydrogen will never be used wide spread. It costs to much, it's not readely available and it's dangerous. If you have a leak in your garage the hydrogen rises to the ceiling so if there is a spark from a light or a garage door opener then it catches fire. This is because hydrogen atoms ore one of the smallest and very leak prone. It also cant be stored in metal containers because of hydrogen embrittlement. That is why all of the containers are non metalic. In a car accident the there is a leak and fire the flames can't be seen in the day and are only a faint blue flame at night. I know because I ran a liquid hydrogen plant to support rockets.
In a car accident if it leaks it tends to dissipate rapidly. Since it's so much lighter than air. BTW if it's so dangerous, then your hydrogen plant must have exploded every 5 minutes? Or were you just being one sided and melodramatic. FWIW Hydrogen is already used for numerous applications safely, it is not just used as a rocket fuel.... Such as for forklifts.... And if it can be used safely for forklifts why not for semi trucks? Not saying it's going to be viable and cost effective for semi trucks anytime soon, but that's another story.... Lastly thanks for proving the old adage that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing...
@@nc3826 Actually a month or two after I changed jobs the plant did plow up. Look for Air Products and Chemicals Liquid Hydrogen plant in Long Beach California, in the mid 1970's
Total puff piece - no objective information. The costs, the carbon load, the inefficiency, the lawsuits, the exploding fuel stations, the leaking fuel cells that can't be repaired, the stranded drivers who can't fuel their vehicles. JUST STOP BURNING STUFF!
I absolutely think fuel cells are durable and ready to use in buses and trucks. They need only a fraction of centralized stations to fill the tanks up. Batteries are nowhere close to being a reasonable solution regardless of what the pumper Elon says.
It's an interesting stepping stone and they seem to have explored quite a few applications. The more you can do with the research the more profit you can find in it. -Travis
