this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
116 points (93.3% liked)

[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3201 readers
2 users here now

We have moved to:

!electricvehicles@slrpnk.net

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion.
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling.
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Akio Toyoda, Toyota Motor’s chairman, has never been a huge fan of battery electric vehicles. Last October, as global sales of EVs started to slow down amid macroeconomic uncertainty, Toyoda crowed that people are “finally seeing reality” on EVs. Now, the auto executive is doubling down on his bearish forecast, boldly predicting that just three in 10 cars on the road will be powered by a battery.

“The enemy is CO2,” Toyoda said, proposing a “multi-pathway approach” that doesn’t rely on any one type of vehicle. “Customers, not regulations or politics” should make the decision on what path to rely on, he said.

The auto executive estimated that around a billion people still live in areas without electricity, which limits the appeal of a battery electric vehicle. Toyoda estimated that fully electric cars will only capture 30% of the market, with the remainder taken up by hybrids or vehicles that use hydrogen technology.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago (55 children)

IDK why hydrogen just hasn't captured any mind share. Seems like a great technology.

Someone will be along in a moment to tell me all about embrittlement and blue hydrogen, yet conglomerates are pouring many billions into water cracking infrastructure right now.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hydrogen cars have limited performance, are overly complex and there's no infrastructure. For an average consumer they make zero sense

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

We can go back and forth about which ought to be a better technology, but one is practical now while the other isn’t. One has much smaller infrastructure requirements than the other. One let’s us refuel at home while the other doesn’t

I personally will be happy to see almost the entires gasoline industry disappear. Imagine making such an impact on ground and air pollution, when the goal is simply to reduce carbon emissions. Imagine how much it simplifies all of our lives to just plug in every night

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Patch@feddit.uk 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Someone will be along in a moment to tell me all about embrittlement and blue hydrogen

Why ask the question if you already know the answer?

The reason it hasn't taken off is because it's a fundamentally very difficult technology to safely build. Embrittlement is a fact of physics, and it's extremely difficult to design around, especially at scale.

And the fact that there is almost zero global capacity to manufacture green hydrogen means that there is little point in subsidising it from an environmentalist point of view.

Hydrogen will have its uses, maybe in niches like aviation fuel where requirements are very specific and it's possible to exercise much tighter control of the infrastructure chain. But it's just not a competitive technology for replacing petrol and diesel in general purpose road vehicles.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why ask the question if you already know the answer?

Because these problems are not prohibitive. Any tech has challenges.

A brief perusal of anything about embrittlement suggests that it's very manageable. There are hydrogen powered vehicles driving around right now. How is it that their tanks to not crumble or shatter?

And the fact that there is almost zero global capacity to manufacture green hydrogen means that there is little point in subsidising it from an environmentalist point of view

Imagine saying "There's not a lot of computers around, therefore this internet isn't going to be viable". In Western Australia there are three large scale hydrogen production facilities under construction. The one nearest me will cover 15,000 km^2 and produce 3.5 million tonnes of hydrogen per annum. Do you really want to bet against mining consortiums contributing many billions of dollars to hydrogen production?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (52 replies)
[–] Fleur__@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Seems fair enough. I can imagine "first world" countries having much more than a 30% ev adoption rate especially in cities. For everywhere else though alot of the infrastructure that EVs rely on (power grids, electric charging stations, specialist mechanics, hell even well maintained roads) just doesn't exist in a large enough capacity. For an international company like Toyota probably does make sense not to go all in on ev's but to have a sizable fleet of both types of vehicles for all markets.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›