Toyota trialling hydrogen combustion engine

[cromwell]

This is an interesting article.
it doesn't skirt around some of the difficulties of making a hydrogen combustion engine work, and it is honest about Toyota's reasons for trying to make this engine work when others have failed.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automo ... our-enduro

Another article here.
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electr ... -racing-it

[Workingman]

If the fools in governments had not put all their eggs in the EV basket and got the same sort of research, effort and investment into hydrogen then we might have more working prototypes or even road cars operating today. It's only the most abundant element in the Universe yet we ignore it in favour of trashing environments for rarer elements and then creating whole new infrastructures and industries to make the EVs work when the basic infrastructure and tooling already exists for hydrogen.

Ah well, never mind.

[Suff]

Hmmm,

But 20 minutes in, the differences were evident. The Corolla was already aside a hydrogen tanker truck for refueling. The vehicle needs to top off more often than the other cars. During the 24-hour race, Toyota's vehicle required 35 fill-ups, compared with around 20 pit stops for other participants.

At six to seven minutes, refueling the Corolla also took longer. The Japanese automaker's hydrogen vehicle ultimately traveled about half the distance and around half the average speed of the gas-powered rivals.

and

But using a hydrogen engine rather than fuel cells would have certain advantages. Such vehicles would employ conventional engine technology and provide a driving experience similar to gasoline cars. And "it's easy to generate torque at low rpms, making it ideal for trucks," a Toyota executive said.

Ah, yes, using an Otto Cycle engine. Or even an Atkinson cycle engine. Otto cycle maxes out, for hydrogen, around 35% efficient. 42% for the Atkinson cycle.

Fuel cells are 65% efficient

So let's go back to the beginning. Nearly twice as many pit stops, 6 times the duration to fill up, significant fuel burned and significant range issues.

Then, let's get this clear, Hydrogen to fuel cell, round trip efficiency, is around 40%. Hydrogen to internal combustion engine? Around 10%.

Electricity to battery round trip efficiency? 90% to 95%.

So we'll burn somewhere round 8x the energy we burn for EV's to make hydrogen for people to use in these inefficient engines.

Didn't we say something about the grid being insufficient to support EV? Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis mainly. Cracking with huge amounts of power.

No, the government is not stupid. Toyota is! They are going to run themselves into the ground on this. It will break the company if they don't change tack.

There is no point in burning 8x the energy just to be bloody awkward. Just get on board with BEV and have done with it.

[Workingman]

I have given up on it.

The hype over substance thing has been won by the battery boys and girls and we are going the full 13 amps down that route. No other options are allowed or even allowed to be aired without the negatives or hydrogen myths and legends coming into play.

Everything is anode or cathode for them and they have had decades to line up all their arguments against anything other than EVs.

I'll just let the Universe keep on burning it to produce more galaxies, stars and planets and other heavier elements, after all it is useless for anything else.

[Suff]

It has absolutely Not One Thing to do with hype. It is all about numbers.

Hydrogen is a huge, enormous, waste of energy for vehicles which could be pushed into batteries.

Hydrogen has a place in very large vessels which simply cannot get enough batteries in and it would be counterproductive to do it. It may also, possibly, have a place in temporary energy storage where batteries may be prohibitive to supply.

Moving vehicles? There is simply not one thing to recommend it. It is an incredibly massive waste of energy, the resources required to produce safe hydrogen stations, the logistics, everything. On energy alone, the waste is phenomenal and that is energy which could go direct to vehicles, homes, businesses and storage.

Even heavy trucks have been proven to be more efficient on round trip power than hydrogen. Especially with the overhead lines being trialled on major motorways.

[cromwell]

It may be so Suff; I don't think Toyota will bust the company chasing hydrogen though. More likely they will run a trial with a fixed budget and if it's no go, drop the idea.

Porsche on the other hand, are looking into the manufacture of synthetic fuel to keep their ice models going.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indu ... fuels-2022

[Suff]

Not for long. Already the Taycan outperforms their fossil burners. It may have range issues, but the Tesla's do not.

The Tesla Model S Plaid is a tri motor, 1000hp rocketship which can reach 0-60 in 1.9 seconds. Yet if you drive it at 70mph, the plaid has a range just under 400 miles.

Ford has sold more Mustang Mach E cars than it sold combustion engines in June. A slow month I know, but, still, it tells you the trend.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/07/02/fo ... gasmobile/

If you want to watch the Plaid running in the pikes peak international hill climb, you can see it in the video link below. I drive fast, that video is reaching and surpassing the speeds I'm comfortable with.

https://youtu.be/YzSHOw-ilMA

More info on the cleantechnica site.

“The UP Tesla Model S Plaid surprised a lot of people today by posting insane times that frequently beat purpose-built non-production-based race cars. For an electric 4800lb family sedan to defeat pure Pikes Peak built race cars in open-wheel and unlimited class is an astonishing result. 45 out of 55 cars were bested by the Plaid including an LMP3 race car.”

Remember this is a street legal vehicle with a few changes. The two most notable being the spoilers and the suspension changes to support insane levels of driving.

This is a car you can simply drive home. Not have to put on a trailer to go home. It is also ready to buy if you have $140k.

Contrast the cost of a Porsche Taycan turbo s (comparable spec), which starts at $185k and has a range of just over 200 miles.

What is far, far, more interesting is the other two Tesla's in that race in the top 10.

Not only did the Tesla Model S Plaid win, but Unplugged Performance won its class by a huge margin and defeated some cars built to win. The following list shows the time of the drivers, starting with Pobst.

Randy Pobst; 2021 Tesla Model S Plaid, 6:57.220
Nick Robinson; 2017 Acura NSX, 7:14.704
Jordan Guitar; 2021 Acura TLX, 7:53.615.
Gregoire Blachon; 2021 VW Bug Proto TRI-TDI Diesel, 7:58.661
Joshua Allan; 2021 Tesla Model 3, 8:16.778
Johan Schwartz; 2021 American X Kart CrossKart, 8:29.589
Shawn Bassett; 1974 Datsun 240Z, 9:19.475
Daijiro Yoshihara; 2018 Tesla Model 3; 11:41.162

The Model 3 Performance starts at $56,990. Granted they are "only" 449BHP compared to the 1000BHP of the Model S Plaid, but they are also in the Top 10 of that race.

This is electric vehicles, this is the future. There is no need for you to get an anchor and a tow rope to hook on to the passing car and pass the car in front of you (VW ID.3 take a bow), with an electric vehicle. EV's are as powerful as the manufacturers want to make them. Tesla seems to have settled on 200bhp being the base. That means you can overtake just about anything you want any time you want.

Just as in a fuelled vehicle, your range is tightly tied to the activity of your right foot.

[cromwell]

The Model 3 Performance starts at $56,990. Granted they are "only" 449BHP compared to the 1000BHP of the Model S Plaid, but they are also in the Top 10 of that race.

This is electric vehicles, this is the future. There is no need for you to get an anchor and a tow rope to hook on to the passing car and pass the car in front of you (VW ID.3 take a bow), with an electric vehicle. EV's are as powerful as the manufacturers want to make them. Tesla seems to have settled on 200bhp being the base. That means you can overtake just about anything you want any time you want.

Just as in a fuelled vehicle, your range is tightly tied to the activity of your right foot.

Some of those horsepower figures are off the scale. 449bhp is way too much for 99% of the drivers on British roads imo.
150 bhp is enough for most people, I'd say.

If they drop the power, does it increase the range?

Maybe Porsche are looking at synthetic fuel for two reasons.
1. To keep their existing cars (911 etc) going, as some of them are very expensive.
2. In some parts of the world the electricity infrastructure just isn't there. Something we tend to forget, living where we do.

[Suff]

You have to remember that EV's weigh significantly more than a FF vehicle with a full tank. More motive power is required to get the same driving feel as a 150bhp car that is lighter. I also got the specs wrong. The Tesla Model 3 standard range plus (general entry level), has 320bhp. There is a point here, people have been sold on the fact that an EV is a wind up toy that can just get to the end of the road. That needs to change and the way to do it is to produce vehicles which outperform their FF cousins in every way that counts.

However it is not the fact that more BHP produces less range or efficiency. Tesla, with their standard 320bhp for the model 3 standard range plus, do more miles per kw/h than VW with their 148bhp ID.3 pure. A vehicle which tops out at 99mph, has a 0-60 time of 8.9 seconds and has been specifically tuned to produce more power and torque in the 0-30 mph range than in main road driving. Every reviewer has, rather charitably, named the ID.3 in 148bhp mode as rather "pedestrian" when overtaking.

If you don't believe me you can see for yourself.

VW id.3 pure performance. 45kw/h, 3,803lb, 170 mile real range, 260 wh/mile
Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus 50kw/h, 3,748lbs, 210 mile real range, 235wh/mile

Tesla does, however do a LFP (lithium Iron instead of nickel), which goes a little less distance and weighs a bit more. That is the vehicle made in Shanghai and will likely be the baseline for the models sold in the UK.

Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus LFP 50kw/h, 4023 lbs, 205 mile real range, 240wh/mile

Both VW and Tesla do more powerful vehicles. But the same story is true. Even when a Tesla weighs more, has a larger battery (but not larger than the VW which has 7kw/h more), the Tesla can weigh more but go further with massively more powerful motors. Whilst VW see's 20-25wh/mile more consumption for their much lower powered motors. In fact the ID.3 Pro S has comes closest to the Tesla Model 3 Performance, within 5 miles of range, 1kw/h of battery size. But the Pro S has a 200bhp motor and the Model 3 performance has a 500bhp motor.

This differential only gets worse with the Model S plaid. It has a much larger battery, 900lb more weight and a 1000bhp drive train (three motors), yet it consumes 5wh/mile LESS than the 200bhp ID.3 Pro S.

As for Porsche? They can't find a market big enough for their electric vehicles right now. Petrol heads want to be deafened when they are screaming down the road. They don't want to do it in very quiet electric mode. I guarantee that Porsche is looking at synthetic fuel so they can continue producing loud vehicles but avoid punishing penalties for polluting. The laugh is that once EV's become the mainstream, noise controls will come into play. I recall being awake at 2am, 200m from the Autobahn, when a sports vehicle went past close to 200mph. It sounded like the car was in the room with me (windows open). That will stop and Porsche will be wasting their money.

So this story that far more powerful "engines" consume more "fuel" is not true. Yes VW, Porsche, Mercedes, Ford, they all have this same problem of efficiency compared with their competition. Other manufacturers do not. The days when a 1000bhp engine would consume 85% more fuel than a 100bhp engine are long gone with EV. There is a battery weight penalty, but it is minimal. The difference between the Tesla model 3 standard range plus and the Model S plaid, in terms of energy, is 11% more consumption.

[Workingman]

Go, battery boys and girls! Killing the planet with your Tonka Toys to save us from CO2.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium ... ent-impact
https://www.zmescience.com/science/lith ... ng-098534/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... -what-cost
https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default ... ium-gb.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/busi ... -race.html

But they are only the environments of the poor and in out of the way places so that we in the West can go to the shops in our ECO Green vehicles to pick up our Brie, Champagne and avocados in our monstrous trucks any time we want and then pretend that we are saving the planet.

EVs, not much good if you live in the Andes or sub-Saharan Africa or the Russian Steppes but, apparently, great in (some small parts of) LA or Paris or London.