10 votes

Hydrogen is Now: Toyota Firing Bullets To Disprove Musk

Toyota astonished the public at two major industry events last week, North American International Auto Show in, Detroit, and the Automotive News World Congress, by presenting a technology that looks fully developed and ready to go.

At the show, Toyota displayed not only its new hydrogen powered sedan but also its hydrogen tank along with test results demonstrating it was able to withstand impacts from small caliber bullets, .50 caliber rounds barely made a dent.

However, Toyota is not just depending on the durability of its technology.

“The demand for environmental sustainability is achieving critical mass” http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-01-23-Hydrogen-is-Now...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Elio Motors 84 MPG

This is a very green vehicle – and we’re not just talking about the color. Yes, it gets 84 MPG on the highway, but you’ll be doing your share of city driving, too. Fear not, with its city rate of 49 MPG, you’ll be consuming only 1/3 of what the average American vehicle consumes. http://www.eliomotors.com/

You still need to use energy to get the hydrogen gas

Other than from an emissions stand point from the vehicle, is a fuel cell more efficient than what we have now? Also what is the cost of the fuel cell?

Oh ye of little faith

There is hydrogen all around us! Toyota's next trick is to have a hydrogen separator. Just pour water in the gas tank, and the car will take care of the rest.

It's happening.

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Hydrogen all around us?

Aside from trace quantities, hydrogen in and of itself does not exist in nature. Hydrogen by it's chemical nature wants to be bound to something and it has a very very strong bond. It takes far more energy to separate the bond and recover hydrogen than what it will yield in energy output. Just sayin.

H20

Is everywhere. It takes more energy to separate the bond - NOW. That is the key word. It does now.

It won't always. You humans will figure it out.

I have faith in the human race. It is all right here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hydrogen-Economy-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/...

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

That's right. Plants

That's right. Plants separate hydrogen and oxygen all day every day in the process of making chlorophyl. There is a way to do it, we just haven't found it yet. Or maybe Toyota has....

Never say never

But my money is on cellulosic alcohols over hydrogen.

Why the discredit?

What is the reasoning for the word choices "Disprove Musk"?

If there are 3 options instead of one option; who wins?

1.
Gasoline powered transpiration

2.
Electric powered transportation

3.
Hydrogen powered transportation

When there is competition (not criminal exploitation) there is then a force applied to producers forcing producers to increase quality and lower cost.

Gasoline powered transportation may gain market share with some buyers because gasoline powered transportation becomes higher quality and lower cost for those buyers; as the producers increase quality and lower cost.

Electric powered transportation may gain market share with some buyers for the same reasons having to do with higher quality and lower cost by their measure.

Same goes for Hydrogen powered transportation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E

Water powered cars are hydrogen powered cars, so someone could explain why there is less competition.

Joe

Discredit what is not credible.

The hydrogen economy is a complete absurdity. It is a known loser. That is because it uses up some other source of energy to extract hydrogen from whatever molecule it is part of. You always lose some energy in the extraction process; you have less usable energy after the extraction process that you had before; the return is negative.

The issue of the day is energy cost. If you only need to spend the equivalent of the energy in one barrel of oil to get back 100 barrels, that is one hell of a profit, and that is where we were in 1930. Today we have a mix of profit returns depending of how easy it was to get a particular field, and that averages out to spending about 8 barrels of oil to get back 100. The rate of increase in the average cost was about 3% to 3.5% which means that every 23 years or so the cost doubled leaving less and less out of each barrel to fuel the economy. But it is much worse that that because that rate of growth will naturally increase as production from more recent, high cost wells becomes a bigger proportion of the total, quickening the pace at which we blindly charge like Lemmings toward the cliff.

All sources of energy become more and more expensive to acquire, leaving less and less to fuel the economy; it is just a matter of time before production can not be increases fast enough to compensate for the loss coming from increased cost. This is the low hanging fruit principle which describes that we go after the easiest to acquire, purest, most proximate, biggest reserves of energy first, leaving the rest for later, only later is now. This principle applies to all finite resources.

This exponential growth in cost is driving us to the end of the industrial age sometime in the coming decades since there is no scalable replacement source that can yield anywhere near what we get from oil. If you are thinking about replacing oil with something like hydrogen that not only does not have a good return, but has a negative return, you are going to have a serious problem because even at today's return rate for oil our industrial civilization is faltering. We have reached the point where luxuries, higher education, and advanced medical care are under pressure because the economy can't produce them and the more basic needs for the average person.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Math speaks lounder than lies

"If you only need to spend the equivalent of the energy in one barrel of oil to get back 100 barrels, that is one hell of a profit, and that is where we were in 1930."

Those are words: NOT MATH.

False is false on its face.

Why be false?

What is the goal?

Joe

Enter...

...the Atomically-Precise Manufacturing revolution to save the day with super-efficient solar around the corner.

See 'Radical Abundance' by Dr. K Eric Drexler, on the hurdles yet remaining (more a problem of methodology and will to get there at the moment...)

Sometimes, irrational fear is LOL hilarious.

Sometimes, irrational fear is LOL hilarious. Anti-hydrogen people suggest any puncture in a compressed fuel cylinder will turn the car into a flaming Hindenburg, but any ordinary gasoline fuel tank can be punctured by a bowie knife -- and engulf a car and its passengers in a pillar of fire just as quickly. We've been surrounded by these pyrotechnic death-sleds for more than a century and don't mind em one bit.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

0.50 Cal is hardly a small caliber bullet

Maybe they're trying to procure a DoD grant.

*BOOM* HEAD SHOT!

:) Couldn't help myself.

Determination!

After the powers that be tossed the nuclear disaster at them over their pursuit of alternative fuel. You think they would have stopped. What will it take? Maybe a war with China? WHAT WAIT A MINUTE!