• H2Go! Toyota’s Hydrogen 670-hp Semi-Truck from the L.A. Auto Show [Video]

    Meet Toyota’s hydrogen-powered semi

    The Los Angeles Auto Show’s tradition of introducing green tech and green vehicles continues. Toyota showed up with its massive Kenworth semi-truck and trailer retrofitted with two hydrogen fuel cells. The fuel cells came from two existing Toyota Mirai hydrogen-powered sedans, while the motor was purpose-built to move up to 80,000 pounds silently and emit only water vapor. In fact, the noisiest feature on the rig is the air compressor that powers the brakes. And the horn of course.

    Toyota claims their truck generates 670-hp and an incredible 1,325 lb-ft. torque. And unlike the Mirai, this semi is fast relative to traditional diesel rigs. Check the video for a head-to-head acceleration demo video between the FCV truck and a diesel tractor-trailer. Add this to Tesla’s electric truck prototype with its relatively quick acceleration and you’d think that semi-truck tractor racing has become the new sport of kings amongst California-based truck engineering teams.

    Toyota’s been their FCV truck in the Port of Los Angeles for months, which makes sense. With a range of only 200 miles, this behemoth is purpose-built for short ship-to-rail/warehouse runs. And since it’s Los Angeles, spending a lot of time sitting in traffic.

    All you semi-rig drivers out there, tell us what you think of this technology. We’d love to hear your expert thoughts.

    Toyota FCV Semi-Truck

    Similar Articles

    87 thoughts on “H2Go! Toyota’s Hydrogen 670-hp Semi-Truck from the L.A. Auto Show [Video]

    1. Looking under that hood shows you how much more complex hydrogen is than just a battery and the same electric drive(point Tesla).

      Or, just do the Cummins thing with a straight six and the electric drive(2 points Cummins and electric drive).

      But that’s just for now. At lest this one is built by Toyota.

      1. And how much more salt and sand are we going to add to the roads now that water is being dumped from the vehicle onto the roadways in cold climates. Salt and sands pollute the lakes rivers and streams, animals come to the highway for salt and are killed, killing people and animals and our water gets polluted. And I guess the tax payers will pay for all the heaving the roads go through from the expansion of frozen water being dumped onto the highways and roads, then outr insurance goes up for accidents involving hydrogen bombs and we pay for the salt and sanding and then the cleanup of sand in the spring. And more lost time wages for road repairs and delays due to water damage exhausting from the vehicle.

        And yes it looked extremely complicated under the hood. A batterry and an electric motor is simple with little maintenance. With new battery technology the batteries are getting lighter and lasting longer than lithium. We are on the verge of breaking into a new battery that will get rid of range anxiety and at that point hydrogen will be a lost cause and a big wasted effort. But tax payers will bail out Toyota once again for stupid political decisions to hold onto old tool and dies for as long as possible, hoping to put Tesla out of business to prolong our pain with this stagnated automotive industry.

        Also look at the batteries in Europe currently in use and not a concept where busses arc charge their batteries in 15 seconds. More new technolgy is coming and thats faster than a fuel up and less effort as the vehicle drives into a track, arc charges the battery and leaves 15 seconds later. Take you longer to swipe a credit card to pay for the charge.

        1. Rambro – – –

          R: “And yes it looked extremely complicated under the hood.”

          Doesn’t look any more complicated than the wiring and auxiliary components that come along with an ordinary diesel engine that has been around for 100+ years now. Gee, one might almost think that we’ve got it worked out by now, maybe? (^_^)..
          OTR Truckers don’t seem to have a problem with them…


            1. Fuel Cells are not Pollution Free: Where Will the Water Go? By David Roper.

              Google that because the Aliens wont allow the link.

            2. Thanks for the article.
              Gasoline and diesel vehicles have the same problem. They’ve figured out how to make that work.
              According to the link in the article with the considerably higher conversion efficiency of a fuel cell over and ICE, both will produce about the same amount of H2O per amount of energy delivered to the wheels.
              It’s a non-factor.

        2. For the most part hydrogen powered vehicle and battery powered vehicles have the same parts. In a hydrogen vehicle the battery is replaced with a fuel cell a tank of hydrogen.
          There really is little difference in the way of complexity. I suspect what you are seeing is a difference in packing, not actual complexity.

    2. Two tankers just blew up on hwy 400 a few weeks ago in Ontario and it was a disaster. Is hydrogen not explosive, so now we have every semi on the road basically carrying explosives? Just asking?

      My thoughts are to help Tesla. Tesla is the grandfather of green not Toyota. Toyota had the ability to do better long time ago, only now are they being pushed by Tesla to do better. I own a Tundra but if Tesla builds me a pick up truck, then I say good buy to the auto industry that had been stagnant since the second milenium, selling us garbage for over a decade when they could of done better and helped the grandfather of green Elon Musk.

      Toyota can take their fuel cells and shove them up their ass and light a match.

      1. Rambro – – –

        R: “Toyota can take their fuel cells and shove them up their ass and light a match.”

        Now, now, Rambro. There you go again.
        Sounds like your EV fantasies are being threatened by the Fuel of the Future, H2 (^_^)…
        Elon responded with a similar, almost desperate, hostility with asked about H2FC’s:
        Ironically, almost everything he said has been shown to be wrong!


        1. Bernie if I had a trillion dollars to advertise my diahrea, I could prove Elon Musk wrong as well. But if you have an independant brain that can think for itself than you would see electric drive is the future. Toyota is trying to stay relevant with Hydrogen like its some kind of new technology. They had this technology long ago. Fuel lobbyists fed their pockets and still do, but they cant compete with Eolon Musk anymore, they are being forced to change just to stay relevant in this industry. The bankruptcy the entire industry went through was no fluke, it was a stagnated industry. Did you know Jeep just announced a diesel in the Wrangler and their turbo gas motor makes more torque litre for litre than the diesel. But heres the kicker and the anouncer dragged it out, the Jeep in 2020 will be available with full electric drive as a fourth powerplant and do you know why? Because they cant compete without electric drive, Bollinger will crush them, why did Jeep announce that?, Why waste money on a EV Jeep if what they have now is superior. Fact check that Bernie.

          If Tesla or Workhorse or Bollinger builds me a pick up the rest of the automotive industry can kiss my tired ass. They have wasted our time for far too long with the current junk they offer.

          1. Rambro – – –

            R: “…the rest of the automotive industry can kiss my tired ass.”

            I’m not altogether convinced that anyone, much less the automobile industry, would like the dubious honor you kissing your tired xxx (^_^)…

            But I could be wrong…


      2. Rambro – – –

        R: “Two tankers just blew up on hwy 400 a few weeks ago in Ontario and it was a disaster.”

        What were the tankers carrying? Are you implying they carried H2, when in fact they carried something else? Would like the news LINKS please…

        R: “Is hydrogen not explosive, so now we have every semi on the road basically carrying explosives?”

        This is more of what I call “Hindenburg Hysteria”. H2 is actually LESS explosive than LNG or CNG! And we have worked out ways to carry methane for decades. And don’t tell me about molecular size: CH4 has a collision diameter that is only 1.6X larger than the H2 molecule!

        R: “My thoughts are to help Tesla.”

        Spoken like socialist! They don’t need any more taxpayer’s help. They need to stand alone like big boys now, wipe the snot off their drippy little noses, and cut the mustard. Let the free market determine who wins! (^_^)..

        R: “Tesla is the grandfather of green not Toyota.”

        Man, oh man. What planet are you from? The Honda Insight was the VERY 1st attempt to “go green”; followed by the more successful Toyota Prius and then the pure EV Nissan Leaf. Tesla had nothing to do with it!

        Rambro, I think you’d better settle down a bit, and have a beer. I initially thought you were just suffering from Hindenburg Hysteria, but now it seems your ailment is general hysteria…(^_^)..


        1. To address the explosiveness of hydrogen:
          It is virtually impossible for hydrogen to explode in the storage cylinder. The hydrogen cylinder in under pressure, preventing air from entering. Hydrogen needs a minimum of 4% oxygen to explode

          If a hydrogen tank was severely damaged, hydrogen could obviously escape. However, hydrogen is about 14 times lighter than air. The escaped hydrogen would rapidly rise into the atmosphere.

          Certainly, hydrogen is not 100% safe. It’s definitely far safer than some myths have made it out to be.

          1. I read hydrogen explodes when exposed to oxygen. How is it that it would rise into the atmosphere and not explode? I thought the atmosphere included oxygen? Maybe I have been breathing in other things all my life. Like weed or diesel fumes, maybe thats whats wrong with me.

            1. I think you missed the context of the statement. As hydrogen rises (rapidly) is still needs a catalyst to ignite it. If it does reach ignition, the hydrogen has dissipated significantly, reducing the severity of either explosion or fire.

            2. Im not worried about it dissipating far away, I am worried about it at the tank under full concentration where I am in the vehicle and it is said to explode when in contact with oxygen, no catalyst needed.

            3. Like any fuel hydrogen needs the correct ratio of oxygen to fuel and an ignition source (heat).
              Simply exposing hydrogen to oxygen will not cause it to burn-much less “explode”.
              There are many gases used in vehicles as well as transported that pose a similar danger to that of hydrogen-such as propane, CNG, etc.
              Batteries also pose a similar fire hazard. Many batteries off-gas hydrogen-they rarely explode (although I have seen it happen a number of times-there was a spark).

            4. I am reading hydrogen can ignite at 1/10 the scale that gas can ignite at. Wiki is saying a static shock can ignite it.

            5. Rambro-not sure what is meant by “scale”. What is meant by a “static shock”.
              Hydrogen is combustible at a wider range of oxygen concentrations than many other fuels and therefore is more of a combustion concern. However, there still needs to be an ignition source of at least 932 °F.

        2. I do have ailments Bernie but I still stand on my laurels, right or wrong. Tesla is forcing the industry into electric drive in my opinion. No one else offered that in hybrid. Hybrids are abortions compared to what Tesla is doing

          Bernie your tiring bs about let the market determine If Tesla wins or not is a complete cop out. The entire fcking industry went bankrupt and tax payers bailed them out. Nobody and I mean nobody can infiltrate the auto industry without out help from the ultimate power that still governs, the people and yes we do determine the winner, this is why Eolon gets his support because we are demanding it, so he gets his support because we said so, by majority, thats how it works, so you are correct you just cant grasp that you are correct. What you complain about and say should should exist actually does exist, waky waky. Minority opinions that want to sniff fuel forever dont decide on Teslas future, correct you are. He will continue to get support from me and and the majority public. I will bet on it.

          Toyota trying to stay relevant with hydrogen fuel cells is a joke, they are using Teslas electric drive to stay relevant. The hydrogen is just a ruse, a deception to cover the fact that it is electric drive that is superior, which is what Tesla did, not Toyota.

          1. Toyota an absolutely enormous research and development budget, rivaled only by VW. Do you really think that Toyota would pour so much of their 10 billion R&D budget into fuel cells just to “stay relevant”?

            1. Distinctly Toyota wants to steal the electric drive with the ruse of hydrogen cells. They want to look like the hero, like hydrogen never existed before. Tesla pushed everyone to this point with the money he had to start it all and the public onboarded. Toyota is just trying to ride the Tesla train and call it their own.

            2. Rabro, Electric drive isn’t complicated enough to warrant the need to steal it. It’s only the battery tech that’s problematic. Toyota’s R&D budget is 10 times what Tesla’s is. That’s not a criticism towards Tesla. Anyway, Toyota has spent billions in battery research over the years. Have you forgotten their solid state battery breakthrough?

              There’s no need to claim conspiracy here. There’s no need to cheer for your favorite tech. It’s just two developing technologies. One tech might come out on top. Maybe both will succeed.

          2. Rambro – – –

            At this point, I have visions of you absolutely frothing at the mouth; ranting and raving; throwing kitchen chairs through windows; and beating the family dog (^_^). (You do have a family dog, don’t you?)

            Please relax. You are going to have coronary! How do you expect me to drive up to northern Ontario to treat you to a nice dinner if you are hospitalized?


      3. Rambro-I think there is more than enough room for both battery powered vehicles and hydrogen powered vehicles. I really don’t see them as being competitors.
        Currently battery powered vehicles make more sense of the two.
        Neither technology is anywhere near being an able to support the majority of our transportation needs-not until we develop new means of acquiring the energy in the first place.

    3. as long as hydrogen is readily available i think its better than full electric. can refill much faster than waiting to charge, dont need large qty rare earth metals (mined by diesel) for batteries. should use them at shipping ports until availability is greater.

      1. Fourloko – – –

        F: “as long as hydrogen is readily available i think its better than full electric. can refill much faster than waiting to charge, dont need large qty rare earth metals (mined by diesel) for batteries.”

        Exactly. Agree fully. And the way to make H2 be “readily available” and last forever, is the Audi E-Gas project, currently in actual production! This is NOT a fantasy, and does NOT rely of fossil fuels!
        ref: http://www.europeanpowertogas.com/blog/623


        1. The Audi plant uses electricity. They say “excess green energy” but what is that? Is there really any thing such as “excess” electricity when we struggle to meet demand and millions of kWh’s are being produced at any given second by “non-renewable” means.

          1. Sparky21 – – –

            S21: “The Audi plant uses electricity. They say “excess green energy” but what is that?”

            The Audi E-gas plant (in other reports) runs on wind-powered electrolysis of seawater, harvesting the ongoing steady gales off the Baltic. I’m sure that’s what they mean by their peculiar term, “excess green energy”.


      2. That’s the problem really-hydrogen (as hydrogen gas-not some molecule containing hydrogen) is not readily available. It can be separated from water-using a tremendous amount of electricity-using 5x’s as much electricity as would be required by a battery powered car to go the same distance. It is more difficult to transport than electricity. Storage is difficult and also requires a large amount of power (to compress the gas).
        It is more convenient to fill a hydrogen tank.
        Perhaps one day we will be able to produce hydrogen gas more cost effectively (nuclear plants?) and perhaps one of the many ideas that have been devised and worked on for many years to store hydrogen more effectively will finally pan out but until then, it s not a great option.

    4. Did you watch mythbusters last night?
      Hydrogen is renewable and you can make it yourself at home.
      Farts have a larger concentration of hydrogen than methane. One guy had no measurable amount of methane and I believe 4 parts hydrogen on a mostly meat diet. The other guy was 4 parts hydrogen and 2 parts methane on a diet with a lot of fiber.
      The same measurements are found in garbage dumps.

      They didn’t say this but it would seem to me that hydrogen could be collected at dumps just like we already do with methane. 😁

      Hydrogen is combustible.
      So is methane, diesel ECT.
      North Dakota and Canadian Bakken crud is combustible.
      Lithium batteries at times have burned.
      Liquid and solid fuels burn on the ground and remain dangerous until they are extinguished.
      Hydrogen will rise as it burns limiting it’s burning effect.

      Those are types of comparisons meant to inflame arguments not spur a discusion.

      Toyota’s truck was not designed for over the road use. It was intended for port carriage use.
      It could have had larger hydrogen tanks if they were needed.

      The Nickola claims to be able to achieve 1000 to 1200 mile range.

      I most certainly think hydrogen is the correct path for most long distance AND heavy load applications. But I don’t think it is the only solution.

      That’s Teslas greatest problem. They have talked themselves into a corner.

      Nickola Tesla had a huge problem with public relations. He caused upset with fellow scientist.

      He was considered eccentric and off the mark.

      The same thing may happen to Musk. He is spreading himself pretty thin.

      1. i did watch it. still need electricity for hydrolysis. funny story for my university design project when ran a diesel engine on diesel and methane (0.25 psi) at the same time. low pressure methane was used because it is a by product of oil rigs that is just burned off (and possibly cow farts)

        1. Diesel engines are offend setup to co-burn propane (propane injection was all the rage a while back) and CNG. I’ve heard of ratios of up to 60% gas, though most seem to run lower than that.
          CNG makes a lot of sense in that it is significantly less expensive than diesel fuel and the injection system is fairly simply for older diesels-it’s the cost of the tank that will kill you.

      2. Buddy – – –

        BU: “I most certainly think hydrogen is the correct path for most long distance AND heavy load applications. But I don’t think it is the only solution.”

        Very good observation. There are several other CO2-reducing, and/or carbon-footprint reducing, propulsion methods for vehicles, both long term and short term, but Elon Musk denigrates them all. They are (I am including H2 here):

        1) CNG, which we have in abundance for centuries;
        2) H2 from wind-powered hydrolysis of seawater, which can be used directly in H2FC vehicles or reacted with atmospheric CO2 to produce CH4 that is carbon-neutral, — a current reality, not a dream:
        3) Bio-diesel from oil extraction of soybeans;
        4) Ethanol (E85 of higher) from fermentation of corn, such as already required in Brazil (and in our NASCAR race cars);
        5) N-Butanol from fermentation of algae, a virtual direct substitute for gasoline with current engine technology, but even higher octane rating:
        All of these can produce viable vehicles that are less temperature dependent and cheaper than batteries (except H2FC currently, because of catalyst costs, something the Japanese are seeking to overcome).


    5. I remember hearing about this in my 1990s chemistry class. Burning hydrogen produces water and is a possible source of engine fuel. But, I also remember hearing about the Hindenburg explosion in history class. So, I have 2 questions.. First, how is the fuel produced, and, second, how do you safely handle it?

      1. Kris S – – –

        KS: “First, how is the fuel produced, and, second, how do you safely handle it?”

        Those are good questions.

        1) H2 can now be (and has been) realistically produced by wind-powered electrolysis of sea water.
        Please see the comment to “Fourloko” above (November 30, 2017 at 3:07 pm), with the attached link to the Audi E-gas plant.
        2) Storage and transport have been worked out by Linde Corporation decades ago. They currently involves compression into cylinders and truck shipment. Other methods involve liquification of H2 and rail transport in cryogenic railcars. Still other more advanced methods are shown in the link below:


    6. infrastructure seems a bit more feasible for hydrogen. But electrical input is required to produce hydrogen. Comparisons of net energy/resource used is in order. Cobalt sounds like it is going to get expensive. Range needs a boost!

      1. The electricity infrastructure is already there for electricity, although there would needed to be a lot more of it.
        The costs for a hydrogen infrastructure would be comparable to natural gas, though a little more as carbon steel pipe can not be exposed to the hydrogen. It would also have to be built from scratch as there is no real existing hydrogen infrastructure (read:very little).
        That natural gas generating stations are place closer to the user rather than the source of the gas, it would seem to me that is is less expensive to transport the gas then the electricity.

        1. Electical is not there for the load required for a semi truck application. Dont think it’s ready for the slow charged mass produced, especially in summer. Atleast for full battery electric powered.

    7. “Toyota claims their truck generates 670-hp and an incredible 1,325 lb-ft. torque”
      Sorry missed the point, 1325lbs ft of torque is INCREDIBlY tiny for a 670hp engine?

      1. 1325 ft-lbs of torque is low but should be OK for dock use. Standard diesel Class 8s roll with 1550 – 1750 ft-lbs of torque. Its probably a spark ignition engine – so that’s why the numbers are different vs a diesel. What concerns me more is the super long wheel base of the tractor. Should be fun navigating the docks and streets of LA.

        1. @Danny,
          If it is to be used in a Cab Over Hino makes sense . Here and in Europe , you have. 2,500lbft fof torque and 650-700hp engines for heavy haul. applications .

      2. I found that funny too. With 670 HP though they can make up the torque deficiency with gearing. As Danny said, for port operations it should work out just fine.
        AS a side note, I wonder how long those fuel cells can support 670 HP. If it uses the fuel cells of 2 Mirai’s, I would think not long. If I recall correctly, this setup uses a battery to be able to provide full power, the fuel cells recharge the battery when the load is less than what the fuel cells are able to provide.

    8. Tidal flow, wave action, river and dams, wind and solar cells are all resources that can provide for green energy.
      It is estimated that there is the potential of apx 2640 terawatts of wave energy along the U.S. coast with 1160 terawatts of it recoverable. Thats about 30% of the U.S. need of apx 4000 terawatts.
      Wave, hydro, and tidal flow generators all produce energy 24 hours a day.

      So there is a huge amount of renewable energy available. Considerably more than what we need.

      Distribution of hydrogen would be similar to the way gasoline and lng are distributed.

      Building a fueling station at existing gas stations costs less than 1 million dollars.
      The build out of a complete hydrogen network would cost 1/5 the build out for electrical vehicle charging stations.
      There are already home hydrogen generators.

      If Elon Musk would have invested in fuel cells instead of splitting from Toyota we would be well into the beginning of a hydrogen powered world.

      1. Buddy I read it costs a lot less to build electric infrastructure than it does to build hydrogen infrastructure. You might want to fact check yourself on that. plus we have enough sht already why add to the problem, plus the damage the water does to the roads will be astronomical in cold climates and cause accidents especially in lineups idling where it will really accumulate and freeze

        1. Rambro – – –

          R: “I read it costs a lot less to build electric infrastructure than it does to build hydrogen infrastructure.”

          I read that the tooth fairy is giving out gumdrops this year. Where’s your reference link?


          1. You are on the internet Bernie so look it up. I post links and then it waits moderation many times so like a dog I am trained to refrain from posting links. Research and you will see. The overall look at this is, what will serve us better, either way the infrastructure creates jobs, so rather than the government handing money over to other countries for welfare we could actually create jobs here, so keep the tax money here is and should be the goal all while making a better future for the country at hand.

            Ill try here is a link, if it fails than, I am done with it.


            1. Here is a quote from Musk

              “I just think that they’re extremely silly….it’s just very difficult to make hydrogen and store it and use it in a car,” Musk said. “If you say took a solar panel and use that…to just charge a battery pack directly, compared to split water, take hydrogen, dump oxygen, compress hydrogen…it is about half the efficiency.”

              He also added that you can’t tell when hydrogen is leaking and that it’s extremely flammable. When it catches fire, hydrogen has an invisible flame.

              Here is Toyota’s response.

              “Automakers involved in making hydrogen-powered cars have shown that the technology provides a longer range, shorter charge time, and has the added benefit of having zero emissions.”

              Lets look at the skinny regarding the response.

              Longer Range? With infrastructure in place like fuel stations, range will not be an issue and we have new battery technology that will go further, it is lighter and charges faster.

              Shorter Charge times for Hydrogen? What about the current production Busses in Europe that arc charge in 15 seconds? What if all you need is 20% charge and then you get home and plug in for the night for cheap. Will you have cheap Hydrogen available at your house?

              Hydrogen has no emissions? Yes it does and to a greater degree, look at the complications it has to make it and store it. Imagine the danger during earthquakes and hurricanes, invisible flames roasting your peanuts when the whole plant blows up or will you store the tanks underground, that should be easy.

            2. Rambro-Musk was being kind as to the efficiency claim, particularly when comparing what is available today in both technologies.
              Toyota is correct however in their statements concerning the advantages of hydrogen.

            3. Rambro,
              Its land cost
              A great many gas stations are also suited for hydrogen but I guess the same is not true for electric charging station.

              Land cost is a huge part of building any station.

              Hydrogen can be produced at central locations and delivered to stations in the same way as gasoline.
              That is not true for electricity.
              The infrastructure has to be improved from the generator plant all the way to the charging stations.

              To charge at home you need a new electrical panel and new meter in order to get a reasonable (not cheap) electric rate.

              For a complete electric economy the entire electric system must be upgraded.

              That’s not true for hydrogen. Years ago Minot N.D. put up a wind mill at their chevy dealer. They used hydrolosis to make hydrogen to power 2 convetted ICE Chevy pickups. Thats the only infrastructure improvements they needed.
              The same would be true for most Midwest farmers. They could run all their farm equipment on hydrogen using either converted ICE engines or fuel cells.

              Don’t forget Musk is a salesmen with a huge huge huge vested interest.

              Personal opinion is that he is a brilliant man that took the wrong fork in the road.

              Range for electric vehicles are a problem that has not had a solution in decades.

              His arguments are like chasing the wind and don’t hold water.

            4. Not true buddy, the infrastructure for Hydrogen sht would be about 500 billion to replace vs 2 billion for superchargers, according to the articles I am reading. We would not need as many stations because we would be charging from home most of the time, many of us would never use a fuel station as do many owners of a Tesla vehicle, they currently never stop at a supercharger. Charging from home is enough, you cannot do that with hydrogen, you need to stop to top up every single time and that requires a massive infrastructure.

            5. Buddy-the transportation of Hydrogen is vastly different than that of gasoline. It is a gas. It has to be compressed to very high pressures in very expensive and heavy tanks. Completely different equipment-very similar to that used for CNG.
              Charging a electric vehicle from your home does not require a new panel or meter-unless the one you have is overloaded or otherwise deficient. Most homes will have no problem whatsoever.
              No matter how you do it, hydrogen is expensive to produce, more than electricity, kW for kW. A battery delivers that energy significantly more efficiently than does a fuel cell.

            6. Rambro – – –

              R: “Ill try here is a link, if it fails than, I am done with it.”

              For our discussion, there are so many “holes” in this 2016 study that it might better be used as a colander for spaghetti..(^_^).

              1) It applies only to California (“While the study focused on one Bay Area town, the results are relevant for many bedroom communities with ample sunlight across California, according to the authors.”);
              2) An ambiguous “more economical choice” for EV’s was the only term used as applied to CO2 reduction: No mention of an actual dollar-amount comparison was researched for the two methods.
              3) Stanford and TUM are hardly unbiased in this matter, each having battery-development research funding (“Support for the research was provided by the BMW Group and Stanford GCEP.”);
              4) CO2 levels from H2 production were assumed to come ONLY from the from older fossil-fuel methods of getting H2;
              5) No mention at all was made of the Audi E-gas methods, patents, and currently, successfully operating plant., — even though it has been running for years now. The plant generates H2 and can harvest CO2 from the atmosphere to make methane (CNG), whose burning would therefore ALSO be CO2-neutral.

              Well, nuff said. Sorry: not a particularly applicable reference, Rambro…. (^_^)…


      2. How does one capture all that wave energy? How much electricity do we produce from waves currently? How long have we been working on the technology to do this? How much money of have we spent?
        Mr. Fusion is probably more likely to supply our power needs than wave energy.

          1. I’ve heard and seen many ways of doing and many research teams have spent years and millions of dollars to develop dependable ways to harvest wave energy-all very interesting stuff. So far none of it has made it to commercial viability. There was one a few years ago but it was shut down after a few months because it kept breaking.
            There is a lot of energy available in waves but no one has figured out a good way to harvest it.

    9. My sail-car is propelled by photons when the sun is at my back. When traveling into the sun and at night I have to rely on old, dirty, heavy-metal battery power. Fortunately, my batteries are charged from hyper-efficient solar panels operating in vacuum outside of earth’s atmosphere. The panels are tethered to my 0-impact mud hut by a 200-mile-ling nano-tube fiber. I used a crude rail-gun, made from plans in the back of Popular Science, to initially launch the panels. Did I mention that my hut’s cooling is powered by a heat exchanger attached to my well’s pump? Yes, I know, you are jealous that I think of everything.

      My joy and passion really lies in my deep-earth magma generator. It’s a multi-peta-watt generator at the bottom of a Musk-tunnel under Yellowstone. It will power the entire U.S. grid next Spring. Just have a couple bugs to work out related to the pending magnetic-flux swap the earth is about to undergo. Stay tuned. These are exciting times. Next week I’ll reveal progress on plasma containment in my anus, which will fusion-power my exoskeleton. Happy Holidays.

    10. Rambo

      People don’t understand that the fuel cell doesn’t replace the electric vehicle. It only replaces the battery.

      Many don’t understand the reality of charging a electric car. And most tesla owners do not know either until they drive out of town and try to charge at a friend’s house who is not set up as a charging station.

      Just conecting your own house to be a charging station could cost thousands of dollars.
      That’s why hybrids failed at being economic. It cost to much to convert their home and go to time of use.

      Time of use highest prices where I live is from 3pm until 8p.. Just the time when it is hottest and the air conditioning runs non stop and every one is home for dinner.
      Oh, and time of use low cost for your car meter doesn’t start until 11pm. No solar cells running then.

      I have about the cheapest solar electricity you can get.

      My 1st lease year will be up the 9th of dec. My lease will cost about 1774 dollars for the first year. I am a little over 13,000kw right now. So I am going to be paying about 13.62 cents per kwr.

      If I didn’t have solar I would be paying 19 cents for the first tier. In the neighborhood of 30 cents for the second tier and the 3rd tier is 40 cents per kWh.

      I am retired. And 2/3s of my income is tax free. Just like many retired people the tax credit for purchasing solar would not help me.

      With time of use upgrade costs and the added cost of a new vehicle and electric vehicle would cost a lot more to run than a gas or diesel vehicle.

      With electric vehicles we don’t just need more and larger wires. We need a great many more generation plants.
      Those run in the 100s of million dollars alone.

      The wires into my neighborhood are not sized large enough to charge all the cars after 11pm.

      Our electric infrastructure is already failing with the current levels of use.

      The idea that you could run wire into every neighborhood to support electric vehicle recharging for a few hundred billion is a dream. And in the end the already expensive electricity will cost a fortune.

      And I can’t realisticly add more solar cells to my home. The prime areas of my roof are full. And for all the people I know who have zero’d out their utility bill they have no prime roof space left either.

      So most people will have to chose to power the house or their car with solar cells.

      But the biggest problem it the 3 car families.

      The electricity costs will be staggering. Around here PG&E basically rations out electricity.

      Go over your given amount and you are penalized, at 40 cents per kilowatt.

      I have been studying electric vehicles, hydrogen ICE engines ,fuel cells and solar cells for over a decade.
      There have been no real advancements in the battery that make them a useful full purpose tool.

      Electricity in California’s central valley is worth it’s weight in gold.

      Farmers install both electric and diesel irrigation pumps so they can switch from one to the other as prices shift.

      Electric vehicles will force us to completely change our way of life.

      Fuel cells and hydrogen ICE engine would not change us much at all.

      As more about hydrogen becomes more widly known. You will understand why i say musk has thrown his influence and money out to distract the public from the problems we have with our electric infrastructure.

      He is a salesmen with an inferior product.

      I know there are some useful purposes for the battery powered vehicle. But it isn’t a transportation solution.

      I could right a essay on this subject. But some people have their minds made up. They have to much invested in the battery idea to be willing to change.
      But in the end they will have to change.

      1. Good summary Buddy on the challenges of electric vehicles, important ones (infrastructure) which will be insurmountable given gov’t finances and most consumer finances are in shambles. Thanks.

      2. If you think the infrastructure costs to produce electricity for vehicles is high you ought to calculate the infrastructure costs for hydrogen. When one considers that most of thehydrogen production will likely require electricity, then the costs get even higher.
        We will definetly see more hydrogen in the future, and there are many advantages to using it but acquiring, storing and transporting hydrogen presents some huge challenges-ones that electricity, at this point, has a superior advantage.

      3. Buddy I’ve been saying along that with more demand for electricity to charge cars the higher the price for electricity with out any new power plants coming on line. You have cited ca is prime example. You are saying the same thing I was saying long time ago.

    11. Now Musk says he is going to launch his little red roadster to Mars.

      A block of steel would serve the same purpose.

      Except Musk is a salesman. Always seeking a headline.
      Headlines keep the stock price up. When you have an inferior product.

    12. Yes it may have 670HP. but it is very low on the torque #’s at 1,375 A DD16 600HP Detroit has 2050 lb-ft of torque and a ISX15 605HP Cummins has 2050 lb-ft of torquee.

      1. Sparky

        The major difference between hydrogen and electric delivery is that hydrogen can be produced at a remote plant and be delivered to commercial station by tanker truck.

        Electricity has to be delivered to each home.

        In out of town areas hydrogen and electricity can be produced on the refueling site. But electricity can’t be produced during the night or calm wind days. Umless yoi ecpand the electric imfrsstucture to those trmote site’s.So you would also need huge battery storage. Quicker refill methods and range are still a problem.

        With hydrogen, the hydrogen can be produced when clean energy is available and stored in tanks until it is dispensed. It will be dispensed in a way very similar to gasoline. In addition there are hydrogen generators that can be used at home.

    Leave a Reply