General / Off-Topic Toyota Skeptical on Batteries

[Robin of Spiritwood]

Kaneko confirmed that today, a NiMH pack will weigh about 25 percent more (165 pounds, versus 132 pounds) and occupy about 20 percent more volume than a lithium-ion pack with a comparable output and usable capacity. It’s a small enough difference for Toyota to easily sub in either technology—whatever politics, trade tariffs, or simple supply and demand may dictate.

So they are avoiding getting tied to Lithium.
Simultaneously, they want to push H2 Fuel cell tech:

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/yikes-new-toyota-mirai-actually-looks-good

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GixW-NGrp4


Although there's no real infrastructure to refuel, Hydrogen Fuel Cells are much better for efficiency than batteries, and the gas is easy to regenerate by water electrolysis. But pressurized hydrogen is an explosion hazard.

Toyota really looks to be highly skeptical of Lithium supply problems specifically. They are defensively positioned with Nickel hydride batteries at the low end, and are trying to leapfrog over to fuel cells at their high end. The inherent risks of building EV's is getting more apparent as Faraday Futures and Dyson go belly up together. Tesla is talking about getting into mining their supply, and buying up Battery manufacturers. That squarely puts them in the middle of the Toyota strategy, married to Lithium.
Who will win out in the end?

It's quite an interesting time to be alive, like watching the first Tesla duke it out with Edison.

 

[metatheurgist]

Yep. Power storage is one of those things stopping the 50s scifi visions from being a reality. If I was filthy rich enough to do silly things I'd probably do research into that subject.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

TBH, batteries and gasoline are also explosion hazards.

 

[lysan]

A lot of research is being done, the problem is cost and space.
The race to the moon is about recourse, because rare minerals are one of the ingredients needed to make it all happen.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm half expecting liquid fueled vehicles to continue in the long term - using ammonia for fuel and using SCR to remove the nitrous oxides.

Ammonia can be produced relatively simply using renewable power and is simpler to store and transport.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

 

[Patrick_68000]

TBH, batteries and gasoline are also explosion hazards.

There is no doubt that engineers would manage as usual to control the risks.

 

[metatheurgist]

TBH, batteries and gasoline are also explosion hazards.

Anything capable of storing/holding vast amounts of energy could potentially release all that energy at once and be explosively dangerous. That is the downside of containing portable energy. The trick is to find something that can hold a lot and be relatively safe.

 

[Morbad]

Although there's no real infrastructure to refuel, Hydrogen Fuel Cells are much better for efficiency than batteries, and the gas is easy to regenerate by water electrolysis. But pressurized hydrogen is an explosion hazard.

I'm skeptical of the viability of H2 fuel cells. Density of H2 is extremely low and the Mirai needs a pair of bulky 70MPa (10k psi) tanks to hold 10kg of hydrogen, though it does get fairly impressive range out of that small amount of fuel. I know these things are designed to fail somewhat gracefully, but I'd still be worried about what could happen to those tanks in the case of catastrophic failure. Fueling infrastructure will also be a major issue, especially outside of dense urban areas.

Direct hydrocarbon fuel cells (that could use LNG, propane, methane...or with more work, heavier liquid hydrocarbons), or storing hydrogen as metal hydrides, is probably going to be required for a mainstream consumer vehicles.

 

[Schembri]

I'm skeptical of the viability of H2 fuel cells. Density of H2 is extremely low .....

I recall reading that there are researchers working on adsorbtion technologies for Hydrogen, such that it is stored not as a gas but adsorbed over some metal alloy or carbon nanotubes in a portable canister (much like a battery). Adsorbtion is forced by pressure in a preparation plant then the caonister is mounted in a car and (initially) with heat from a separate battery the hydrogen is desorbed.
This tech could store much more hydrogen than compressed hydrogen cylinders by weight and by volume simply because hydrogen is so small it can be packed very tightly on a surface, the weight of cylinders holding high pressure works agains them in favour of this tech.
I admit have not made a web search on this to see status of this tech yet.

I do hope though that the electric future is unleashed with some kind of solid state battery that can contain large energgy densities while being small and light. That's sci fi for now though.

P.S. I love Toyota's many things TPS, cars design, quality etc... but I don't get it with the hybrids and the rejection of batteries... I hope it is not a mistake that will cost them the future.

 

[EUS]

I love the fuel cell mini-push happening in california, and honda/toyota bringing fuel cell cars into test mode.
Not worried about pressurized hydrogen, gasoline fumes are also extremely explosive.
Here in QC there has been talk of building out a couple h stations too.

 

[askavir]

IMO, standard electric cars are as they stand now a very poor solution. Take far too long to charge, most people don't even have a garage to charge them at night so they would have to take a nap on the fuel station every morning, and the autonomy is pathetic, making previous issues even worse.

I currently wouldn't buy an electric car not even if it costed half of an equivalent combustion car due to the issues I just described.

Adding to the pile, most people are completely against the opening of new lithium mines, unless of course they're on someone else's country. My country is very rich in Lithium and people are already up in arms against the possibility of opening new lithium mines on their backyard. Also, we would need to start producing a crapton more electricity to power all cars, most of said electricity would still be generated through burning of fossil fuels.

Fuel Cell cars are also electric cars, major difference is that they use hydrogen to produce their own electricity. However, the major difference is that you could still go to a fuel station and refill with Hydrogen at roughly the same speed as you now fill up on gas. This alone removes a lot of inconveniences from standard electric cars, circumvent their crap autonomy, removes the pain in the arx of waiting an eternity on the fuel station recharging the car, and I no longer have to care about having a garage. There are issues with transporting Hydrogen to the fuel stations, but solutions are being worked out, one of the possibilities is having the fuel stations generating their own hydrogen supply removing the need for transportation.

I'm with Toyota on this, fuel cells are the future.

 

[Robin of Spiritwood]

I'm half expecting liquid fueled vehicles to continue in the long term - using ammonia for fuel and using SCR to remove the nitrous oxides.

Ammonia can be produced relatively simply using renewable power and is simpler to store and transport.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

That's extremely interesting science.

My father built and developed Haber Bosch plants. He'd be highly intrigued by alternative methods to make ammonia. Shipping infrastructure is already there, but ammonia is toxic stuff.
If you get into a car crash in a low lying valley, it will pool from the tank, make a deadly invisible bubble on the ground. God forbid it is raining, or the deaths will be horrendous.
They will have to turn it into Hydrogen for sure, no way would ammonia-powered vehicles be safe, so we'd need industrial capacity at port cities to convert, compress and pipe H2 to filling stations. Sounds doable and economically sustsinable.

Ammonia Solution, Ammonia, Anhydrous | NIOSH | CDC

Ammonia is a toxic gas or liquid that, when concentrated, is corrosive to tissues upon contact. Exposure to ammonia in sufficient quantities can be fatal.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Another option would be liquid hydrogen but it's very cold and still not particularly dense.

 

[Robert Maynard]

They will have to turn it into Hydrogen for sure, no way would ammonia-powered vehicles be safe, so we'd need industrial capacity at port cities to convert, compress and pipe H2 to filling stations. Sounds doable and economically sustsinable.

Ammonia is nasty stuff indeed - although a fuel tank designed to withstand a crash, or a surrounding structure that would in some way make the ammonia non-toxic on breach of the main tank, would likely be lighter than batteries - and still vastly quicker to "reload".

The shipping industry is being pointed at ammonia as a zero-carbon fuel (and newer ships are quite often fitted with NOx scubbing SCR equipment already).

 

[Schembri]

Another option would be liquid hydrogen but it's very cold and still not particularly dense.

To keep Hydrogen liquid you need excessive insulation and there's no stopping heat seeping inm this will boil some of the hydrogen and will have to be vented off outside. At work we have liquid nitrogen tanks and that's how it is. Thouhg venting nitrogen is no issue but venting hydrogen no thanks.

 

[WeComeInPeace]

So they are avoiding getting tied to Lithium.
Simultaneously, they want to push H2 Fuel cell tech:

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/yikes-new-toyota-mirai-actually-looks-good

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GixW-NGrp4


Although there's no real infrastructure to refuel, Hydrogen Fuel Cells are much better for efficiency than batteries, and the gas is easy to regenerate by water electrolysis. But pressurized hydrogen is an explosion hazard.

Toyota really looks to be highly skeptical of Lithium supply problems specifically. They are defensively positioned with Nickel hydride batteries at the low end, and are trying to leapfrog over to fuel cells at their high end. The inherent risks of building EV's is getting more apparent as Faraday Futures and Dyson go belly up together. Tesla is talking about getting into mining their supply, and buying up Battery manufacturers. That squarely puts them in the middle of the Toyota strategy, married to Lithium.
Who will win out in the end?

It's quite an interesting time to be alive, like watching the first Tesla duke it out with Edison.

According to USGS the total global lithium reserve is 14 million metric tons. That might sound like a lot, but you need roughly 10 kg to make a small EV. Currently there are 1 billion cars driving on either gasoline or diesel. To replace those you need 10 billion kg lithium, or 10 million tons. That's 71% of the reserve. We don't recycle lithium, and we probably never will. It's difficult and dangerous. A battery pack on a Tesla is expected to have a lifetime of less than 10 years. We simply don't have lithium enough for EVs, if USGS is right. They've been wrong before, and fitting a peak scenario to the production data indicates that the reserve i bigger than stated. Probably ~100 million tons. That would be nice, because then we wouldn't run out of it before ~2050

USGS data (2019):

https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs-2019-lithi.pdf

 

[Schembri]

Take far too long to charge, most people don't even have a garage to charge them at night

Indeed at night. Yes not every one but if the magority of garage owners did at least that reduces the number of cars burning fuel on the roads and oils and filters over a number of years it is significant.

the autonomy is pathetic

Autonomy I understand well is range? I live in a tiny country so that is not a problem but that is beside the point but I declare it becauseothers might know better but I wonder how often does one have to drive beyond the range of the car? For me if I would drive out of the range just once a month for a trip, then I wouldn't mind to rent an internal combustion car.

I currently wouldn't buy an electric car not even if it costed half of an equivalent combustion car due to the issues I just described.

I was of the same opinion until I drove one for 3 months (It was a gov study on driving habits so only that time) I can say I never enjoyed driving as much as I did that tiny electric Car (Mitsubishi iMieV). Things I liked were the torque/accelleration and noiseless (I hate noise that can be avoided so when I accellerate with my car i hate the noise as I immagine it disturbs those who feel like me about noise)

Adding to the pile, most people are completely against the opening of new lithium mines, unless of course they're on someone else's country. My country is very rich in Lithium and people are already up in arms against the possibility of opening new lithium mines on their backyard.

I understand the feeling but then if everybodyt had it that way we would not be where we are. ALso in our daily life practically everything is derived from mining if not from farming all these activities will disturb someone to some extent. What has to be done is to hold governments effective to oversee that these operations take as much precautions as economically feasible and restore the area ofter the operation[/QUOTE]

Also, we would need to start producing a crapton more electricity to power all cars, most of said electricity would still be generated through burning of fossil fuels.

yes that is correct and that is the benefit!! to power a billion cars with IC engines their efficiency is typically 60% to 30% fuel energy released to motion energy. Whereas power plants have a better % conversion - and electric motors (afaaik) convert over 95% of the incoming elctric energy to motion. Now even if from plant to battery there are losses and the ultimate efficiency is 60%. then there is another benefit still.
Any combustion creates not only CO2 but other pollutants some of which carcinogenic. What is easier to control and manage a few power plants maybe a doubling of powerplants of a million car outlets. My country is so corrupt that even though we have VRT to check vehicle emmissions - the worst polluters commercial vehicles all skip the test with a bribe all are belching out dark smoke full of carcinogens no wonder the cancer rate here has shot up tremendously in the last 20 years.
For me this topic trumps all opposition to electric cars. CO2 is reversible wiht time if there is enough forests but carcinogenic chemicals damage and stay.

Fuel Cell cars are also electric cars, major difference is that they use hydrogen to produce their own electricity. However, the major difference is that you could still go to a fuel station and refill with Hydrogen at roughly the same speed as you now fill up on gas. This alone removes a lot of inconveniences from standard electric cars, circumvent their crap autonomy, removes the pain in the arx of waiting an eternity on the fuel station recharging the car, and I no longer have to care about having a garage. There are issues with transporting Hydrogen to the fuel stations, but solutions are being worked out, one of the possibilities is having the fuel stations generating their own hydrogen supply removing the need for transportation.

I agree here

I'm with Toyota on this, fuel cells are the future.

My opinion only I'd say it's dangerous to put all eggs in one basket.

Cheers!
I like your points though, they are actually valid arguments, unlike what I hear sometimes from traditional car fans, who consider noise and smoke is part of the fun.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

i guess other countries are different however are there any refueling points at all in the uk for hydrogen cars?
I agree with the above that it is good to not put all eggs in 1 basket however from my very limited knowledge - and i fully admit i may be wrong - I think battery technology moving away from lithium to another metal may ultimately be a better solution over all (Aluminum ion for instance) as well as using gold nanowires and silicon in the battery to make them last far far longer - so even if still lithium the lithium will go further.

 

[Robin of Spiritwood]

- and i fully admit i may be wrong - I think battery technology moving away from lithium to another metal may ultimately be a better solution over all (Aluminum ion for instance) as well as using gold nanowires and silicon in the battery to make them last far far longer - so even if still lithium the lithium will go further.

Not wrong in the least. Lithium can't be sustained. I think Toyota is aware of this.

We are looking at a couple of ideas locally. Putting a solar cell on your garage roof won't help if your car is out driving about till nightfall, unless there's some additional work.

First, the solar installation has to charge a battery in the garage structure. Locally, we would start with ordinary lead-acid ones, because they are cheap and we can recycle/regenerate those from scrap. Second, we use a supercapacitor stack to power a coil in the garage floor. That's mounted in a flat box, you can leave the existing floor alone. Third, we stick a flat coil on the undercarriage of the car.

Sun charges main battery, Battery charges capacitors. When the car gets parked, a sensor trips the circuit, capacitors discharge through the coil, and recharge the main storage battery through a regulator. You get a powerful pulse charge to run a strong field, and the main battery slowly recharges the capacitor without suffering a deep cycle drain, so it lasts longer.

The power does an inductance charge of the car, and the cycle repeats till the main battery is depleted. It's very efficient for power transfer, and we can boost it by mounting a subsurface parabolic reflector, or a screw mount to raise the floor coil close to the car. .

All you would have to do is park.

Thinking we could set up something simpler in parking garages, just powered by the grid.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The power does an inductance charge of the car, and the cycle repeats till the main battery is depleted. It's very efficient for power transfer, and we can boost it by mounting a subsurface parabolic reflector, or a screw mount to raise the floor coil close to the car. .

All you would have to do is park.

Thinking we could set up something simpler in parking garages, just powered by the grid.

That sounds a bit like a smart road which has been developed which is designed to charge car batteries whilst being driven on. The idea is all motorways could have them on (the majority of long journeys are on motorways / or what ever you call them locally).

the problem is.... iirc these cost £1.5 million per mile to install.. cheaper than a train line for sure, but more expensive than normal road.

actually after writing this it seems such a setup already exists. I had no idea it was in operation so i have learned something today already

World's first electrified road for charging vehicles opens in Sweden

Stretch of road outside Stockholm transfers energy from two tracks of rail in the road, recharging the batteries of electric cars and trucks

www.theguardian.com