Technology

63375 readers

7196 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

168

How Nissan and Honda's $60 billion merger talks collapsed. (neuters.de)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Nissan's pride and denial hindered merger talks, sources say

Honda pushed Nissan for deeper cuts to jobs, factory capacity, sources say

Nissan unwilling to consider factory closures, sources say

Honda's proposal to make Nissan a subsidiary caused tensions, sources say

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Hydrogen fuel cells have a much shorter lifespan and higher manufacturing/replacement cost than lithium ion batteries

Hydrogen fuel cells in retail cars are intended to last "the lifetime of the vehicle," or something like 150-200k miles. Lithium batteries last 10-20 years, which is pretty similar (assuming 10-15k miles/year). They seem to be roughly equivalent in terms of longevity, at least from a quick search.

I don't know what fuel cells cost to replace, but hydrogen cars cost about the same as an equivalent EV, maybe a little cheaper (Toyota Mirai is ~$50k and apparently drives like a Lexus), so I have to assume the fuel cells aren't that expensive relative to lithium ion batteries. Also, lithium ion batteries lose range over time, whereas I'd assume fuel cells don't, but instead lose some generation capacity (i.e. lower top end output).

about 2/3rds of the power used to produce the hydrogen is lost in the process

I thought it was generally about 75% efficient. This article claims the current rate is 39.4kWh for 52.5kWh input. Is that incorrect?

So outside of storage losses (should be minimal if it's constantly being cycled in and out), 75% seems really good. Current fuel cells seem to be about 40-60% efficient, and I doubt we'll get significantly higher than that, so is that where you're getting the "2/3" number from? (40% of 75% = 30%).

The benefits of hydrogen over batteries are:

faster refuel times - 2-3 min and a truck/forklift/etc can be on its way
relatively small space requirement - more dense than current battery tech
probably easier maintenance? Working on a fuel cell isn't particularly dangerous, assuming the tank is empty.

These don't really matter for regular cars (can recharge at home over night, etc), but it's quite useful for an org with high mobile energy needs looking to switch to green energy.

Market rate hydrogen is currently about as cheap as it’s possible to get, because it is almost exclusively from fossil fuel sources which are gradually winding down.

Assuming the same process (i.e. extract from fossile fuels), right? Direct electrolysis comes down to the cost of the energy you use to generate it, and if that's essentially "free" (i.e. solar power that would otherwise be wasted), that starts to be really compelling.