No, the primary reason is limited access to the energy market and limited resources on their island and that they're an island. And there is China. Hydrogen is a wonderful alternative if you don't have alternatives. But its awful if you have plenty, like the rest of the world.
Not true. Panasonic is a Japanese battery manufacturer that Tesla is a customer of. Japan carmakers aren't going for batteries despite having local capabilities. Instead they want to go for natural gas based hydrogen fuel. South Korea also.
I don't know enough about Japanese law to know either way, but measuring needs, capabilities, and/or national strategy by observing the things that companies are doing is often a bad yardstick.
At best, this is twice removed from the facts at hand. [future capabilities and limitations exist] > [they're interpreted by legislators who design regulations and subsidies] > [automakers build whatever makes them money]
If look at the US automotive market, you might conclude that automakers have found the best way to decrease emissions is by making cars larger. This clearly isn't the case, this is simply what the regulations have encouraged companies to do.
Large companies are politically connected. The car manufacturers represent a large amount of exports and are politically connected. The politicians and lawyers aren't making decisions on their own. The car companies bring their engineering and science expertise to the table when crafting national policy.
Yes, and they do that with the interest of making money, not with the interest of ensuring national energy/resource security.
They're not building hydrogen vehicles out of some long-term concern about resource availability. Note how those same automakers don't sell those vehicles in the rest of the world, even though they're on the same planet with the same amount of cobalt.
Japanese automakers are building hydrogen vehicles because 1) they are being subsidized, and 2) they get a seat at the table to influence regulators.
Mirai has begun selling in California and its even more than the Model 3. It is definitely not subsidized. However, the price between model 3 and the Mirai make me wonder. I don't understand the science fully and I know most people don't know either except for the physicists. I don't trust Elon and batteries could be a short term thing.
Ah, looks like it has -- last time I checked I thought you could only get one on lease. Honda's FCX Clarity is still limited production and lease-only.
But yes, the Mirai and the fueling stations are definitely subsidized, both in Japan and in California.
Yep. They give you $15,000 fueling credit for 3 years but this is definitely a forward deposit for building out infrastructure. If you subtract the $15,000, the Mirai 2020 is within acceptable price range of the Model 3.
I am not the most scientific person but I don't like Elon Musk's history and that he didn't address the science properly. Elon Musk bought Tesla and scrubbed the founder's name because it makes it better for storytelling purposes. When mentioned fuel cell vehicles, he called it Fool Cells and wrongly brought up a 2 step process. Theatrics and logically true but wrongly used. I am familiar with these techniques used by bullshitters.
Google "wind power max efficiency". They knew the max capabilities of wind power in 1919. In other words, even if they improved the wind mill or turbines or the materials they are made from, they knew the upper limits or max value of this renewable wind power.
I believe the physicists that work for the Japanese and Korean car makers are aware of the limitations of battery power and have already mapped out its trajectory. With that knowledge, they have still decided for hydrogen power.
> they knew the upper limits or max value of this renewable wind power.
We also know the upper limits for solar. And for the current battery tech. And solid state battery tech. And the theoretical max for any battery that still follows the laws of physics as we know them. Your point being?
Hydrogen makes very little sense. Or rather, it only makes sense to keep the demand for fossil fuels high - because this is the cheapest way to get hydrogen (see natural gas reforming). Electrolysis is inefficient and expensive.
Not to mention the infrastructure required to compress/liquefy, ship, and building refueling stations.
All that for what? To feed it to a fuel cell and get electricity back. Just use the electricity to charge a battery and skip all the middle men.
If you have electricity, you are better off using batteries. The energy grid will likely be available close to you, transportation is taken care of. At the end of their useful lives, batteries can be recycled and we get most of the material back.
Due to hydrogen embrittlement, hydrogen tanks also have a shelf life.
This has little to do with physics and more to do with incentives from the fossil fuel industry.
That is Elon's talking point. He isn't a technical person. He bought Tesla and scrubbed the founder's name for business storytelling purposes. So natural gas produces hydrogen, this hydrogen is stored in a tank, and then converted to electric when it is used. There is no 2 step process but Elon dismissed this technology for this reason. I don't trust this guy. There is nothing he knows that the Japanese carmakers don't. I am only suspicious that the Model 3 is cheaper than the Mirai. It might be a short term play that I don't fully understand in the same way I don't understand have Citadel and Virtu make money from buying trades. However, I think they are up to no good.
