300 Spy Pictures (1 Viewer)

[TaishoCruiser]

Fun thread!

On the 300 - I would love a triple locked LC300, and would be happy with a Toyota if they brought an off-road focused edition or option, or a Lexus LX (liking Lexus service on the LX570 versus my last few Toyota service experiences).

As for what powers a later version of the LC300 or LC400 (who wants to start a next generation speculation thread now that the 300 is finally out overseas ????), ICE, electric, plug-in hybrid, and hydrogen all have their pros and cons. For me, the infrastructure in place to fuel and service the vehicle, along with the life cycle impact of the vehicle AND fuel, could sway me to whatever makes sense. They can all be fun and work well in the right environment.

Electric - hella fun under the right circumstances (five minutes in a Taycan turned me into a believer) and apples to apples versus a current ICE engine on an oil derived fuel, yes, an EV is more 'green.' But if you have ever visited a rare earths mine or done an assessment of the downstream impacts of a mine that wasn't managed properly, well, the industry still has some work to do. And then you have to reliably and cleanly power a fleet of vehicles on top of existing commercial and residential demands for power as you are phasing out coal, slowing down natural gas production, and waffling on nuclear... I'm not so sure that an EV only future is the best option. They make sense for a lot of cases, but that doesn't mean they make sense all the time. One thing I wouldn't worry about would be water crossings - with the number of computers on a modern gasoline powered truck, that's almost moot. And electrical and mechanical engineers figured out how to push diesel electric submarines around underwater a century ago on a slide rule. If we can't design and build EV's to do watercrossings, we have truly lost our way (but I think we will be okay!).

ICE and ICE with an 'Efuel' - yes they are fun, reliable, and make a lot of sense in a lot of locations that aren't set up for EV's (i.e. much of the U.S. outside of California and sections of the West Coast and North East). Yes, even accounting for the impact of rare earth's mining, most studies now would say that an ICE vehicle has a larger net environmental impact than an EV but... I haven't seen an unbiased assessment comparing EV's to ICE using some of the new synthetic fuels that Siemmens/Porsche and others are looking at. Yes energy goes into making those fuels, but energy goes into making electricity to charge an EV, and an ICE vehicle running on synthetic fuel a) could use existing distribution network (i.e. gas pipelines and gas stations) and does not require nearly the same volume of rare earths mining. I know Teslarati fans including some friends look at that as heresy, but I think Siemens, and other companies in the U.S. and Europe, are doing some cool work on synethic fuels and I think driving enthusiasts and policy makers should not rule that out just because it doesn't sound as 'cool' as going all electric.

Hydrogen - I have a soft spot for fuel cells from my research days (so full disclosure on bias). The Toyota Mirai can go over 400 miles on one tank, and that is largely the result of one manufacturer really pushing the envelop versus dozen's of EV manufacturers and hundreds of suppliers struggling for years to make it 300 miles with the A/C on in anything other than a mild spring day. EDIT - yes, I know Honda and Diamler have fuel cells but neither have put as much into getting consumer vehicles on the road in the U.S. or Japan as Toyota has. Yes, EV range will go up, but fuel cell ranges will go up as well, and I have yet to see anyone design a long haul truck that can tow a significant amount of weight without consuming a ton of energy. That's not unique to EV's, that is just physics and energy density of your fuel or power source. With the energy density and refuelling options today, at least as I understand them, hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles and synthetically fueled ICE vehicles seem to make sense as at least one option or part of the mix. Peterbilt, Kenworth, Volvo Truck, and Daimler are all continuing to push the development envelope for fuel cells when it comes to trucks and it would be awesome to see some of that trickle down to consumer vehicles for people who cover longer distances with heaver loads.

So where does that leave the next Land Cruiser? Who knows, but I do hope that Toyota and other manufacturers can make a case for some sustainable, fun, and truly balanced options versus simply following the herd even if the technology. infrastructure, and physics aren't there for the use case.

 

[TonyP]

There are a couple issues I'm concerned about when it comes to a EV land cruiser. Electric components are pretty heavy. Weight is a enemy offroad. The model X battery for example weighs 1200lbs. That's more than a 6bt. The model X is not a large vehicle at all. A land cruiser battery would have to be bigger. Also I'm not really sure how well such components will handle water crossings long term. Honestly I would be nervous to go through water with such huge current on a regular basis. Of Tesla vehicles involved in flooding, water was found in the battery packs. I'm not a big fan of 50/50 front to rear weight bias offroad, which is what electric vehicles have. I have always found more weight up front makes obstacles much easier. Plus I don't know where you'll charge out in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes I'm fortunate just to find a old rickety gas pump. And from the testing I've seen, range is greatly reduced when towing with a EV.

The electric F-150 battery weighs over 1800lbs.
That's close to the curb weight of a Miata.
I've had Miatas on the brain lately.

 

[OSS]

EV battery packs are heavy - but subtract the weight of a traditional gasoline burning engine + the weight of the fuel + the weight of the gas tank + the weight of everything else specific to a ICE powered truck – and the weight difference isn't a game changer

 

[Pskhaat]

EV battery packs are heavy - but subtract the weight of a traditional gasoline burning engine + the weight of the fuel + the weight of the gas tank + the weight of everything else specific to a ICE powered truck – and the weight difference isn't a game changer

I hear you there, but weight is really gonna be a factor:

 

[M1911]

In terms of weight and range, I think that's where the hydrogen hybrid would come in. It's the most viable technology long term IMO. You use hydrogen (possibly kept in tank as ammonia), and use that as a clean energy store to supplement the battery, meaning you can get away with a smaller battery. Burn hydrogen to charge the battery and keep it going for long hauls, and you can fill up at a pump and go like you do with petrol. You can also haul the ammonia around the country in trucks similar to what we do with petrol right now, so it solves the distribution problem.

In general, hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation. While hydrogen is very light, it has very low volumetric energy density. That is, it takes a lot of volume per unit of energy. So you need large hydrogen tanks (unless you super-cool it, which requires a lot of energy). Furthermore, hydrogen is a very small molecule which will leak out of many materials and will also embrittle some metals.

But the larger issue is simply that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are effectively battery electric vehicles with a very inefficient battery. Let's consider what would happen if you start with 100 watt-hours of electricity and compare how much you get out of that 100 watt-hours in both a FCV and a BEV. For a fuel-cell vehicle, you will take that 100 watt-hours and use that to separate hydrogen. Typically that is done from natural gas (which is thus not zero-emissions or carbon neutral), but could be done via electrolysis. The process to separate hydrogen is at best 80% efficient. So that 100 watt-hours of electricity turns into at most 80 watt-hour equivalents of hydrogen.

You put that 80 watt-hours of hydrogen in the fuel tank and then use it to power the fuel cell. Fuel cells are about 50% efficient. So that 80 watt-hours of hydrogen becomes 40 watt-hours of electricity which you can use to power the electric motor of the FCV.

Now look at the alternative -- a BEV. You take that 100 watt-hours of electricity and use it to charge up the battery. The battery is roughly 90% efficient, so you end up with roughly 90 watt-hours of electricity which you can use to power the electric motor of the BEV. 90 >> 40.

The other thing to realize is that the cost to build an electric charging station is a few thousand $ per charging point. In contrast, a hydrogen filling station costs over $1M.

Hydrogen has one advantage -- it can fill the tank quickly. But with new charging technology, BEV charging is catching up quickly.

tldr: hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation and it always will be.

 

[Pskhaat]

tldr: hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation and it always will be.

Let's not forget that isolating hydrogen takes a non-trivial amount of energy.

 

[M1911]

Let's not forget that isolating hydrogen takes a non-trivial amount of energy.

I accounted for that in my analysis. To separate 80 watt-hour equivalents of hydrogen you start with 100 watt-hours of electricity. That is at the high end of efficiency estimates.

 

[kendrickdlr]

I think plug-in hybrid is the way to go for the Land Cruiser. 30+ mile all-EV range for everyday commuting, 500+ total range @ 23 mpg combined, and you’re looking at an incredible all-around truck.

Honestly think hybrid is what Toyota’s strategy is for Land Cruiser in NA. Still being developed so they decided to skip a couple of model years.

 

[Pskhaat]

I accounted for that in my analysis. To separate 80 watt-hour equivalents of hydrogen you start with 100 watt-hours of electricity. That is at the high end of efficiency estimates.

What kills me are folks who think hydrogen production from electrolysis is the answer over EVs.

 

[TaishoCruiser]

In general, hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation. While hydrogen is very light, it has very low volumetric energy density. That is, it takes a lot of volume per unit of energy. So you need large hydrogen tanks (unless you super-cool it, which requires a lot of energy). Furthermore, hydrogen is a very small molecule which will leak out of many materials and will also embrittle some metals.

But the larger issue is simply that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are effectively battery electric vehicles with a very inefficient battery. Let's consider what would happen if you start with 100 watt-hours of electricity and compare how much you get out of that 100 watt-hours in both a FCV and a BEV. For a fuel-cell vehicle, you will take that 100 watt-hours and use that to separate hydrogen. Typically that is done from natural gas (which is thus not zero-emissions or carbon neutral), but could be done via osmosis. The process to separate hydrogen is at best 80% efficient. So that 100 watt-hours of electricity turns into at most 80 watt-hour equivalents of hydrogen.

You put that 80 watt-hours of hydrogen in the fuel tank and then use it to power the fuel cell. Fuel cells are about 50% efficient. So that 80 watt-hours of hydrogen becomes 40 watt-hours of electricity which you can use to power the electric motor of the FCV.

Now look at the alternative -- a BEV. You take that 100 watt-hours of electricity and use it to charge up the battery. The battery is roughly 90% efficient, so you end up with roughly 90 watt-hours of electricity which you can use to power the electric motor of the BEV. 90 >> 40.

The other thing to realize is that the cost to build an electric charging station is a few thousand $ per charging point. In contrast, a hydrogen filling station costs over $1M.

Hydrogen has one advantage -- it can fill the tank quickly. But with new charging technology, BEV charging is catching up quickly.

tldr: hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation and it always will be.

M1911 - thank you for the updated / more realistic numbers on fuel cells in terms of the efficiency.

In my head I thought efficiency was closer to 80% now but looking back, that number is more of a lab/pilot phase number if you have waste heat capture in a static fuel cell (versus a mobile cell powering a vehicle). And I'm not sure if this is still the case, but back in the day, fuel cell efficiency used to drop over time.

 

[M1911]

M1911 - thank you for the updated / more realistic numbers on fuel cells in terms of the efficiency.

In my head I thought efficiency was closer to 80% now but looking back, that number is more of a lab/pilot phase number if you have waste heat capture in a static fuel cell (versus a mobile cell powering a vehicle). And I'm not sure if this is still the case, but back in the day, fuel cell efficiency used to drop over time.

Even if the fuel cell was 80% efficient, you would still end up with 80% (extraction of hydrogen) * 80% (fuel cell) = 64% total efficiency, which is much less than 90% for the BEV.

 

[TaishoCruiser]

Even if the fuel cell was 80% efficient, you would still end up with 80% (extraction of hydrogen) * 80% (fuel cell) = 64% total efficiency, which is much less than 90% for the BEV.

The math makes sense - I was questioning my earlier assumption on the fuel cell efficiency for automotive applications, not your math! It looks like 50-60% (for the fuel cell, not the net/total process) is the max (ish) at the moment.

 

[DivByZero]

In general, hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation. While hydrogen is very light, it has very low volumetric energy density. That is, it takes a lot of volume per unit of energy. So you need large hydrogen tanks (unless you super-cool it, which requires a lot of energy). Furthermore, hydrogen is a very small molecule which will leak out of many materials and will also embrittle some metals.

But the larger issue is simply that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are effectively battery electric vehicles with a very inefficient battery. Let's consider what would happen if you start with 100 watt-hours of electricity and compare how much you get out of that 100 watt-hours in both a FCV and a BEV. For a fuel-cell vehicle, you will take that 100 watt-hours and use that to separate hydrogen. Typically that is done from natural gas (which is thus not zero-emissions or carbon neutral), but could be done via electrolysis. The process to separate hydrogen is at best 80% efficient. So that 100 watt-hours of electricity turns into at most 80 watt-hour equivalents of hydrogen.

You put that 80 watt-hours of hydrogen in the fuel tank and then use it to power the fuel cell. Fuel cells are about 50% efficient. So that 80 watt-hours of hydrogen becomes 40 watt-hours of electricity which you can use to power the electric motor of the FCV.

Now look at the alternative -- a BEV. You take that 100 watt-hours of electricity and use it to charge up the battery. The battery is roughly 90% efficient, so you end up with roughly 90 watt-hours of electricity which you can use to power the electric motor of the BEV. 90 >> 40.

The other thing to realize is that the cost to build an electric charging station is a few thousand $ per charging point. In contrast, a hydrogen filling station costs over $1M.

Hydrogen has one advantage -- it can fill the tank quickly. But with new charging technology, BEV charging is catching up quickly.

tldr: hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation and it always will be.

There are lots of challenges, but the situation isn't as dire as you make out. Look into the efforts to transport hydrogen in the form of ammonia, and the advances in cheap simple ways to convert back from ammonia to hydrogen. This solves a lot of your concerns around storage and transportation.

In terms of generating hydrogen and efficiency, you haven't accounted for the immense losses involved in transporting electrical energy long distances. Hydrogen burns clean, so it's a clean store of energy. In terms of generating that energy in the first place, electric vehicles have the same challenges, combined with added difficulties of needing to be able to produce that energy and transport it directly on demand at the time of charging. Consider that most people charge electric vehicles overnight, but our most abundant clean energy source, the sun, isn't available during the night. Here in Australia, we've got plenty of sun, plenty of coastline, and could produce hydrogen from electrolysis in massive quantities. That's why there's a lot of talk about us exporting hydrogen (in the form of ammonia) to meet potential future demands for energy internationally. Sure, there's costs and difficulties involved in production and transportation, but we manage it for crude oil right now.

In terms of the cost of filling stations, I'm not sure we can accurately state that yet. Let's see what happens when things mature and there's actually a roll-out at volume. There's also interesting ideas about making hydrogen filling stations dual-purpose, and using them as micro-generators to burn hydrogen and feed it back into the local power grid to smooth out fluctuations in demand, which could help reduce costs and improve efficiency of the power grid overall.

Long story short, hydrogen is a good way to "park" solar energy in a form you can cleanly use to power vehicles, while reducing (but not eliminating) some of the issues related to rare earth metals and cost/pollution of battery production, as well as overnight energy production requirements to charge an electric vehicle. It also potentially solves the range and time to charge issues which make electric vehicles essentially unviable for travel across remote areas, something that's a major barrier in places like here in Australia.

 

[TonyP]

EV battery packs are heavy - but subtract the weight of a traditional gasoline burning engine + the weight of the fuel + the weight of the gas tank + the weight of everything else specific to a ICE powered truck – and the weight difference isn't a game changer

We're saying the battery pack, alone, is approaching 1 ton, not including the motors, wiring, cooling, ect...
Petrol weighing 6.5 pounds per gallon you're looking at around 160 pounds for a full tank on your average truck or full-sized SUV to fuel the vehicle vs 1800+ for a full-size EV SUV/Truck.
Some of that weight will be definitely offset by an ICE motor, transmission, axles (depending on the EV design). But an EV will absolutely weigh significantly more with our current EV technology.

I'm not opposed to EVs at all. When they make an affordable, decent range, resto-mod conversion for older vehicles I'd consider it. But that's a long ways in the future. I'll enjoy my clackity turbo diesel in the mean time.

 

[Pskhaat]

In terms of generating hydrogen and efficiency, you haven't accounted for the immense losses involved in transporting electrical energy long distances.

Transmission loss in the US is about 5%. I'm sure a bit more in Australia, but in no way immense. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Energy%20Information%20Administration,States%20in%202015%20through%202019.

electric vehicles essentially unviable for travel across remote areas, something that's a major barrier in places like here in Australia.

Indeed.

 

[M1911]

In terms of generating hydrogen and efficiency, you haven't accounted for the immense losses involved in transporting electrical energy long distances. avel across remote areas, something that's a major barrier in places like here in Australia.

The vast majority of hydrogen is produced at the filling station, because of all the issues with transporting it. So whether you are charging a BEV or filling a FCV, the electricity has to be moved THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE. Consequently, the losses involved in transmitting the electricity are immaterial to the comparison.

Average transmission losses in the US are less than 10%. So if you start with 100 watt hours at the generation plant, you have 90 at the charging station. You then get 81 out of the battery of a BEV at the electric motor.

If our hydrogen fueling station is directly adjacent to the charging station, the we lose the same 10% in transmission. So the 100 watt hours at the plant gives us 90 at the hydrogen filling station. We then have 80% efficiency extracting the hydrogen so we are down to 72 watt hours of hydrogen. We put that through our 50% efficient fuel cell and we have 36 watt hours at the electric motor.

Once again, 81 >> 36. And this doesn’t even consider the energy required for supplying the hydrogen feedstock (either natural gas or water) to the filling station.

So including the transmission losses doesn’t change the outcome of the analysis.

Hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation. Hydrogen filling stations will always be far more expensive to build than simple charging points.

 

[DivByZero]

The vast majority of hydrogen is produced at the filling station, because of all the issues with transporting it. So whether you are charging a BEV or filling a FCV, the electricity has to be moved THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE. Consequently, the losses involved in transmitting the electricity are immaterial to the comparison.

Average transmission losses in the US are less than 10%. So if you start with 100 watt hours at the generation plant, you have 90 at the charging station. You then get 81 out of the battery of a BEV at the electric motor.

If our hydrogen fueling station is directly adjacent to the charging station, the we lose the same 10% in transmission. So the 100 watt hours at the plant gives us 90 at the hydrogen filling station. We then have 80% efficiency extracting the hydrogen so we are down to 72 watt hours of hydrogen. We put that through our 50% efficient fuel cell and we have 36 watt hours at the electric motor.

Once again, 81 >> 36. And this doesn’t even consider the energy required for supplying the hydrogen feedstock (either natural gas or water) to the filling station.

So including the transmission losses doesn’t change the outcome of the analysis.

Hydrogen is a bad fuel for transportation. Hydrogen filling stations will always be far more expensive to build than simple charging points.

I'll happily concede that overall, a fully electric vehicle will be more efficient overall than a hydrogen hybrid. That'll always be the case, since you've gone from electrical energy to chemical energy to mechanical energy and back to electrical energy again.

My argument though, is that efficiency is only one small part of the problem, and arguably one of the less important parts. When and where you need the energy are far more important factors than the energy requirements themselves. Consider that the individual vehicle, the occupancy, the terrain, the weather, what cargo you're carrying, the ambient temperature, your distance from the power plant, and any technical advances to come in the future, all affect the balance of the overall amount of energy required for an electric vehicle to get from A to B. Making that more efficient results in net savings, but the most important factor is, can you provide reliable infrastructure and technology to make sure that, barring a major breakdown in the vehicle itself, you can reliably get a few billion of these things from A to B every day, even in peak periods or for long trips, through natural disasters, snowstorms, and things of that nature.

Consider that the humble internal combustion engine is only, what, about 30% efficient? Google tells me the average coal power plant is around 33% efficient. That's before the costs of extraction and processing to supply that fuel and coal I'll add. They've still formed the backbone of energy supply for over a century. That's because it's not really about efficiency at all is it? It's about a combination of cost, portability, and timing. Coal and oil are plentiful, and an existing store of energy. We can take them and use them in small or large quantities anywhere we want, any time we want. They're portable, and for a long time they've been a cheap source of energy. Sure, our methods of turning them into electrical or mechanical energy are horribly inefficient. It doesn't matter though, if they're cheaper than the alternatives to do the same amount of work, and they're convenient.

Now, pure electric vehicles va hydrogen/electric hybrids are interesting, because they bring into contrast the cost per unit for energy, vs the portability and timing aspect. That's where pure electric vehicles struggle. What do you think happens to the US energy network if 300 million electric vehicles get plugged in to charge every night? Where is that energy coming from? What do you think happens if you want the same thing to work in Brazil? Or Nigeria? It's the same "base load" power problem on steroids. Energy isn't just energy. The total amount required at a given time, and where you need it, are critical. Pushing all the energy demands for powering all transport back onto the existing energy infrastructure just isn't viable. No country has anywhere close to the capacity to handle that kind of load if the entire population bought electric veicles overnight, not even close. You can of course invest trillions into infrastructure, but again, where is that energy coming from? If you're going to burn more coal, you may as well stick with the status quo, you'll just make things more expensive and worse from an environmental point of view. How can you reliably store enough energy to power a few billion vehicles at once though, when a lot of people will travel during the day and charge at night? The most plentiful energy source is still the sun, and modern solar is one of the cheapest sources of energy we have, but storage is the problem. If you want efficiency, go pumped hydro, but that's large scale infrastructure, and it only goes so far. There are lots of places in the world though, where uninhabitable deserts meet the sea. Australia has huge stretches of coastline like that. Right now, that sunlight is hitting the sand and dirt and doing nothing useful for mankind. It's "free" energy, and we're throwing it away. Say we stick a million solar panels there, and that's 0.00001% of what we could do, and we generate some hydrogen. What did that cost us? Just the investment in infrastructure to build it, and the transport costs from A to B. Is is 100% green though, totally renewable, and reliable. We can store it, ship it, get it where we want in the quantities we want, and produce small or large amounts of energy, just like we do for oil right now, but it's green energy.

Let's go back to Australia, where I live. I regularly took trips between Sydney and Adelaide. That's over 1300km. For most of it, there's nobody and nothing. I drive 300km between petrol stations. Some of them aren't even manned, they're automated. The power links there could not, ever, support a dozen cars charging, nor could you afford to sit there for an hour in the middle of Australia waiting for it. A truck can drive there once a week and unload fuel into a tank easily enough though. Portability matters. Consider what happens if there's a breakdown on a highway, people are stuck for two hours, with the AC or heaters on, and suddenly people's batteries start running dead. That becomes a full blown disaster. Portable fuel sources that can be exchanged in minutes are important for moving vehicles.

Pure electric vehicles are 1/3 of the solution, not a complete solution. All you've done is move the energy supply problem back to power stations, and create a much bigger infrastructure problem. Hydrogen combined with solar is an actual solution to the energy supply problem. You just need to move a liquid (ammonia) in trucks and tankers around the world, and get it to local distribution points (petrol stations), like we do currently with oil. You can do it in a phased manner too, with existing stations getting one hydrogen pump, then two, etc. It's much, much easier to achieve that than finding a way to increase our total energy network capacity by a factor of 10 at nighttime in a renewable way, without even solving the portability and recharge time problems I mentioned. And if going green isn't the goal, just stick with oil and coal.

 

[TonyP]

Turn 1/3rd of Kansas into a giant solar farm.
Free power forever, tons of jobs, problem solved.
Turn another 3rd of Kansas into marijuana and psilocybin mushroom farms.

Vote for TonyP in 2024

 

[White Stripe]

EV battery packs are heavy - but subtract the weight of a traditional gasoline burning engine + the weight of the fuel + the weight of the gas tank + the weight of everything else specific to a ICE powered truck – and the weight difference isn't a game changer

A v8 engine weighs around 500 lbs which is over and somewhat forward of the front wheels. When climbing a obstacle the more weight bias you have up front makes a huge positive impact in climbing offroad obstacles. With the motor, trans, tcase, and full fuel tank all together your at a little under 1000 lbs.

 

[White Stripe]

There are lots of challenges, but the situation isn't as dire as you make out. Look into the efforts to transport hydrogen in the form of ammonia, and the advances in cheap simple ways to convert back from ammonia to hydrogen. This solves a lot of your concerns around storage and transportation.

In terms of generating hydrogen and efficiency, you haven't accounted for the immense losses involved in transporting electrical energy long distances. Hydrogen burns clean, so it's a clean store of energy. In terms of generating that energy in the first place, electric vehicles have the same challenges, combined with added difficulties of needing to be able to produce that energy and transport it directly on demand at the time of charging. Consider that most people charge electric vehicles overnight, but our most abundant clean energy source, the sun, isn't available during the night. Here in Australia, we've got plenty of sun, plenty of coastline, and could produce hydrogen from electrolysis in massive quantities. That's why there's a lot of talk about us exporting hydrogen (in the form of ammonia) to meet potential future demands for energy internationally. Sure, there's costs and difficulties involved in production and transportation, but we manage it for crude oil right now.

In terms of the cost of filling stations, I'm not sure we can accurately state that yet. Let's see what happens when things mature and there's actually a roll-out at volume. There's also interesting ideas about making hydrogen filling stations dual-purpose, and using them as micro-generators to burn hydrogen and feed it back into the local power grid to smooth out fluctuations in demand, which could help reduce costs and improve efficiency of the power grid overall.

Long story short, hydrogen is a good way to "park" solar energy in a form you can cleanly use to power vehicles, while reducing (but not eliminating) some of the issues related to rare earth metals and cost/pollution of battery production, as well as overnight energy production requirements to charge an electric vehicle. It also potentially solves the range and time to charge issues which make electric vehicles essentially unviable for travel across remote areas, something that's a major barrier in places like here in Australia.

I talked to a guy that works for a company that designed pellets that have small pores that absorb hydrogen at certain temperatures. Once the hydrogen is in the pellets it can be transported wherever. When you want to release the hydrogen the pellets just need to be heated. Apparently the pellets are very cheap and easy to make.