Toyota plans to sell fuel cell car by 2015

Fuel cell vehicle is an EV that fuels as quick as a gas car. It should have the range of $70k Model S (85kWh) for the price lower than the 40kWh model ($57k).

Hydrogen infrastructure provides more bang to the buck simply because it can serve more vehicle per station (over EV station). With DOE funding flowing back to hydrogen, we should see longer hydrogen highway in the next few years.

It'll be interesting to see how things pan out in a few years with the next Tesla $30k model (after Model X).

 

we did hear this great news a couple of years ago.

There are a couple of details - 100 kw, no sales to the public until 2015. We have been labeling such efforts pre-commercial when gm, honda, and mercedes did them.

Sounds like hype to me. If you have a phev that uses 1/3 of the gas of its counterpart and is SULEV is the fuel cell the only tech that helps wth oil dependance and emissions?

Hey bring them on. Just don't whine about needing the government to pay for much more expensive infrastructure. We can harken back to the day's of the governator with his hydrogen hummer saying in 2010 there will be a 100 station hydrogen highway. Whatever happened to that?
California revokes 'hydrogen highway' grants

 

Positively true, if you can find a hydrogen fueling station. On the other hand you can fuel your phev or bev at home and avoid filling up at a public station. Now that's convenient.

Ok if you need an L3 and 20 L2 for every 2000 cars that cost $150K, or a hydrogen fueling station for every 2000 cars and each one cost $2M, I fail to see the bang per buck. You don't need the through put at the public staions for plug ins. NRG is building a large number of these stations in texas, with hopes they can sell you more power at home.

I have more faith that the PHEVs sell well for the rest of the decade. Remember plug in technology is not only about pure ZEV cars. We can save a lot of oil by moving to plug-ins. There will be a number gen II phev and bevs in 5 years.

 

Claims of 'bias' and 'closed mindedness' are ad hominem arguments. Let's please all stick to facts and opinions.

 

Is it? TTAC says: "She drove to one of four locations in Los Angeles where you can refuel the Equinox. "A GM engineer refueled for me, a process that took about 15 minutes for half a tank." For aspiring Fields Medal winners, that's 30 minutes to refuel a tank of gas."
from: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Equinox: 30 Minute Refill | The Truth About Cars

 

As we saw the same faulty criticism of hybrids and electric cars before that. Fortunately enough people ignored it and we can drive a 60 mpg car for $20K in 2012.

We see the same faulty criticism of investing in new energy technology ("we heard this great news for years therefore we shouldn't do it") for years. We see it with all investment in the future from the space program to hybrid cars to electric cars to fuel cell cars to hydrogen cars.

The reason we keep hearing the faulty criticism is the critics manage to reduce the funding, the technology doesn't progress and the critics are right but only because they are the reason for cutting funding and lack of progress.

Specific to hydrogen, Honda has a fleet of FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel cell vehicles running in LA with built out infrastructure. Disproving every criticism of moving to hydrogen fueled cars which is what a long view society would choose to do based on science.

We hear the moronic criticism that "FCX Clarity costs $1M each" which is like criticizing any development of technology, NASA $5B to put Glenn in one orbit because it's not SpaceX's $10M.

 

I am not trying to pull an ad hominem. I was trying to shift the focus from the past to the present and the future. Some here have their heads stuck in the past.

To me, hydrogen is clearly a clean viable fuel (from NG we have abundance of) that power electric powertrain. The more electrification, the better. I don't understand why some are so against it but totally hyping up for the EVs.

That's from 2008, probably GM's Gen2. Most manufacturers are now in Gen3. Toyota FCHV-adv (Gen3) came out in 2009. This Hyundai FCV is Gen3 also. The production versions should be Gen4.

We don't know how efficient GM fuel cell vehicle nor the size of the tank. Toyota said their FCHV can refuel 200 miles range in 1 minute.

 

Really there was a problem with being able to refuel hybrids that people were talking about. I must have missed that. My prius cost more than that and gets an epa 50mpg. I only get about 42. I never criticized hybrids because of lack of fueling structure, or unreliable engines Some people complained about cost.

We have spent billions. I just think we should cut the spending down to maybe $70 million a year. Let's wait until some vendor actually gets some of those technological break throughs. I'm sure oil companies would be happy to build hydrogen fueling infrastructure if their were lots of cars willing to pay $10 kg. It might only take 20 years to build. Consumers aren't likely to want to pay that much for hydrogen, so there needs to be breakthroughs in cost of the fuel as well. That means the government is going to pay for the fueling infrastructure, and we have already seen collusion on the hydrogen highway in california.

Or it might be correct criticism. The fuel cell alliance that includes toyota and hyundai also say fueling infrastructure is a problem. They just want joe taxpayer to pay for it all.

There are 9 public stations. Honda said they would lease more if there was more infrastucture. You are not reading the news to well.

Well if a clarity cost more than a tesla, its not likely to sell. Hydrogen proponents say they need to sell at least 50,000 per year to bring manufacturing costs for fuel cells down. That is not likely to happen until they bring costs down. California said in 2004 they needed 100 stations by 2010. New plan is 46 more stations by 2017. That is not going to service a large number of hydrogen cars. Costs will still be very high in 2017. Why don't you write that fuel cell alliance a check for $25B to get them started.

 

...H2 mfg cost is related to nat gas price, so cheap H2 right now in USA!
That bodes well for H2 but I have a hard time seeing H2 as a major auto fuel, I know it works technically. Maybe after oil/coal/nat gas runs out.

 

200 miles range in 1 minute. Times 60 minutes in an hour. Times 24 hours per day. Times 365 days per year. Times 146 stations. It sure can service a large number of FCVs.

It won't be parking spots like EV charging stations.

 

Yes there really were all kinds of buggy whip criticisms of research and development of hybrids and electric vehicles, all repeats of the same current criticism we see in this thread of hydrogen.

 

Then I guess california only needs one station. hmm. There might be a problem with that supposition. 2009 Honda FCX Clarity - Road Test - Car and Driver

Then were do the 146 station come into play? Do you force the fuel cell driver to refill in the middle of the night? The one station for 2000 cars is optimistic from the fuel cell folks. In reality right now there are less than 100 cars per station.

 

I still don't get it.
Why take electricity,use it to produce hydrogen.
Transport the hydrogen to filling stations (and use energy to compress it).
Pump it into cars where a fuel stack is used to convert it back into electricity which is used to move the car.

For most people, seems like a lot of wasted steps and inconvenience to go to to move around. Why not use the electricity available from your house to charge batteries to supply energy to move your car?

Yes hydrogen vehicles have some place. They will work well for people than have to drive long distances in between charges.
Given the promises of the past, I am skeptical of the current hype. Once they are available, I'll certainly take a close look at them.

 

That's what many say about Kim Kardashian, too. But that doesn't translate to wanting to make a life time committment with it.

 

Great. When your EV bias cover is blown, show off your sarcasm. I'll just laugh it off. Don't have a cow.

 

Because the entire process is as efficient as converting NG into electricity (40% loss), loss in grid transmission (7%), loss in conversion into chemical energy, battery charging (15%), converting back to electricity and power the wheels (15%).

The benefits are the refuel speed, lighter vehicle and scalability into commercial tucks/buses.

 

hmmm

power plant efficiency: 40%
Transmission losses: 7%
Charging losses: 15%

So I get 0.4*0.93*0.85 = 32% plant to battery efficiency.

Remind me again please what the equivalent lifecycle for hydrogen from NG is today ?

 

Because, hydrogen for a fuel cell is equivalent to the gasoline in a serial hybrid. Compared to gasoline, it has several limitations. Mainly in transport and containment. The Honda Clarity might get 3 times the equivalent fuel economy of a gasser counterpart, but its 8k pis tanks can hold the equivalent of three gallons while taking the space of about a 10 gallon gas tank.​

​

​

​

​

​

Those that want electrification of the fleet wants cars that are powered from the grid. There are a lot more options for producing electricity that allows for flexibility in emissions and national security. The hydrogen could be made with electricity, but that would be way more wasteful than just charging a battery with it. In summary, unless it is also a plug in(none are), fuel cells do as much to electricify a car as the first Prius. It just shifts electric generation from gasoline to hydrogen.​

​

​

​

If made from natural gas, why don't we just burn it in an ICE. The infrastructure is already there for the most part. Nearly all vehicles can be converted for it.​

Here's a question or two for the hydrogen proponents: do you think Toyota's FCV do as well as the Volt? Why or why not?​

 

I have always quite clear that I advocated electrification to reduce oil use. There are quite good reasons why phev and bev are better than fuel cell vehicles for the near future. This is bias because of understanding the facts.

Your statement showed that you did not understand refueling facts, which is why I used sarcasm. If fuel cell advocates were not asking for massive subsidies to build this refueling structure, in case fcv vehicles work, I would be less vocal about my opposition. Its opposition to the size of government support, not the technology. Why isn't $70 million a year enough if fcv are so close and practical?

It may be that many would happily charge at home instead of driving often to the hydrogen station. For that reason, and the ability to down size the expensive fuel cell these things are likely to end up plug ins. That is the route my city went on an experimental plug-in fuel cell vehicle. Its the only way to efficiently get renewables into the experimental bus It needed a big battery anyway to keep the fuel cell small, why not add a plug.

Then the question is really of range extender. A phev and fc vehicle won't differ in weight, and the phev wins on refuel speed and convience. For long haul truking liquid hydrogen only carries about 1/3 the energy of liquid methane, which means picken's plan will require many fewer stops for fuel in a phev lng truck, then a liquid hydrogen fuel cell truck. Methanol or biofuels in that phev look like a winner to me for the next decade. Even with gasoline a phev40 charged at home with renewables will use much less fossil fuel than that fcv. The prius phv gets 50 mpg cs on gas, the clarity 60 mpge on hydrogen. There isn't a big efficiency boost.

Think of it as a two step. In order to get to a fuel cell future, it is likely the vehicles are phevs. Since phev R&D does not do much with the ice, all of this money by car companies and governments can be thought about improving fcv. Then the question arises do you need alt fuel in the phev - biofuels, methanol, cng, lng, or hydrogen. Hydrogen needs to compete with these other fuels and gasoline. To get there it must overcome issues with fuel cells, storage tanks, and infrastructure.

 

followed by more ad hominem.