Toyota plans to sell fuel cell car by 2015

2012 had a big shift away from coal. Do you think we should not replace old inefficient plants? I haven't seen a US fuel cell plan that did not also try to clean the grid.

Think of it this way, if you decide that you just want your car to use natural gas instead of gasoline, and you want it to be as efficient as possible, screw the cost, and you don't want to improve the grid, yes fuel cells will turn out better in most of the country, and we should spend the hundreds of billions for the infrastructure.... but if you agree that the grid should be made more green - less unhealthy pollution and more sustainable fuel sources, the picture becomes less clear.

The earliest predicted time when fuel cell cars would make any significant environmental impact - that is when there are enough to care - is 2025. Plug-ins should start making an environmental impact around 2015, but we should look at the grid in 2025. The trend seems clear that more ccgt and wind will be added as 40+ year old plants are retired. Given today's methane and coal costs it is uneconomical to build new coal today, but prices may change, and old projects that have been approved are being built. Some new coal will be added to keep a diversity of resources in case natural gas prices go up, but net coal power is going down in the US. Looking at two key states for fuel cells, california has a goal of 33% renewable in 2020, and they hit 20% renewable this year. Texas has a goal of 20% renewable in 2025, it hit its old renewable goal of 10GW by 2025 already, which is the reason for the new goal. Texas is at about 9% renewable. California and texas will need to build more ccgt fast cycling plants to work with all that renewable power. In texas, all that wind and new gas power is expected to cause coal plants to shut down for the winter, and only be used in the hot months. California should be able to stop its imports of coal power by then. Prices may change, but it is not a bad assumption that the us grid will get more efficient and lower polluting. Some areas are in a worse position to add renewables because of their coal intensive grid, and they may lag the rest of the country. This would leave the impression that we will not be adding coal to support plug-ins but much less polluting power

This would leave one with the impression that the grid will be cleaner in the future, and many plug in drivers will be able to choose renewable power. Because of these facts on the ground both GM and Ford have started thinking of their fuel cell vehicles as plug ins. I can not imagine the weight of the batteries in the prius phv making it less efficient as a whole, which means toyota is likely to follow suit and allow its fc vehicles to plug in at home to renewable power, or cheaper grid power if they so choose. This should switch the assumptions on the slide.

Should we assign 40+ year old generating plants to the plug-ins, but new future more efficient hydrogen to fuel cells to make them look better? I don't think so. Neither does the fuel cell alliance. They did put up numbers from ccgt versus current stations in their analysis.

 

Will sum up since I'll be moving on.

Here are the best (cleanest, most efficient and refuel speed) paths depending on the fuel sources:

Natural Gas -> Hydrogen -> Fuel Cell hybrids
Petroleum -> Gasoline -> Full hybrids
Renewable -> Electricity -> Battery EVs

A well designed PHEV can have the best of both EV and HV.

 

Or use BMW's carbon fiber know how for high pressure hydrogen tanks.

Toyota claims to have reduce the fuel cell stack cost, but that isn't the only high cost item unique to a FCV. A 10k psi hydrogen fuel tank is estimated to cost around $2500. The Highlander FCV has four of them. The $10,ooo in hydrogen tanks would get you another 20kWh of battery in a Tesla S.

Carbon fiber is a must for these high pressure tanks in order to keep weight in control. It isn't cheap. Slightly lower pressure tanks can be used for lower costs. Honda has done so with their Clarity. The trade off is less range and longer fueling times. An Equinox FCV, with 10k tanks, took 20 minutes to fill at one of the now available stations in California
(I linked the article earlier).

Toyota might take BMW's know how for lightening car frames. Aluminum and high strength steel are less costly options though. Carbon fiber isn't likely to show up in the Yaris or Camry then. The potential weight savings it offers is of bigger benefit in these hydrogen tanks. They are already made from it. The goal is to reduce the cost. Which BMW's knowledge might do.

Not only is reducing the cost important for the car cost, the tanks have an expiration date. At which point they have to be replaced. Between them and the fuel stack, I foresee any FCV becoming a disposable car. Most of the old ones will likely end up converted to BEV.

 

I don't know, but getting volume up on cf parts definitely drops the price. BMW has been working with cf for longer, but even buying some tanks drops the cost.

Here is a slightly different take, kind of rah rah about the tech
BMW and Toyota Plan to Lead Hydrogen Fuel Cells to Commercial Viability | Hybrid Cars

Go on hybrid cars, why would you not use an ice as a range extender?

We have our first cost estimate for the toyota fcv here, $62K, which means government(s) or Toyota will kick in the rest to make it sell for $50K in limited volume.

 

A bit misleading since the production numbers are so low. It like the claim that Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel cell cars "cost $1M". We heard all the same criticism over the hybrid and electric car battery systems costs and now here we are driving them with some available for $20K.

Which is why US government needs to putting a lot of money into hydrogen as transportation fuel along with battery and fuel cell research.

 

The people criticizing battery costs were the fuel cell people. That is not the same at all, as I replied earlier. Fuel cells require a completely new refueling structure, and high costs mean that there will not be that many cars using the system.

We have spent billions already. Every year the budget is for over $100M.
California Fuel Cell Partnership calls for 46 retail hydrogen stations, will cost just $180m
California wants to spend $180M for 46 stations. They want to calculate 1000 cars per station, but IMHO they will be 10,000 vehicles by 2020. That means if they are right it will be $4K a vehicle, if I'm right it will be $20K per vehicle. There is no agreed upon standard for long term. Fueling stations may put low pressure hydrogen into hydride tanks, or may reform methanol, at which point this spending is a waste. No matter how few cars get made, they will declare it a victory, and say the lack of infrastructure is responsible for low sales, and ask for the next $5B tranche worth of stations. Once these PACs get entrenched in Congress, they keep sucking money out, especially if they can claim some fake environmentalism. Look at ethanol.

Wouldn't it be better to let Japan, Korea, and Germany be the test sites of these things. Fuel cells also get tested in fork lifts and busses. Until the tech gets cheap enough, there is no reason to start spending billions because of a mythical chicken and egg problem. Bring on the fc research, just don't ask the American taxpayer to subsidize these international megacorps toys. There is no payoff to building the stations here. The success of a 10,000 psi hydrogen fc is highly unlikely in the next decade. Even today hybrids, phev, and bev combined account for only about 3% of the market after only a decade of sales. Certainly if fc don't have a better selling proposition, building a huge infrastructure on the public dime is a waste.

 

It just takes up quite a bit of space. High pressure gas tanks have to be cylindercal. That and the bulk required for sufficient strength limits their installation possibilities compared to tanks for liquid fuels, like gasoline and methanol.

I'm sure the tanks will see a decent price break with mass production. Which is good, because they will have to be replaced down road. Not maybe, like a EV battery in which reduced range is still enough for the owner. They will have to be replaced as a safety precaution.

These a vessels holding flammable gas under high pressure. The materials in their construction do deteriorate with age. Replacement is required to reduce the risk of rupture. The shelf life of tanks in natural gas vehicles can be up to 15 years. The higher pressure hydrogen tanks might not be as long, but long enough for a single owner.

Between the tanks and the fuel cell, these expensive cars will have high depreciation.

 

That is true, until the tanks get big enough to need a bigger vehicle, hydrogen + tank won't add nearly the weight of batteries. The vehicle could simply increase its length to not increase drag. The tanks, though, do add cost and volume. With current technology these things are significant. That is why there is research into methanol and metal hydride storage. 10,000psi is a costly, heavy, bulky choice but it seems to be the best we can do in 2012. Methanol would provide the easiest fueling infrastructure and solve the tank problem, but requires an onboard methanol reformer. Metal hydrides show promise, and would give smaller tanks, as well as remove the necessity to pump the hydrogen up to high pressure. Honda went with 5,000 psi tanks because they were less expensive, but need larger volumes.

A phev seems the least expensive way to get range and electric miles. I would question if the added weight of batteries are really a problem in a car like the tesla S.

 

Chuckle...sure they were...or so you fit into your theory. "The people". Oh brother.

The criticism we see here and now, your criticism of hydrogen, is EXACTLY the same criticism we saw of hybrid technology when it was just getting started, it's too expensive, there's no infrastructure, the technology is not developed.

 

You seem quite ignorant of history and technology. If you follow the CARB record on the ZEV mandate, you will see quite clearly the hand of fuel cells against plug-in. We see the same players today. Some believe that the fuel cell proponents simply want to delay hv, phev, and bevs.

There has always been an infrastructure for phevs and hvs. The ZEV mandate originally prematurely favored BEV over hybrids and phevs. They could have simply set the emissions of nmog, CO, and NOx were low enough to help hybrids.

The criticism of building an infrastructure for BEVs in the late 90s was quite correct. They were too expensive and their was not a standard. If they had waited, perhaps the ev1s would not have been crushed in favor of fuel cells. Note that BEV infrastructure built more than a decade ago is not compatible with the current L2 standards. It turns out BEVs don't need a huge infrastructure after all, as some of the critics at the time said. The premature mandate then its cancellation likely slowed development. If 10,000 psi hydrogen infrastructure is built but the cars 10 years from now use metal hydrides or on board methanol reformation they will likewise be a waste. There is a playground for these cars in Japan, Germany, and Korea. I see no reason to repeat past mistakes. When the technical challenges are further along, it may be time to build infrastructure. Remember these cars were supposed to be in production by now. California also experimented with methanol cars in the 80s and 90s. They found that they needed 10% of stations to have the alternative fuel stations to get rid of driver anxiety. There was also problems with M100. These were solved by flex fuel cars that could run M0 - regular gasoline - and M85 - no invisible flame or cold start problems. M100 could likely fuel cars and fuel cells. The killing of the methanol program in california was both political - ethanol lobby - and temporary price of methanol versus cheap gas in the mid 90s. A flex fuel M85 phev, that could be mostly bio fuel and renewable is a strong alternative to fuel cells.

Doesn't it make sense to wait, instead of throwing money away, and diverting attention from hybrids and phevs? Your ignorance of technology makes your opinions hard to take..

 

Likely a matter of personal perspective and opinion.

You were the one who claimed those who think hydrogen is a good sustainable fuel technology to pursue were critical of hybrid development. There is not only no evidence of that but a case can be made that that viewpoint ignores history as the same people who push hydrogen, push hybrids and electric and solar and wind, wave etc.

That point of view also ignores the history that the same criticisms we see in this thread of hydrogen development we also heard about hybrid development previously.

 

You know if you don't read history or think you will find no evidence. Read the precedings of CARB. Read the slides from the fuel cell lobby. or GM at the time. GM and Ford have since come around and realize hybrids and plug-ins are the cars for today. Hydrogen is at least a decade away, even according to the proponents. The scenarios put out in 2002 and 2003 were much more rosy for fuel cells than they are today.

Can you site one legitimate source that said there was a need for an infrastructure for hybrids? Can you bring up that criticism that was the same, so that I can read it? CARB's criticism was hybrids have tailpipe emissions. hmmm. The CARB mandate and rules are still against hv and phev. You do realize all of us that are criticizing the level of government spending for fuel cell infrastructure do drive hybrids and/or plug ins.

One thing that could help with the infrastructure problem is home refueling but look at this convoluted attempt.

Honda drives toward home solar hydrogen refueling| Reuters
Yes you can make solar at home and turn it into hydrogen - or you can make solar at home and charge a plug-in and do it with 1/3 of the energy for the same miles. Which goes to anouther argument about the level of hydrogen funding. These things are going to be plug ins, which means shiting plug-in money to hydrogen is completely counter productive.

 

What's the source on it? Who are these fuel cell proponents that want HVs, PHVs and BEVs delayed?

Fuel cell vehicles are hybrids. The better and cheaper the battery, the better for fuel cell vehicles.

 

The auto lobby and CARB decided that the promise of fuel cells were better than the reality of plug-ins. I can try to go back and get the news from 2002 and 2003 if you would like, but here are more recent sumaries
Killing the Electric Car Again -- Part 1 | ThinkProgress

According to CARB they now expect less than 1400 FCV by 2014, and 53,000 by 2017. Many expect carb's survey of automakers to miss its new projections by as much as they missed the old ones.

Who Killed the Electric Car? Debate Rages On — Cleantech News and Analysis

​

Note the mandate gives 7 credits to a fuel cell vehicle that can go 300 miles. If you produce a leaf that goes (50-75miles) a short range you only get 2 credits. You get 3 credits for a Rav 4 ev that can go over 100 miles. Which means you need to sell 525 leafs or 350 Rav 4 EV or 150 fcv, that seems to favor fuel cells over electrics quite a bit. Plug ins that have ices get much less credit, in fact they can not be used for the gold requirement. It seems to me that if you have 4 prius phv, it will lead to a better environment then having 1 fuel cell. Phv's can not be used to satify the gold requirements.​

Exactly. Any r&d on phevs also improves fuel cells. The rules favor a manufacturer that just makes a few fuel cell cars over one that makes many plug-ins. Who made the rules? Lobbiests from the auto companies and people from carb. The carb chairman went on to work for the fuel cell lobby. The current carb mandate is changing again to favor fuel cells. Here you go with the current one.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/clean_cars/acc%20summary-final.pdf

 

Austin you are not being realistic here... it will cost them a LOT more to produce few fuel cell vehicles vs many EVs.

And any R&D on Fuel Cells also improves phevs, right?

 

Not sure if this is sarcasm or if you just missed Austin's point.
The rules benefit fuel cell tech disproportionately. The mandate is all about emmissions, not how much each car costs to make.
So for making the most impact, why favor the tech that will give you worse results?
Also, R&D on fuel cells will not help any PHEVs that don't use fuel cells.

 

no, mandate is there to promote development of green technology. It is much easier for manufacturers to offer EVs to satisfy mandate than to offer fuel cell vehicles. You can easily buy off the shelf EVs like Ford is doing to satisfy rules, yet you can not do the same with FCV.

Fuell Cells as in complete vehicles, use many, many of the same components as hybrids and phevs and as such many parts are interchangeable. All of them will be hybrids.

So you have same electric motor, same battery that goes in hybrids, phevs or EVs, in any Fuel Cell vehicle. So any investment in FCV also includes investing in parts that make hybrids, phevs and ev's.

 

The Ultimate Eco-car | TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION GLOBAL WEBSITE

 

+1

I just don't think he understands.

That sounds like your fantasy, unless you mean green as in government money.

Do you mean that BEVs and PHEVs are viable today for companies to manufacture and there is no need for massive government expenditures. We are in agreement. No reason for CARB to massively favor FCV over plug-ins if their goal was cleaner air in california - which is their job. The car companies have gotten the Japanese and American government to give them billions of dollars to satisfy these Fool Cell mandates, when other technology is viable.

NEDO and carb have both set unrealistic goals requiring massive government payments. When the car companies don't achieve the goal, they just set a new goal some years off.

All of the PHEV R&D goes to FCV. Fuel cell, hydrogen tank, hydrogen production technology, don't help phevs at all. In 2017 most analysts expect over a million plug-ins, CARB expects 50,000 FCV. Carb has always drastically overestimated these numbers, since all they do is ask car companies how many they will build. Does it make sense to heavily favor FC verus Plug-in for CARBs rules. One clue, the original fuel cell mandate was written by a carb chairman that went to work for the fuel cell lobby.

Just the opposite. FCV extra parts are not needed for plug ins. Green Car Congress: Nikkei: Japan gov’t to ease rules for building hydrogen stations in June, offer subsidies
NEDO is going to pay $250M-$750M just for 100 refueling stations in japan. Let Toyota and Honda test their pre-competition market cars there.

 

It's an assumption that fuel cell research also includes investment in the support systems. Government and grant funds might even have conditions preventing it.

The companies that are investing FCVs also have hybrid and, possibly, EV divisions. Take away the FC division and they won't stop development into electric motors or batteries.

Mazda has probably made the greatest strides in reducing vehicle weight in their available line up. They don't even have a hybrid. Reducing weight is a fundamental strategy for increasing vehicle efficiency. The flow is opposite of what you propose. A manufacturer is researching ways to reduce weight in their gassers, and use the tech developed there for their FCV.

Heck, Mazda had a hydrogen powered RX-8 ICE. Fuel cell development isn't even a precondition of hydrogen tank development.