Toyota plans to sell fuel cell car by 2015

Are govts not massivly invested into EV technology as well? Are you saying that FCV's got more money than EV's? I doubt that. Billions went into EV development in USA and what happened to it? Chinese bought bankrupt A123 (btw I said they stand no chance years ago, while you thought they were doing great), so all the tech that US paid for will transfer to the Chinese. Awesome.

Not to mention current subsidies for EV vehicles. Or money needed to build the infrastructure for recharging. Billions.

How many FCV's can 100 refuelling stations cover? A million? How many hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure changes are needed to get 1 million EVs supported? Whats the current cost of sufficient chargers for home? $2k? And thats just home charging use...

You are being very unrealistic about all of this right now and acting as if Governments around the world did not invest BILLIONS into EV, and will have to invest hundreds of billions more if we are to live in trully EV world.

Out of interest, what was your opinion of Prius in 2000? I bet you though GM had much better technology in Ecotec, lol.

 

Really you don't know which cars are being produced, or soon to be produced, because of the program? Volt, Leaf, c-max energi, Fusion energi, Tesla S, Fisker Karma, Rav 4 EV, Focus EV. It may have helped decisions on the prius phv, imev, and others.

More American money has gone for fuel cells, than plug-ins. More Japanese money has gone to Plug-ins than fuel cells. The original prius used the motors, batteries, and controllers developed from the japanese bev program. IMHO american investment in companies was too high, but this was mainly in batteries, a technology also necessary for fuel cell vehicles.

Again phevs don't need all this infrastructure. IMHO some is a waste.

According to CARB they need 1 hydrogen station for every 1000 cars, which would mean 100,000 if they are placed correctly. IMHO the odds of that are low, which means I expect that they will serve a much smaller number. Since most of texas gets wired by utilities, infrastructure just goes into the cost of electricity where I live. No billions of government dollars needed. Other states are different.

Who said I thought we needed a 100% EV world right away. It can grow organically from phevs. Tesla and NRG are likely to put up a number of L3s to see if people use them. Germany and Japan are much more aggressive than the US. If they want to quit gas completely fast, I say let them pay for the initial problems with fuel cells. IMHO it isn't viable for at least the next decade.

I didn't know about it until 2001. I thought it was a great idea but under powered. Toyota seemed to agree and added more power to the gen II. I owned a lexus GS at the time. Dad's company didn't sell to gm, so I didn't like them growing up. I've never owned a gm car, but I can respect the work that went into the volt.

 

There is a large degree of tunnel vision and provincialism in the criticism of government funding for hydrogen fueled economy. The ironic criticism from EV fans being the most obvious example. They seem to somehow feel threatened by the same government investment in hydrogen that we saw with EV and continue to see with EV. The long convoluted rationalizations are similar to what we see from the climate change deniers.

 

Here is the question. Say we have a 300 mile ever with a ice that kicks in afterwards and an 8 year warranty. This verus a 100 mile fuel cell vehicle that can only be refueled in LA. hmm. CARB says that first car gets no credit at all, but the fcv gets 4 gold points. That is more than a rav4 bev or tesla S with 60 kwh battery. Further CARB is saying we need to pay for all these hydrogen fueling stations, you know to get that 15 minute refuel time they have in their requirements. If a conversion company wants add a 300 mile battery to a hv like a prius, and you need to give it a 15 year warranty. It seems like CARB is definitely not neutral at all, they are against phevs. They greatly favor fcv over BEVs. That is my criticism. They worked to actively cut federal funding for phevs in the early 2000s, and actively fight to increase fcv funding. Its out of whack. It needs to be fixed. DOE has is happy to fund research for when the cars are ready, but the commercialization money is a huge waste.

Why does the senate comittee add more fuel cell money than the DOE or either house puts in. Its all about special interests. Then funding is cut from other parts. Level the playing field. Don't fund fcv much more than plug-ins. The numbers say no matter how much money we through at fcv in the next 5 years they aren't going to be viable. Why flush the money down the toilet. Let's test the stuff we have in japan, germany, and korea on their money, instead of in california.

California needs to take a look in the mirror and fix the anti phev regulations. Drop the warantee requirements, don't make conversion companies for phevs impossible to run. A small company like tesla can make plug-ins, only the mega autocompanies like gm, honda, and toyota can do fcv. Anyone can charge a plug-in with renewable. Most of the country couldn't buy renewable hydrogen at any price.

It is a shame you have been sucked in by the hydrogen hype, and worse that you spread its message. I have never criticised fcv as a technology, but when I legitimately criticize its commercial viability in the near term, you sick me with misleading arguments.

If we build a hydrogen highway today, the cars are not going to just show up. They are way too expensive. If they start showing up in numbers in japan and germany in quantities that matter we can take anouther look.

 

+1
The short version (answering EV'ers criticism of fcv's) is that it's evident straight battery tech is simpler - less costly (affordable NOW) for the shrinking middle class - with the basic infrastructure already in place. In fact, even if you plug in at work, for 9 hours @ 120v - you'll be able to drive home, even if you're up to 50ish miles away. The majority of commuters live less than half that far away from work. Couple that kind of simplicity with the knowledge that for each fcv research dollar (cars and/or infrastructure) that gets diverted to fcv's "always a bride-maid/never a bride" never comes to production history for that last 4+ decades ... well that's another dollar that slows down the much simpler EV development/range/affordability project. When the Titanic (dwindling petro fuel supplies) is going down, you use the quick and easy rafts that are already available (EV's) ... you don't start drawing up plans for the Queen Elizibeth II.
imo

 

I always get a chuckle when people talk about the lack of infrastructure for BEVs. I have an outlet in my garage. Spent about $150 to put it in. That is all the infrastructure I need. In addition, my next BEV will use the same plug, so that initial cost will be split over at least two cars.
Although I have used public chargers 3-4 times in two years, I have never needed one and would be just as happy without them.
If the Hydrogen fuel stations can be just as optional, awesome. I have a feeling that is not the case

 

Same failed argument made in US about EV cars and of course they did show up and Japan owns the market and technology. US has dying auto industry, China buying US battery mfgs while those "million dollar" cars sell for $20K.

The history of EV and hybrids provides a stark example of the backward and dysfunctional arguments used against hydrogen and fuel cell development in the US.

 

this is simply a LIE. Currently FCV gets peanuts and EV's get BILLIONS around the world.

I have no idea how can you say that. US has subsidies battery makers with $2.4 billion since 2010. Germany announced $800 millio program this year alone. All of them are paying for infrastructure and huge amounts per car.

What in the world are you talking about? Show me some proof that FCV is getting 1/10 of these subsidies from US government?!

Show me these $50k EV's that can do 400 miles? Where are they? Are you sure that by 2015, there will be $50k EVs that do 400 miles in large family sedan like what Toyota is proposing?

I guess next leaf will be 10k car then in 2015, and Volt will be 15k, right?

 

Its difficult to argue with you since you have your pants on fire.

You may remember freedom car. You may look and germany alone expects to spend over a $1B on hydrogen between 2007-2016. The EU is going to kick in more than another billion. You seem to have the inability to look up numbers beyond what toyota spoon feeds you. bah

You can look at the senate record over $100M a year. You can look at what it has cost or will cost. But what good will showing you proof do? You are a european. Why should I care what you think about our spending. You have your own sandbox funding hydrogen. I think its good eneough for you to test their.

First toyota doesn't have a $50K fcv. It hopes it will sell a limited number vehicles 3 years from now. It says it will get 700 km on jc08. We have no idea what it will cost them, but it would cost them over 100,000 euros today. They are going to sell a limited number at a loss. Stick with facts. I never said there was a 400 mile ev, but the tesla 85kwh version would likely get over 700km on that weak jc08 test.

Why are your pants still on fire. You should put them out.

Nope you still keep lighting those suckers. I have no idea what the next generation leaf will cost. Do you? Do you realize that toyota has been talking about this magic car since 2009? They have a few fchv adv running in japan and california. Maybe they will make something, but they aren't going to sell leaf or even tesla numbers. Give me a break. And put your pants out. Concentrate on subsidies of your fuel cells in europe. Leave us alone.

If a volt is $35K and can travel anywhere and the fcv-r is $50K and can only drive in parts of california? How many people do you think will buy volts, leafs, phvs, energis, and teslas versus a fcv-r? Currently there are tens of thousands of plug-in vehicles in the US, and hundreds of fuel cell vehicles. Fuel cell vehicles were supposed to be selling in the thousands per year by now. Until they show that they won't be such a complete failure, I think the $100+ Million a year we waste on the program is more than enough.

 

Austin,

you are wrong, so I dont know what are you talking about anymore.

European governments are spending massive money on EV's... Massive. I tried searching for the info on hydrogen subsidies and anything that I could find was nowhere as big as their EV grants.

So I have no idea about this big bad hydrogen industry that is influencing legislation when all this govts are investing into EV and not hydrogen.

If anything, you can talk about big EV trying to push down hydrogen.

I just read yesterday how Portugal has installed 1600 EV charging stations and in past few years only 300 EV's were sold in Portugal, total.

But yay, big bad hydrogen industry is killing us.

 

you really think so? I duno how ... with the EU unraveling at the seams - ah la Greece - ah la EU country's unfunded /yet100% retirement pay expected etc etc. The EU is bleeding money, &the U.S. isn't far behind. These billion $ science projects are the first to be cut when push comes to shove. The next 10 year " just wait and see" hydrogen time frame simply can't come about due to money constraints. I just wish hydrogen could have gotten the axe voluntarily rather than by out of economic necessity.

 

At least you may have a tiny bit of hope. You said I was wrong this time, not a lier.

Will Germany Become First Nation with a Hydrogen Economy?: Scientific American

So less than $1B/year, I would say that is still a lot of money especially when you consider the costs per vehicle. When the US was spending more, california mandated 25,000 fcv in 2012-2014. There will only be hundreds. Then that got dropped completely to they hope their will be 50,000 in 2017.

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European numbers - 2008-2017
970,000,000 euros.

German direct numbers are an additional $1B. That seems like a lot of money. In california CARB this year moved the plan to say the stations needed to be built even if there are only 10,000 vehicles promised by the automakers, the old rule was 20,000 because we were supposed to have over 20,000 by 2014,now no one knows if and when these cars will come on line.

Germany recently has added much more money for electrification, and this is because real phevs and bevs are being built. Again on a euro per car basis the hydrogen funding is much higher than the promise.

Not at all. The hydrogen cars simply are more expensive than they were supposed to be at this time. This means there is no reason to build thousands of fueling stations. Europe, Japan, and Korea are building plenty of stations to test the cars.

That seems like a waste to me. If the charging stations cost 4000 euros each, then that 6,400,000 euros. Its a lot of money to waste, since those evs probably don't need it. Isn't it 1450 with many planned and not installed yet, and the funding coming from Renault/Nissan? Still it is much less than if they built a bunch of hydrogen stations also.

huh? hydrogen is a promise, that seems unfulfilled. When you hype it up, it is more of a false promise. Just because Portugal might have wasted part of 6 million euros on car chargers, does not mean the US should waste hundreds of billions on hydrogen. When do you think there will be 300 fuel cell vehicles in Portugal?

 

Well lookie lookie what just pulled out in front of me yesterday on my way home :



This was near the border of Irvine & Newport Beach. I got the driver to roll down his window. I ask him, " how much does it cost?". His response was, " you don't want to know ". Wow I was shocked that I got an honest answer.

 

You would have gotten the same answer from the driver of the Prius prototypes.

 

i think it is $500k per car for these initial prototypes...

 

it is unbelievable how stubborn people can be

I bet 90% of these people though Ecotec engines will be enough and that there is no need for Prius when GM has this great cheaper technology, with almost the same mpg, back in 1995.

 

No, they thought the Prius was a great first step.

Hydrogen requires a huge investment in fueling infrastructure. Which, with the ongoing research, can be made obsolete in ten years.

The hydrogen has to be made. Right now it comes from natural gas, a limited resource. It is greatly cheaper to convert vehicles to run on NG directly than make a fuel cell car. There is already a pipeline network fueling infrastructure in place. Fuel cells are more efficient, but you can have the NG converted onboard for the cell, and not have spend millions on hydrogen stations that might only see a few cars.

We could just convert the natural gas into methane and displace a portion of the gasoline burned in the millions of cars on the road already.

To be truly green, the hydrogen needs to made by hydrolysis with renewable electricity. But we can get 4 times as many miles traveled using that electricity in BEVs.

We aren't being stubborn. We are being realistic. Toyota's FHC is going to cost $10,000 than a Volt. Not only cheaper, the Volt will be able to leave California. The FHC has to wait for the refueling stations to be built, if ever, before it can say that. Even a BEV, with planning and patience, can leave Ca. without the need of infrastucture being built.

So while intriguing, fuel cell cars still have many technical obstacles. Japan and Germany are already going to built some infrastructure for real world testing. Not wanting to spend money on repeat beta testing does not make one stubborn.

 

[quote="Trollbait, post: 1637683, member: 12239" Hydrogen requires a huge investment in fueling infrastructure.[/quote]

Kind of like gasoline when transportation quickly shifted.

Kind of like the existing hydrogen infrastructure where only gasoline tankers outnumber liquified gas tankers on the highways.

Kind of like the $1t per year gasoline use has cost the US over the last 30 years with $500B to oil import tax and $500B in military costs to fight oil wars.

 

Gasoline was available at hardware stores as a cheap solvent and paint thinner. The reason it beat out other fuels like alcohol during the early days of the automobile was because it was cheap and plentiful. Petroleum was first drilled to replace whale oil. There were several fractions with no real use at that time, and were essentially waste. Gasoline was one of them.

Hydrogen has to be made.

Natural gas is closer to the early days of gasoline for the analogy. It's cheap, plentiful, and there is already a community of users showing how it can be done.

Hydrogen fuel in the current form is being forced on us. Fuel cells can be made to run on natural gas. Then there wouldn't by a need for hydrogen stations. We could just expand the network of NG stations, and, whether or not fuel cells succeed, they can also serve NG ICEs.

Gasoline is only trucked for the last leg to the station. The bulk of its miles from the refinery is through a pipe. Liquid hydrogen on the other hand needs to be trucked from the factory. What do the trucks the burn?

There is already a pipeline infrastructure for natural gas.

That's why I support BEVs and PHVs. Why I think biofuels, mainly biodiesel, are important.

I personally believe the natural gas network should be expanded to get the north east and other areas off oil heat first, but it can be converted into methanol to displace some of the gasoline burned.

 

Hydrogen is available now in a huge commercial gas production and distribution network. So, using your gasoline analogy, hydrogen is much farther advanced than gasoline when it became the dominant transportation fuel.