Toyota plans to sell fuel cell car by 2015

well what i have read so far is that it would pay off eventually to have hydrogen produced at wind/solar farms, with pipe range of 500 miles at not too much of the cost.

Plus of course the cheapest being reforming natural gas, which has wide distribution everywhere.

Main link that is missing right now is consumer orientated product. What they have is industry products, like forklifts and power generators.

According to all major manufacturers, like VW and Ford, it is not question if IF but of When... When Toyota introduces $50k 400 mile range FCHV, I dont see how EVs will have future without some groundbreaking new developments, which are not on horizon right now.

Hyundai also plans to have its fuel cell in 2015 and concidentally, both Japan and Korea are among 95% of world hydrogen usage, including US and Germany. All are countries that are importing large amounts of energy and see hydrogen as their way out.

I see no sense as putting hydrogen down as fuel resource making up some conspiracy theory when it is clear even with Toyota presentations that main goal of hydrogen is long range and heavy truck use, both of which will never be feasable with battery technology as we know it now.

Knowing that it is actually big trucks that create most pollution and oil usage, and that there is no other technology now that can fuel those trucks, i dont see how can you NOT be supporter of hydrogen.

 

Are they making the mistake of of confusing energy with fuel? Hydrogen may be a fuel, it is NOT a form of energy (with what we have, for anything short of fusion).

Seen an electric train recently? Try in Europe or Asia.

 

electric trains are going to replace trucks? You will have train going to every house, every store? My city has one of the biggest electric tram networks in the world, and we have many trucks/cars going everywhere.

And btw, train networks are really expensive to build, Europe has pumped billions in theirs and nothing happened.

 

A volume issue not a feasibility issue. The fact that large production and distribution industrial base exists for hydrogen is the point. Building that out is a straightforward process.

Replacing gasoline with hydrogen, an excellent transportation fuel which can be completely carbon free in production and use is the goal. No other fuel can replace fossil fuel liquids for transportation except hydrogen.

With US paying a $1T a year penalty for using fossil fuels for transportation it is time to start that conversion.

 

Actually something did happen. Europe is 50% more energy efficient than the US. Had US followed Europe's lead with train transportation, fuel taxes US would not be losing $1T a year to oil import trade deficit tax and military costs to secure oil.

China, building for the future, is building a huge high speed train and urban commuter network as it is the most efficient way to transport the most people.

 

Sure. Of course, they don't go to every house, short distance trucks are used for that (just like they are now), but since they are local the objection to them being EV is removed.

Since this is the alternative to maintaining long distance highways at truck levels, replacing every single truck with a hydrogen version, and putting up a huge hydrogen infrastructure, billions on trains seem a bargain.

 

But the energy losses of making the hydrogen means that you could have powered 4 BEVs to every FCV you fuel up.

Yes, but why limit the future vehicle fleet by building hydrogen fueling stations? Fuel cells can reform the natural gas themselves. There are home power units that do so on the market now. So instead of buliding hydrogen stations. Lets build CNG stations that can service both FCV and CNG ICEs/hybrids.

CNG, LP, and battery still dominate the forklift market.

How about the $10,000 to $20,000 price advantage a BEV will have over a FCV? As long as hydrogen is the only fuel considered for fuel cells, the lack of retail distribution is going to greatly retard the adoption of FCVs through out the country.

The majority of people willing to lay out $50k for a car have a garage. Every garage has an outlet. Level 2 chargers are $2000 on the high end. Maybe $500 for profession installation. Likely still ahead on the BEV versus the FCV cash wise.

Need to go beyond the BEV range sometimes. Get a plug in, and be able to go places a FCV can't.

Only if they listen to the lobbyists. Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It is just an energy carrier like a battery. For a majority of uses, it is more efficient, energy, economically, or both, to use the energy or basestock directly than convert it to hydrogen.

This is first I've heard of hydrogen use for trucking. The graphs presented earlier have hydrogen being used for mid range uses, not intrastate trucking. Considering the price of big rigs, they are probably the only vehicle to sell with a fuel cell without subsidy, and they have the space for the fuel tanks. Again, why does it have to be hydrogen? Expand the CNG network for rigs. Existing trucks can be converted over to CNG.

If the policy goal is to reduce trucking pollution, there is more bang for the buck expanding the CNG stations and converting trucks than waiting for the slow uptake of hydrogen fuel cell trucks to replace the diesels. If nat. gas powered fuel cells are better than the CNG ICE/hybrids, then they will succeed.

 

A price of $50k won't mean they're breaking even on it. I very much doubt they're are.

You seem to have a narrow vision of EVs. You're forgotting PHEVs. You can buy PHEVs for less than $40k (and the price is dropping) that significant reduce the number of miles traveled on gasoline and get good gasoline mileage (because they're hybrids). Or, depending on needs you can get a BEV, do more electric miles and rent a gasoline vehicle when you need one. If you're a two-car household you can pair them.

If batteries continue to get cheaper the economies of PEVs improve.
If batteries continue to get more energy dense (see 2013 Volt) the economics of PEVs improve.
If solar panels continue to get cheaper and more efficient the economics of PEVs improve.

People don't oppose hydrogen. It's just that it'll take significant technological breakthroughs to make it valuable in transportation. Until it can beat electrification, natural and gas and biofuels it's still just a research project.

 

The picken's plan for large trucks is for lng. CNG and 10,000 psi hydrogen require tanks too big for the market. lng only requires about 1/3 the tank size as liquid hydrogen, and it stays a liquid at much higher temperatures. I don't know that fuel cells are much more efficient than a turbo-charged engine. You should be able to approach 50% efficiency on that lng in a specially designed truck engine on the highway.


Sometimes the marketing departments don't understand the technical challenges. M85 is also an option to use the natural gas as a liquid fuel in a methanol blend.

 

So we should all use EVs to get us out of fossil fuel usage, but when it comes to trucks then we should do everything we can just not to use hydrogen... because hydrogen is evil apparently.

Why the heck use EV's then when you can just use LPG, like parts of Europe do? Its a lot cheaper and probably even cleaner right now than EVs.

As to the fuel cells efficiency, so far they seem at least 2x more efficient than most efficient petrol engines, as FCHV is rated at 74mpg, and it is old school Highlander.

 

We should whatever makes the most sense. Why do you think that is hydrogen in trucks?

IMO long distance cargo should be done with trains.

 

Who said that? No one that has thought about it has proposed hydrogen for long haul trucking. Can you find me one proposal? You need either much larger tanks or many more stops. The efficiency of liquifying natural gas and using it in an engine on the highway should be similar but likely beter to the efficiency of converting ng to hydorgen, liquifying it then using it on fuel cells. Do you have numbers that disagree? The person that put that slide together simply made a mistake, because they had no technical knowledge. The fuel tanks for lng will be smaller and the fueling infrastructure and trucks less expensive than liquid hydrogen fuel cell trucks.

Now a plug-in hybrid or hydraulic hybrid truck makes a lot of sense, and that can add to the efficiency of a diesel or natural gas engine. BEV long haul trucking again, no sense. No one here has mentioned that. Moving some of the freight from trucks to trains does make sense if fuel prices get higher.

If your question is why not do cng or lng instead of hydrogen, I completely agree in most cases. But you seem to be arguing that trucks should use hydrogen instead of diesel, lng, or M85.

LPG is a petroleum product and tied to the price of oil. In the US LPG is more expensive than electricity, but europe because of taxes may be different. You don't see many lpg vehicles in the US because CARB has not set regulations for lpg. This may make conversions illegal in CARB states. There are regulations for cng and lng, which means you can do legal conversions. Local lpg price here are $3 versus $3.60 for gasoline, but lpg does not have transportation taxes. Is generally not used in transportaion here, but there is infrastructure, especially 9-5 at many uhaul locations. Electricity, natural gas, and methanol, are all better fuels than gasoline.

that 74 mpg is not on any epa test, you need to compare like to like. The clarity is the highest one tested and it is at 60 mpge, which is slightly higher than the prius. If we are driving the prius phv 25% on electricity it will get 57 mpge. I do not feel the clarity gives a huge gain in efficiency. Find the same test cycle as you get on the fchv 74 mpg, and look at the link below, the prius phv will be over 130 mpg. Will the toyota fc vehicle be twice as efficient as a ford fusion energi or a prius phv? There is absolutely no way for that to be remotely true. Toyota has clearly stated they will release a fuel cell sedan and the fchv-adv just used the highlander as a test mule. Hyundai will produce a fuel cell SUV, but again these will not be twice as efficient as plug-ins.

Toyota FUEL-FRUGAL PRIUS PLUG-IN HYBRID A FIRST-TIME WINNER IN THE RAC FUTURE CAR CHALLENGE - 3D Car Shows

 

No, it is impractical.

1) The majority of hydrogen is made from natural gas. Once the conversion losses are factored in, there appears to be no advantage over just burning the natural gas directly in a vehicle.

2) Its low volumetric energy density and physical properties, make long distance transport more expensive than other fuels.

3) Affordable, smaller scale reforming facilities don't exist yet to allow less centralized production.

4) The fuel tanks for vehicles are heavy, bulky, and expensive. To get the range it has, the Highlander FCV has four tanks. Each tank costs $2000 to $2500 each. Maybe $1000 a tank is possible with mass production. CNG tanks have expiration dates because wear and damage that may lead to rupture and explosion aren't discernable to visible inspection. Hydrogen tanks are at a higher pressure than CNG, so they will have a expiration date too.

Between the fuel cell and tank replacement, these costly cars are going to have a horrendous resale value.

Liquid hydrogen tanks likely won't have an expiration date, but they vent. So fuel you bought just disappears. Possibly in as little as a week. Ventless is possible but the required insulation makes the tanks massive in space requirements.

 

But does not need to be so totally irrelevant. Strike one.

Not after it is compressed and liquified. Strike two

"Yet" being the operative word, same could have been said for gasoline refining before cars burned gasoline. But, like gasoline, we actually want larger scale facilities and centralized production. Foul ball.

But not as heavy, bulky or expensive as...ta da...batteries. Strike three.

 

My points were on why hydrogen is impratical as a transportation fuel.{sigh}

It's made from natural gas now because it is the cheapest and most efficient way to go. It's not irrelevant if the easiest path doesn't gain over or even loses out to using the feedstock(nat. gas) directly. The other methods of making it are more costly in energy. They make hydrogen even less practical.

Since no one ships uncompressed hydrogen, which would be only slightly cheaper in return than shipping sailboat fuel, my point was with that considered.

Only the oil and gas companies want centralized production to continue holding their power. They understand the hurdles of long distance transport of hydrogen though. So they and others take taxpayer money to develop cheaper small scale plants.

You do know that a FCV has a heavy battery in addition to these tanks, right?

Like the a gasoline fuel tank, battery cells and stacks can be arranged by the engineers and designers to best fit in the car. Note the T-pack in the Volt and flat pack of the Leaf. On the other hand, hydrogen tanks have the physics of high pressure gases dictating their shape to a sphere or cylinder. This makes them bulkier than equivalent sized batteries and liquid fuel tanks.

The only reason to replace a battery in a hybrid or BEV is do to loss in capacity. If the loss in range and fuel economy is acceptable to the owner, then they don't have to replace it. When needed, or desired, replacing the entire battery isn't a necessity. Only the bad stacks and cells need to be replaced. When the expiration date is reached on a hydrogen tank, you legally have too replace it regardless of what condition it is in.

 

And you were shown to be wrong on every point.

 

Only if you ignore reality.

 

It's more a case of the Honda FCX Clarity Hydrogen fuel cell car on the road in an LA test fleet proving all your opinions wrong with their wheels and filling stations on the ground.

Honda FCX Clarity Overview - Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle - Site

 

Proximal, if you want to be a proponent of hydrogen cars, that is great. It would be far more effective if you read the links yoiu post though.

On that page it describes how the Clarity uses a lithium ion battery pack to suppliment the power from the fuel cells. It doesn't go into detail about the relative sizes other than it fits under the rear seat.

 

How much did those filling stations cost?
Who paid for those stations?
The Clarity is limited to Southern California now. How much will it cost for filling stations for it to reach Northern California?
California already has a Hydrogen distribution network. How much more will it cost to keep stations outside of that network in hydrogen?
How much does it cost to fill a Clarity (Honda won't answer that)?
What does this post have to do with the traction batteries all FCVs need in order to operate in expected consumer performance?

Beyond the two lines, any response to the rest of my post?