Toyota to announce hydrogen fuel cell breakthrough

I don't know why a ice designed for hydrogen would be any more efficient than an ice designed for methanol. Unfortunately it takes a lot more energy to turn natural gas into liquid hydrogen than methanol. The low enegy level of compressed hydrogen means that you need liquid hydrogen in the ice.

MotorWave

Say we have a very efficient plant producing hydrogen at 80% efficiency and liquify it at a very efficient 70% efficiency then we will get 56% efficiency natural gas to hydrogen (although most of that energy will come from electricity, so if you want to create that electricity with natural gas you get anouther drop).

Methanol on the other hand is about 70% efficient conversion from natural gas.

[COLOR=#000000]It just makes no sense to run a liquid hydrogen ice vehicle, versus a methanol flex fuel ice vehicle other than politics. [/COLOR]

Methanol: An Alternative Transportation Fuel

Ford, GM, and VW will have methanol flex fuel vehicles running in china soon.

Now although liquid hydrogen does not make sense for ice vehicles versus the simpler methanol conversion, compress hydrogen, metal hydride stored hydrogen, or even methanol with conversion to hydrogen on board a vehicle may make sense in the future for fuel cell vehicles.

 

Definitely a lot of technical data on this forum, which also helps me grasp the specific details I'm looking for. I may have missed this, but what unique traits/features of Toyota's most recent FCV concept differentiate it from the basic mechanics of the FCEV?

 

I don't think there is anything in the drive train area. Or the details simply haven't been released.

The only difference I am aware of is in Hyundai's fuel cell. It doesn't require an air compressor to feed it air. So the system is quieter while having one less piece of equipment to potentially break and suck some efficiency from the system.

 

Green Car Congress: Hyundai to offer Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to LA-area retail customers in spring 2014; Honda, Toyota show latest FCV concepts targeting 2015 launch

There are 3 vehicles, the honda and toyota are very similar in specs. They have a 3kw/L fuel cells, 10,000 psi tanks made from carbon fiber, 100 kw+ fuel cell stacks, and a little over 300 miles in range. The toyota has a 21 kw nimh battery, the honda a lithium battery of probably a little more power. The honda has 5 seats, the toyota 4 seats. Neither company has firmed up pricing or efficiency. The previous clarity got 60 mpge, and its likely both of these may improve on it. From a drive line point of view the only difference I see is the battery, and that is a small difference.

The hyundai is different in driveline. They have been producing it for a year and has been on the road in korea and europe. It has a 100 kw motor similar to the other fcv and a 34 kw, 0.95kwh lithium polymer battery, and a 5.64 kg hydrogen tank. Differences are its a 5 seat cute ute based on the tuscon. Since this is heavier and less aerodynamic than the other two cars it has slower acceleration, approximately 12.5 seconds 0-60, versus prius like accelearion for the toyota fuel cell. Hyundai was able to remove the compressor from the stack, which should make it quieter, but the stack is only 1.65 kw/liter. They also have used extensive plastic in the hydrogen tanks which leaves them larger, but possibly less expensive to mass produce. Hyundai lease price is $2999 down plus $499/month which includes all fuel and maintenance. No clue on how much money they lose on each 3 year lease.

Why Toyota's fuel cell play is one big green gamble

 

I continue to get range of about 300 miles despite the cold and blasting the heater. The vehicle performed flawlessly.
​

What do you think? I am sure there is some hit due to the cold weather, which is why he said "about 300 miles". The point was, the hit isn't as much as BEVs. For BEV, the heat was left/lost at the power plants (along with emissions) and forced to consume the electricity dedicated for propulsion.

He did not provide details yet you are spewing out FUDs.

Here is my speculation. 431 miles (driver#1) was achieved in a single demonstration trip. "About 300 miles" (driver#2) is under normal daily use over months of use. That would include many short trips under various driving conditions.

 

No reason to fight here. Just use your common sense.

The offending statement was this. Ofcourse just like BEVs and all cars there will be reductions of driving range with fuel cell vehicles. Now again as I said in my initial and every reply, this is done by every car company, but it is plainly wrong. I also said they likely take less of a hit than a BEV. Until they test correctly we don't know, but they may lose more range than a phev.

You just said you agreed with me, how can it be fud? Facts should never be considered fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Since toyota is unlikely to even sell these things outside of california in the US, how could I be spreading fear. Fear that range drops in cold weather if you have a electric heater powered by a fuel cell, well that is likely to be a fact if the driver actually did turn it on in cold weather as he said.

Cool, so we agree here. Now can we also agree that the use of "real world" for the vehicle getting 68 mpge was also a misuse of the term real world. Its PR. They all do it. Until Toyota actually tests it and releases the figures we won't know, but I would guess the 4 seat fcv will get around that 68 mpge epa range, and the fchv-adv being much heavier and less aerodyamic would not come close. See not much to argue about. Only pointing out that we shouldn't expect 100 mpge in the new vehicle, nor should it be magic and be able to run heat or airconditioning and have exactly the same range.

 

It will be the first production Fuel Cell car, not SUV. The previous prototype was in the Highlander SUV body.

Honda Clarity is also a FC car but not sure when it'll go full production. They have not announce it yet, that I know of.

 

I am not fighting. Just helping you with reading comprehension.

That statement did not say FCV has ZERO cold weather penalty. It said, FCV stood up in cold weather and continued to get about 300 miles range.

We don't know when the driver refueled either. I doubt he waits until hydrogen runs out.

I have no time to research and correct your presumptuous understandings.

What I got from their PR announcement was that 431 miles was driven on the realworld road with traffic. It was in Highlander SUV body and the labs (not EPA) rated it as 68 MPGe.

Now, the production vehicle will be in a car body similar to Prius. They are shooting for about 300 miles range. I bet that would be EPA figure.

 

Or, possibly like most other American drivers, he only vaguely tracks fuel economy and range. How much rounding error in that 'about' is there? Basic rounding convention could put it between 250 to 349 miles.

Precisely, it is a single anecdotal report without hard data backing it. How much weight do you give to a fuel economy report for a car that starts with 'about'?

The 431 miles comes from a Toyota press release.
Toyota Fuel Cell Vehicle Demonstration Program Expands | Toyota
"In late 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, approached Toyota to participate in a collaborative evaluation of the real-world driving range of the FCHV-adv. When the range evaluation was completed in 2009, the FCHV-adv averaged the equivalent of 68 mpg and achieved an estimated range of 431 miles on a single fill of hydrogen compressed gas. To compare, that’s more than double the range of the Highlander Hybrid with zero emissions."

I brought it up because, even if ideal, it leaves a major gap between to the two that can't be explained away by just different commute.

No one is denying that a BEV takes a heavy hit to efficiency in winter weather. It is greater than an ICE would suffer. We are calling out this press release about FCEV winter range because it leaves the impression that a FCEV suffers no efficiency penalty in the cold. That is impossible. A fuel cell doesn't magically keep the lubes and grease in joints, bearings, and struts from becoming more viscous in the cold, the rubber of the tires from less pliable, or the density of the air the vehicle is going through higher.

 

It's car because Hyundai beat them with SUV in Sweden.

It didn't say it, but didn't mind leaving the impression.

I still get over 300 miles a tank in this weather with the Sonic. My fuel economy has dropped from 39mpg to 31 though.

It was driven between two California cities on a trip of about 330 miles, and the range estimated from what was left in the tank.

 

They have a fleet of ten FCHV-adv. I doubt these guys "testing" do not track numbers.

Refueling about 300 miles range in minutes and drives like an EV. That's the beauty of FCVs.

 

Austingreen did and he went berserk. He is tainted with EV bias. Very knowledgeable guy but he has a grouch against Toyota -- because they are not behind EV as much as he wants them to.

Anyway, here is FCHV-adv refueling in very cold weather, right after the snow storm.

 

As a business, I'm sure they do track miles, and Toyota could have provided the numbers. It is good news that FCEV can work in harsh winter weather. The early prototypes couldn't. Just don't use vague statements so a reader can infer they don't suffer any penalty in the cold, or back it up.

The beauty of a BEV is that it can shift to cleaner and/or better fuels for national security, and it can do so without any conversion or worry of potential damage.

Austingreen was just expounding on what I originally posted.

Toyota didn't have to, well, attack BEVs in the press release. The Leaf has been out for over three years now. Plenty of info out there for the interested buyer to know that BEVs take a hit in the cold. The reason they need more range than they do now isn't because people will actually drive them much farther in a day. It's to allow for some unplanned trips, and the range hit from the cold and heat.

So FCEVs have better range, refuel faster, and now are better in extreme cold than a BEV. The thing is these benefits don't matter until the refueling infrastructure is in place to take advantage of them. Until Toyota takes the steps to help move that along, then their upcoming FCEV is nothing more than a ZEV credit and government money grab. Fine, they don't think the plug in the future. If the fuel cell is, show more faith in and nurture it.

Charging a BEV takes longer, but I can be sitting in my warm house while it does so.

 

I love EVs because how quiet and torquey they are. If your electricity source is renewable (and cheap), nothing can beat it.

However, for majority of us, EV means running on fossil fuel (68%) and 2/3 of that energy is lost during generation and transmission. Renewable electricity makes up 12%. From well-to-wheel, EVs are not efficient. They sure get high MPGe due to EPA rating is only for vehicle operation.

You guys are attacking Toyota (and FCV) because they made one of the advantage of FCV over BEV, very clear. And you think Toyota is attaching BEV. I see you guys spreading FUDs about FCV in many of your posts. Why can't you be neutral and see the potential of it? I think these discussions are helping, compared to you guys' attitude last year.

I own a plugin car and I use both electricity and gas. If hydrogen is a cleaner path from well to wheel, I'll be driving a FCV in the future.

 

I'm attacking the press release because it was stepping over the line into propaganda. I know it is just a press release from the company, and shouldn't expect better, but I honestly wasn't aware that there was an overriding concern about FCEV running in cold weather(like they have in Southern Ca ). I hadn't even considered that a FCEV might have a range penalty in the range of a BEV up until then. I knew that water vapor exhaust was an issue in the past, but I didn't a company would start selling a car without it resolved.

I do see the potential of the fuel cell. It will be a great range extender to a plug in. I don't see an advantage to using liquid or high pressure gaseous hydrogen. It will be expensive to build out the infrastructure. That isn't FUD. A hydrogen line will simply cost more than a NG one. There really is no getting around that. Building smaller hydrogen reformers and using the NG lines might seem like an answer, but will they be efficient as a larger one? Are they as likely as the larger to have CO2 sequestering?

Why aren't the automakers supporting fuel cells doing more to get the infrastructure going? Tesla is rolling out their supercharger network, and it isn't even required to operate their cars. I don't think early gasoline automobile companies built networks of gas stations. Since it was an easy to transport liquid that was cheap and readily available before the car, they didn't have too. None of those apply to hydrogen.

What other FUD have we spread?
The compressed hydrogen tanks have shelf lives. No information has been released specifically for them, but CNG tanks for transportation do. The best type IV tanks now have a 20yr, maybe longer, shelf life from date of manufacture. The natural gas in them is easier to contain and held at a lower pressure than the hydrogen gas for a FCEV.

Liquid hydrogen tanks vent off gas, and will eventually run dry. Mostly true. Enough insulation and venting isn't needed to keep the hydrogen cool. A hydrogen fueled Prius used such a tank. It took up the entire hatch. BMW's hydrogen ICE car used venting. It would run dry in about a week parked.

Fuel cells have a limited life. Well they do. I just saw a brief article about one company having a cell that could last 300,000 miles. It wasn't Toyota. They and the others are mum about it for their vehicles. Listen, the fuel cell and tank very well may last the typical usable life of the car. But what then? Cars get sent to the scrapyard when the repairs are to costly. The FC stack and the tanks are pricy parts. A plug in will require a battery replacement at some point. It's just that battery prices are coming down, and refurbished packs are an option. Then the bad cells might still be good enough for other purposes. Can a fuel cell be refurbished? The tanks can't. Though a person could try getting used ones, or going with cheaper, lower pressure ones. Other wise it looks like a FCEV will have a shorter potential lifespan.


If it were a plug in, the FCEV's stack will have a longer life in terms of vehicle years, or just possibly allow a cheaper stack type.

It should be easy to convert a FCEV with a bed cell and old tanks into a BEV though.

 

Honda anounced a fuel cell car with almost the exact specs as the toyota fcv, after all the toyota press releases. It seems like all the toyota press releases pushed honda to release theres, instead of waiting to see if the gm patents they now share could help improve it. The differences are mainly styling and packaging. The honda seats 5 versus the toyota 4. Both havve 3kw/L stacks that have a condenser, at least 100 kw in power, carbon fiber 10,000 psi tanks carrying at least 5 kg, and range exceeding 300 miles. Neither has specified price for purchase or lease, nor efficiency in mpge. Both with availablity in 2015.

 

huh. 10 cars with a private fueling source (only 10 public chargers are listed in the country today, and 9 are in california, 1 in arizona). That doesn't really scale. AFAIK Toyota is not planning on selling this car outside of california, and when press they have said as much.

The rub against fuel cell vehicles is the cost and infrastrucure. People reviewing the toyota fcv have said it drives like a prius only better. It doen't sound like it is as refined as a volt or tesla. Certainly you could build a car like a tesla with fuel cells it just would cost much more than this initial release. The passenger compartment sounds quite volt like, perhaps you could make it better than a volt by just making the stack and motor bigger, and working on the suspension and braking. Who knows they may do this as test drives have only been prototypes.

The point was again this statement by toyota that you posted.

​

The press release wasn't to sell fuel cell cars outside of california, it was to say hey BEVs lose range unlike fcv, and they don't work in the cold. Now the tesla road trips seem to disprove the idea that they don't work in the cold. They do lose range, but so do fcv. I just wanted to point out how misleading the toyota PR person was in pointing that out. I also again will repeat all the car companies do it.
If you want to know how much tesla's lose in the cold they have a calculator
Your Questions Answered | Tesla Motors
The 80 kwh model is rated at 265 epa. Without heat at good conditions it should get
292 city/ 261 hwy@65mph now drop it to 0 degrees and put the heat on it drops to
188 city /198@65 mph
I would expect the leaf to follow but a little worse without liquid conditining, getting little less than 1/3 of the range of the tesla. How much of a hit would the fuel cell get? Who knows. Toyota implies no hit but we have no epa number, no range at any speed just fuzzy numbers of more than 300 miles.

I just pointed out how misleading the statement was. If you call that beserk, fine. Again the problem was pretending a bev could not do this. 3 teslas seemed to be able to travel cross country,in the snow and cold. I don't think you will even see a public hydrogen station in a snowy place before 2020. I don't know who thought they wouldn't technically be able to do it. The question is will anybody want to buy the fcv in the snowy places, how much will it cost, will there be infrastruture?

I really don't get why toyota is putting this crap out so often, but it would help if they reduced the frequency and pointed out what that have. That plug-in prius would also be able to be charged right in your garage, and fill up at any gas station. You seemed really mad at chevy for too much misleading volt pr. Toyota has been at PR for this fuel cell stuff for over a decade. The next press release should specify price and availability. Until then they seem to just be anti bev fluf.

+1

 

FREE ENERGY # 32-1 TOTALLY 100% OFF GRID HOUSE BY THE RENEWABLE ENERGY Part 1

 

Did you listen to that crazy man?

I watched half and don't understand advocacy of fuel cell cars. He seems to be producing hydrogen with electrolsys, then filling his fuel cell car, that can't get get refueled anywhere but home. I get that he gutted parts from fuel cell busses, but why convert to hydrogen and back. No problem with putting solar out, grid tying it and fueling your home and plug-in. Kind of crazy to produce hydrogen to run gas appliances instead of using gas, or electrical appliances with your solar.

 

Hyundai's fuel cell vehicle.
Hyundai Intrado Fuel Cell Concept: Live Photos From Geneva