It's official Toyota is full speed fuel cells for compliance after 2014

You're no better than the Lexus professional liars (correction: "marketers" -ed.). Fuel cell cars have been impacted in multiple test crashes & they never blowup (or leak). Please don't spread inaccurate FUD.

 

You and I are in agreement that a CNG PHEV would make no sense.....way too much sacrifice of cargo and/or passenger space.

But that's not a vehicle I was talking about.
I was saying a (non-plug) CNG hybrid would compare favorably with a gasoline PHEV, in terms of sacrificed space and price premium.

The way I see it, we essentially have 4 generations of cars:

Gen I - standard gasoline and diesel cars
Gen II - hybrid gasoline and clean diesel cars
Gen III- use of alternative fuel (CNG or electricity) only for short daily driving; switches to gasoline, methanol, or diesel for longer trips
Gen IV - ditches reliance on gasoline/diesel infrastructure altogether: FCV, straight CNG, or BEV

We are currently moving from Gen II to Gen III. A dual-fuel vehicle -hybrid or not- with a small, CNG "saddle" tank is something we are starting to see in pickups, the Impala and hopefully soon others.

Do you have a breakdown of what the price premium consists of, which makes CNG vehicles more expensive? I have always thought it was the tanks, but I'm assuming the engine is also slightly more expensive (especially if it is optimized for 130 octane, which is a great idea). How much more expensive the engine is vs. a standard gasoline one.....I don't know.......but I'm assuming it is less than clean diesel since you don't need particulate traps or exhaust after-treatment.
Well, if one could avoid larger and/or carbon-fiber tanks, obviously costs should drop. I proposed a sphere (or oblate spheroid) of volume 4 gallons........because a sphere or oblate spheroid is the strongest shape, and so would require the cheapest materials.
Any idea what this could cost?
I'm starting to think most of the "CNG premium" cost is BS. Read this:
Natural-gas vehicles haven’t caught on yet. Could that ever change?

-- The cars could get much cheaper. "It's a lot cheaper to buy a natural gas vehicle in Europe," Levi writes. "[T]he natural gas version of the Volkswagon Passat, which can run on both natural gas and normal gasoline, costs only $3,700 more than the pure gasoline version. Researchers aren't sure what explains the disparity, but it makes a stunning difference: If natural gas vehicles in the United States were to cost as little as they do in Europe... a sensible U.S. consumer could expect to break even after only five years."

Can someone please explain why Europe, of all places, is able to produce these cars cheaper? I am not a conspiracy theorist, per se, but this makes me think something nefarious is afoot here

The Civic is not the best example. If you look at my post, that's why I compared the Accord PHEV and HEV. I was actually more conservative in my estimates. I assumed the larger batteries in the PHEV came entirely at the expense of the fuel tank (3.6 gallons), but actually the trunk loses 7 cubic feet also. See:
Compare Side-by-Side

There are .134 cubic feet in 1 gallon.......so 7 cubic feet would give us 52 gallons. Of course that is preposterous, but in my example, it just goes to show that there is PLENTY of room there.......and a CNG Hybrid Accord doesn't have to lose any trunk space (honestly, 9 cubic feet is ridiculous)

I think SUVs and pickup trucks are ideal for packaging spherical CNG tanks. Again, my intention is SMALL is BETTER........only need 'saddle tank' of maybe 4-8 gallons volume (1-2 gallons GGE) for daily driving needs

See:
Gas 2 | Bridging the gap between green heads and gear heads.

I posted that you could have either 16 gallon carbon-fiber or 4 gallon 'saddle-tank' plus 12 gallon gasoline tank. They take up the same amount of volume and give the same range.

 

I don't see the need for CNG at all. Just skip direct to Volt-style EVs and fuel cells.

In gen II you forgot about diesel hybrids (at least two models exist).

And if you think CNG==home fueling, that isn't really true. Most cars cannot be fueled at home for the same reason diesel cars cannot be run off home diesel (heating oil). Too dirty.

 

P.S. I looked at buying a Civic CNG, and then canceled the idea about an hour later. There are no fueling stations east of Vegas or north if Sacramento. I would basically be trapped on California.

It's even worse in the east where I would be okay driving round Pittsburgh and Baltimore, but could never travel between the two (no stations). That's why I called the CNG car a "city car". It's even more constrained than an electric.

 

More random thoughts:
-Why keep blaming Koch brothers for lack of CNG stations? My understanding is they could make a lot if money off natural gas (and would not oppose it). Sometimes I think liberals use the Kochs like parents use the boogeyman: "Beware son of the boogeyman coming to get you."

- Civic CNG rates are less clean _ than a Prius or Civic or Fusion or Jetta hybrid (greenercars.org). In fact the CNG is barely any cleaner than a Jetta TDI or Cruze TDI.

- Which brings me to my next point: Formerly dirty diesel freight trucks. I say "formerly" because all the new models have urea catalysts to neutralize the NOx & traps to capture soot. They are as clean as their CNG counterparts (as the Jetta TDI is almost as clean as the Civic CNG).

- Why spend a lot of money/energy switching freight trucks from diesel to CNG when the gain is only 0.001 fewer grams NOx per mile? (Or 1% cleaner using greenercars.org's score.)

 

Even with annual inspections, all these high pressure tanks will have to be eventually retired and replaced. That length of time for a CNG tank is 10 to 25 years from date of manufacture. It depends on the construction and materials used, and the tank cost increases with service life.

NG to methanol is the best way to use the NG as a fuel in the fleet. Existing cars can likely tolerate a M10, and the resulting costs to cars and infrastructure for M85 or even M100 is lower than that for CNG. Then the infrastructure is in place for when methanol fuel cells become available.

 

Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion, but, as they say 'facts are stubborn things".
Look, I'm all for the Volt and other PHEVs.....but to say we should skip CNG for the Volt takes quite a bit of chutzpah! I mean, here, I'll repeat my post:
A thought experiment:
- Take the battery out of the Chevy Volt.......it has a volume of about 17 gallons
- Leave behind only enough batteries for regen braking and idle stop
- Replace said battery with a 17 gallon, 10,000 psi carbon-fiber tank full of NG
This is roughly equal to 13 gallons gasoline, good for 390-520 miles @ 30-40mpg
Such a 'CNG Volt' would:
- Weigh less than the current Volt
- Cost less than the current Volt
- Re-fuel faster than the current Volt (CNG vs electricity)
- Have greater driving range than the current Volt, gasoline included
- Have lower emissions than grid-charged Volts in MOST parts of the country
- Not use foreign oil......EVER

As far as FCVs, you'd have to violate several laws of physics and economics to make the whole process more efficient than direct burn of NG.

Yes, that's true, thanks for pointing that out. I would call a diesel-hybrid a "Gen 2.5" or "Gen 2.75" technology.
There are others, as well. For example a flex-fuel E85-capable Gen I could be considered a "Gen 1.5"
i would make the distinction between a car that can merely run on on an alternative fuel, vs one that is optimized for it. Here is another example of a "Gen 2.5" technology:
New Fuel Economy Standards May Benefit Ethanol | Domestic Fuel

Not sure about that.....heating oil is chemically distinct from diesel, is not meant for transport fuel, so it is regulated to different standards. But, you CAN make your WVO or B100 out of soybeans, rapeseed, animal fat, or whatever feedstock!
I think the home CNG stations are able to dry & clean up line NG into fuel-quality.

We might be looking at different maps. See:


CNG Stations | Refueling | Prices | Map


I just ordered a F150 CNG today. My main concern is driving range, mainly since there are so few public stations, and a home station is not yet available. I don't want to go out of my way to fill up, so I'm configuring it for 650 miles or so of CNG range (plus it has gasoline).

What amount of range would you feel comfortable with? I suggested a hybrid Accord with 16 gallon carbon fiber tanks, holding 12 gasoline gallon equivalents. That's 600 miles. No CNG between Reno and Salt Lake City, a distance of 520 miles.....bit of a nail biter. But that car -or any midsize hybrid- could easily hold a 20 gallon tank good for 15 gasoline gallons equivalent, or a whopping 750 miles, or twice as long as the FCX Clarity.

It just feels funny to me to call a Civic CNG a "city car" when it has a 160 mile range (again, greater than any non-Tesla EV) and fills up in 5 minutes. If this is a "city car", then that would make the LEAF a "neighborhood car". It's only "more constrained" than Tesla-spec EVs.

See:
Gas 2 | Bridging the gap between green heads and gear heads.

 

Which is it? FOOL Cells or FUEL Cells...or are the words interchangeable?

 

have you enquired about MPG loss? Back in the day, our Ford econoline van dropped ~ 20% efficiency if configured to run both LP & gasoline, according to the equipment manufactures (plus I couldn't get smog check exempt certs). That was motive evough to dump the dual fuel notion. Maybe losses are less, modernly?
.

 

Or, in other words, about the expected life of an EV battery, or a standard car or engine by itself. On a volumetric basis, CF tanks are cheaper than Li-ion batteries, even after accounting for servicing

I like M85 because of its energy density compared to CNG (it's more comparable to LNG, but without need for cryogenic storage) and ability to run in older cars.

But....who will pay for all those methanol production facilities? Can you really say that it'll be cheaper than the home $500 CNG pump being built by Ford & Eaton? At least with CNG, the individual consumer pays for it, just like EV drivers do for an EVSE, whereas with methanol facilities, these companies are likely to turn to the taxpayer for assistance.

I'm glad you asked this. I put in the order for a F150 XL CNG yesterday that comes with the "CNG prep package". It rolls off the assembly line inKS City, and will be shipped to my local dealer here in Lincoln, who is in process of putting me in touch with the local people who will do the conversion. My main concerns are:
(1) range on CNG only, since I won't have a home pump. I need at least 450+ miles, just on CNG, plus gasoline backup
(2) This truck does a lot of highway driving, and is usually not used for towing or hauling. But, I have also heard of CNG power losses under load. The solution is concurrent use of the fuels in the combustion chamber, as opposed to consecutive use. There are a whole lot of dual-fuel technologies coming that can do this:
- diesel + gasoline
- ethanol + gasoline
- methanol + gasoline
- diesel + ethanol
- diesel + methanol
- CNG + diesel
- CNG + gasoline
etc., etc.

The basic concept is this:
You have your 'main fuel' and your 'main tank', and this can be gasoline or diesel, allowing you to travel anywhere.
This gasoline or diesel is then 'boosted' by small additions of an alternative fuel (CNG, methanol, ethanol) that is carried in a small 'saddle tank'. Under normal loads, the ratio of fuels burned is 10:1, i.e. you'll use 10 gallons of gasoline or diesel for every 1 gallon of alternative fuel. Under heavy load, that ratio could go to 50:50 for short periods. The 'boosting' allows extremely clean emissions and much more mpg in gasoline or diesel engines.

In practice, it could work like this: A dual-fuel hybrid Accord could carry 10 gallons gasoline and 10 gallons alternate fuel.
For every 5,000 miles travelled on gasoline, 500 miles was provided by the alternate fuel. Thus, when one is due for an oil change, the alternate fuel can be re-filled at the dealer at the same time, eliminating the need for fueling infrastructure.
A CNG diesel would work like this: A dual fuel hybrid Accord would again carry 10 gallons of diesel and 10 gallons of CNG. The CNG tank thus carries 2.5 gasoline gallon-equivalents. It is refueled daily at home. 90% of the fuel burned comes from CNG, the rest from diesel, which is necessary for combustion ignition. Daily driving on CNG, long trips on diesel. You would only need to visit a diesel station to re-fill it after 5,000 miles or so.
here are some interesting articles:
Swiss Researchers Make an 80-mpg Hybrid | MIT Technology Review
Reinventing the Gasoline Engine | MIT Technology Review
Ultra-Efficient Gas Engine Passes Test | MIT Technology Review
Natural Gas Could Partly Power Long-Haul Trucks and Trains | MIT Technology Review

I call these and all dual-fuel engine technologies "Gen x.25" or "Gen x.50" or "Gen x.75" since they just make the ICE more efficient and don't have much to do with the drivetrain. Of course, all of these engine technologies can be used in regular ICE, hybrid, or as range-extender for EREV.

As you can see, there are plenty of technologies & options for us to explore instead of the FCV distraction.

The question of "why spend money/energy" switching our trucks to LNG from diesel is obvious to me, and should be to most Americans.
It's not about .001 grams..........it's about the fact that the the diesel comes in large part from a source controlled by our 'friends' in OPEC and Putin's Russia. LNG, meanwhile comes from our friends in Pennsylvania and Texas.
There is more than 1 dimension to diversifying our energy needs........

 

Except a car with an aging engine or battery isn't legally required to have the part replaced. Perhaps the worn engine shouldn't be trusted on a trip away from home, but it is fine for day to day commuting. The battery no longer has full capacity, but the BEV still has enough range to meet regular use. Odds are that if they fail, it won't be in some dramatic fashion, and the person will just get stuck on the side of the road until help arrives.

High pressure gas tanks on the other hand have to be removed from service. This because, barring expensive testing that requires removing them from the vehicle, there is no way of inspecting them completelye inside for oxidation and microscopic cracks. They are likely engineered to not fail dramatically, but it is a bigger likely hood than with a battery or engine. Concerning the last two, a tire blowout has a bigger chance of ending in a crash.

A battery or engine finally gives up the ghost, and the car coasts to a stop. A CNG or hydrogen tank fails, and the best case is a leak of highly flammable gas. Worst is the high pressure cylinder exploding. So there is a difference between them. An owner can choose to push his luck with a battery or engine that should be repaired or replaced. The parts may even be perfectly fine despite their age. The fuel tanks have to be taken out of service once they hit their expiration date. Even if they are perfectly fine, saw little use, or even sat on a warehouse shelf for that time. It's a matter of public safety.

To bring this back to fuel cells. I haven't seen any published estimates on the tank lifespan, but they contain higher pressures and hydrogen is more corrosive than NG. So their lifespans will be shorter than a CNG tank.

Who's paying for all the ethanol plants right now? While there are government incentives, it is mostly companies investing in the hopes of making more money. Eliminate the corn ethanol mandate and install the open fuel standard, and there will be the same incentive for companies to make methanol plants. Perhaps even a larger one than for ethanol since those plants need to buy feedstock, and many gas and oil wells do flare off excess gas.

This will face the same issue that an EREV faces: fuel age. With gasoline, the concern is dropping octane and varnish build up. With diesel it's having summer blend in winter arrives and bacteria growth to clog things up. A solvable issue, but one that needs addressing.

 

With an old car engine, there is nothing that can prevent the owner from thrashing it, and thus causing it's failure.
I'm thinking that with BEVs and CNG cars, perhaps they could have a control system with software that restricts usage as the car ages? For example, I've heard that EV rapid DC charging done often enough (or done when the battery is still half full) can degrade pack life........also, deep-discharging or over-charging (e.g., driving and charging in "range-mode" in a Tesla) can also degrade life.
Well, what if the software restricted such practices as the car ages, to extend pack life? Or perhaps it could allow then, but pro-rate the warranty accordingly?
Similarly, with CNG vehicles perhaps the control software could limit PSI as the tank ages. Thus, after 5 years, it only allows 9,000 psi, after 10 years, only 8,000 psi and so on. The loss of range would be comparable to a BEV, and like BEVs, should be offset by greater # of public charging/fueling stations in coming years.

Yet another reason to back CNG and not H2!

Couldn't agree more. This should have been done years ago. Koch brothers can go to hell.

pressurized tanks? I think that's what the Volt does

What about a CNG car that switches to premium when it runs out? Wouldn't such an engine have an easier time running 130 octane? I don't think most people would mind premium gasoline if they only used it once in a blue moon like Volt owners.
IIRC, Ford's Ecoboost engines are ideally suited for running alt fuels/higher compression ratios. I think only thing holding us back is passage of OFS

 

You translated my double entendre' perfectly!

 

They decided? Put it this way -
Guns don't kill - it's the one behind the trigger. Similarly, it isn't the lobbyist greasing politicians' re-election war chest so that FC credits get jacked up high. It's the FC builder BEHIND the lobbyists. So in a way .... our purchasing dollars (which enable hair brained manufacturers) are acting to shoot ourselves in the foot.

.

 

austingreen:

Nathan is on the road right now, so let me start by sharing the latest interview with Jim Lentz that officially comments on the Tesla partnership.

Toyota moving away from EVs in favor of hydrogen fuel cells

We'll get back to you on the rest of your questions and determine what we're allowed to share. As you know, it's always tough to comment on future product plans and strategies but we try to keep PC informed as much as we can.

Best,
Erica Gartsbeyn
Prius Marketing & Communications Manager
Toyota USA

 

Traction batteries are considered dead for BEV use at 80% capacity. They can still have a long life in other uses. Likewise, the BEV owner can elect to just leave such a pack in the car if the reduced performance is acceptable. If a failure were to occur, the most likely bad outcome would getting stranded. More likely is that battery will be unable to charge after getting home. Power loss on the road could end in a crash, but such an occurance would be more controllable than a tire blow out.

A pressurized gas tank is like that tire. My wife's car needed new tires. We only put 5000 miles on it a year at most. So it had plenty of tread left. But lack of driving on them doesn't stop the effects of oxygen and UV light over time on them. The rubber was visibly cracking. The same is happening to these tanks.

The batteries have electronic monitoring of their condition, and there is communication between the protection circuitry and the charger. This controls the current to protect the battery and prevent overcharging. AFAIK, there is no such communication between a CNG tank and pump. It just works on the principle of high pressure gas flowing to low until the pressure equalizes, or the compressor senses a certain amount of back pressure. A damaged or overpressurized tire can cause some serious damage or even kill someone when it blows. These tanks are holding a magnitude more pressure than a tire.

A person pushing the limits of their BEVs battery life, or even an old beaters engine, are a tiny risk to the people around them. Using an old CNG tank puts everyone around them at risk. A leak is easy to handle, but a rupture is serious. SCUBA tanks hold 3000psi and can blow through a car door if they rupture. It's basic risk management for the expiration dates on CNG tanks.

We could put in systems like you suggest, but it isn't worth cost. I believe the average lifespan of a tank is 15 years, which is plenty for the life of most cars. By that time, other components could be expected to need replacement. The cost of a new tank should easily be covered by the fuel savings over those 10+ years. Most would probably opt for cheaper, shorter lifespan tanks on a personal vehicle also.

FCEVs likely won't have the cheaper fuel advantage to offset replacement tank cost. Or any lower cost advantage will be negated by the higher cost of the tank. then there is the possibly fuel cell replacement. Which is why I think they will be disposable cars.

The problems of old fuel aren't big, but they have to addressed. The Volt has shown it really isn't such a big deal with gasoline, but you mentioned diesel earlier. Bacteria growth can be countered by additives or larger, easy to change filters. Having summer blend in the tank when the first freeze hits could mean gelled fuel in the lines. The system will have to be heated for those areas with a winter. An easy way to drain out excess summer fuel in the fall would be cheaper, but not popular.