Toyota to announce hydrogen fuel cell breakthrough

Eeuuugghh. That's a car only it's mother could love!

 

I like how they arrange the two H2 tanks and retain 3 back seats. Toyota should do that too.

 

Remember Toyota had to copy the 4 seater Volt !

 

May not be possible with a metal frame, or more likely, a concept car doesn't have to rigidly adhere to safety standards.

 

Some sites like the looks, but I agree this is fugly. I can't say the i3 or leaf is pretty at all. What is wrong with these car designers.

Honda says they are doing it with the redesigned clarity.

Honda Worldwide | November 20, 2013 "Honda FCEV Concept Makes World Debut at Los Angeles International Auto Show"

Not that I think it really matters at this point. The big hydrogen 3, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai are fighting over a very small market right now, and likely lose more money with each additional car they will sell. There likely won't be enough fueling stations in California until 2018. Then ford, gm, mercedes, and bmw come into play if there is any demand at all just to get the credits. Toyota has plenty of time to resesign for a 3 person back seat if there is a market at all for small batteried fuel cell cars in North America or Europe.

China the second biggest market doesn't look interested in fuel cells at all. Hyundai is without competition in there home market of korea.

Honda and Toyota do compete in their home market. I have no idea if 4 seats versus 5 seats is important there. I've ridden the trains and cabs with groups of people, but have only been in a private car in japan with one or two. Then again that is a small sample.

 

Unless there's another post on this I couldn't find, I want an open discussion on the new hydrogen FCV recently unveiled by Toyota.. from what I've been reading, it's target MSRP is supposed to be just under the base Model S from Tesla, I'm assuming deliberately so. With this price point, does this really stand a chance now to be a viable success in the long run? Of course, lack of infrastructure,unknown fueling costs, efficient storage, etc?


iPhone ?

 

News has definitely come in since my last post in march. Back then we didn't know the japanese price only a target of 5 million yen stated in 2010 then the revision of maybe upto 10 million yen in 2012. The price is 7 million yen, just over $68K USD, around the price of the 60kwh tesla S before subsidies.

We also found out that METI, part of the Japanese government, is planning to give Toyota and Honda large subsidies to produce the cars. WSJ speculated that this would likely be around $20K USD per car, plus paying for 100 stations quickly with more than $3M/sation. METI has not picked a number yet, and we don't know if the same subsidy applies for the exported (California) as domestic (Japanese) fcvs. The doe just released new money for R&D to drop the price of renewable hydrogen.

California also just raised the state subsidy to $5000/fcv versus $2500 for cars like the tesla. CARB had attempted to remove the subsidy for tesla but it was reinstated. There is a $8000 federal subsidy expiring this year, that may be renewed. Califoria raised the zev credits for fcv to 26 per cars, and dropped the 85kwh tesla s to 4 credits.

Toyota in its safety waiver application stated it would sell no more than 2500 cars in each of its first 2 years. We have no idea if toyota will even sell any next year, but it will be less than 1000, their first run.

In the US by the end of 2015, honda, toyota, and hydundai combined will sell at most 3000 fcvs, tesla S sold 7400 just in the first six months of this year, and it was only the 4th best selling plug-in. No there isn't much hope in the short run for fcv to get anywhere near plug-in volumes in the US, and the US is around 40% of world wide volume.

In the long run, given the massive subsidies the Japanese plan to inject, I would not count them out, but we are talking about low volume for at least the next decade. Fuel cells are for 20 or 30 years out for most of us if at all. The infrastructure just won't be there unless the government pays for it.

 

Whether than compete against ea other, can FCVs and EVs coexist in the same market? And FCVs are EVs at heart, since the fuel cells only produce electricity for the traction battery, as opposed to propulsion like an ICE?


iPhone ?

 

I don't think there's going to be any problem coexisting.

 

I think they can coexist with the fuel cell as a range extender to a plug in. By the time a straight FCEV is possible for a personal vehicle, I believe the drawbacks of the BEV will be solved or the public as accepted that they worth the cost form the pros.

Supercharger networks aren't going to cut it for long haul freight and transport. There FCEVs may shine with the electrics for local use. It will be a long road considering just going to natural gas would give much of the benefits for much lower cost.

 

How about using a plentiful, relatively clean and easily accessible fuel for longer distances; petrol

A PHEV for longer runs and a BEV for those who wish to be restricted to 300 miles. And let's face it, most of us would fly or get the train if travelling that distance.

 

Sure, I don't see why they couldn't co-exist. Home owners probably would spring for the EV because they can recharge at home at their convenience. This has quite an impact on such things as privacy and security, since you don't have to worry about the many small things such as getting your credit card hacked or sniffed at a refueling station or worrying if your credit card is over limit or whether someone is watching what you purchase and just makes it generally hard to watch you period. For the control freaks all your "refueling" appears on one bill along with the house utility. If there is a storm coming, you can top off by simply walking over to the garage and plugging in without worrying about whether its pouring rain or snowing outside.

Are there negatives? Sure, you still have to worry about battery management since almost any BEV and PHEV manufacturer tells you to recharge just before you use it and not leave it fully charged for long periods of time. Technology hasn't quite caught up to BEVs, where by looking at your standard routine, your calendar, or even the weather the car would recharge based on these events. Like, hey there's a birthday coming up for your niece and it would recharge to the amount you would need on that day. Or there's a storm coming I'm recharging your car now in case the power goes out.

Apartment dwellers or home owners with garage availability problems might find the FCV better suited because they can refuel it at a station with the same regularity as an ICE car or a typical hybrid. Since Toyota replaces the ICE with the Hydrogen FC, it will act exactly like a standard Prius - all the power supplied by the fuel cell will be directed by MG1 towards MG2 or fed back to the traction battery. The only difference is there will be only MG2 available for propulsion and of course this will be quite seamless.

Negatives? Sure, you still have to worry about fuelling up at rather inconvenient times because you forgot during the weekend and its raining out or its windy and cold. Since Toyota doesn't have a great feel for pure EV cars (which the FCV is) you have to wonder, is MG2 going to make it feel more underpowered than your old Prius or more powerful like your neighbor's BMW i3, Tesla Model S, Dodge Charger with the Hemi, fill-in-the-blank? The absolute worse thing that Toyota can do at this point, IMHO, is build a $68K car that doesn't break 10 seconds for 0 to 60. And also there are still some big unknowns, like is it ok to leave it almost full or almost empty at the Phoenix or Minneapolis airport for the month long vacation? What exactly happens when it does run out of fuel? Does the fuelling nozzle ever freeze over? How about the refueling pump? Can you drive off with the fuel nozzle still attached? Or the many wonderful things I've seen people do on YouTube at a gas station.

 

Absolutely, they can co-exist. That doesn't mean the plug-in advocates that point out the misleading statements of the fuel cell lobby should be silenced. A realistic look at what fuel cells can do is important, when deciding tax payer money should be going to them. If its all METI and automaker cash, I don't have a problem with it, other than those misleading charts and youtube commercials.

For this generation the hyundai tucson fuel cell is 0-60 in about 12 seconds, the toyota fcv is around 10 seconds, we don't know about the clarity. We don't know toyota's american price after subsidies, but its likely to be much lower than $68K. The big inconvenience about refueling is you can only do it in a small area. No long trips as there simply won't be stations. This leads to range anxiety and filling up early.

Unless you have a hydrogen truck following you, there simply won't be stations, so no need to worry about leaving it parked in phoenix or Minneapolis, you simply can't drive there. If you run out of fuel, I am sure you need to be towed. I don't think any of weird refueling problems with happen in the limited stations planned for California for the next decade. Mainenance has been very expensive for fuel cell busses, but its likely mainenance is included in the toyota and honda as it is in the hyundai fuel cell.

 

The ICE for range extender will be viable for awhile yet.

Fuel cells have an upward battle. They are expensive, and the technology for ICEs and plug in batteries are also improving. I think FCEVs and BEVs could coexist, but I don't think they will. Simply because of the advancements of all the involved technologies.

Infrastructure issues aside, by the time a fuel cell is ready and affordable for personal vehicles, affordable BEVs will have longer more acceptable ranges. There will also be more hybrid, plugged or not, available to choose from. There will also be larger use of sustainable fuels for the ICEs by then.

With infrastructure concerns, hydrogen FCEVs become less likely. A methanol or natural gas FCEV can fuel up alongside ICEs that use the same fuels. Hydrogen ones will require their own stations. If the government is going to pay for those, why not also have the government pay for charging stations for people that can't plug in at home?

Don't get confused by the Hybrid Synergy Drive branding. Toyota's FCEV has one motor and will operate like everybodies elses' fuel cell car. Which is like an EV with the noise of the fuel cell stack.

 

I know natural gas in presently the primary hydrogen source for fuel cells, in the US at least... Would water electrolysis ever prove to be an effective and costly efficient alternative to procuring the necessary hydrogen??


iPhone ?

 

Perhaps using a fusion powered, generator. We have one that powers solar cells about half of each day.

Bob Wilson

 

The DOE's recently announced research funding for fuel cells was mostly into different ways of producing hydrogen and lower their costs.

Right now it looks like a hydrogen fuel cell will just shift the fleet from gasoline to natural gas. Which does have benefits, but without strict regulations requiring CO2 sequestering, improving green house gas emissions won't be one of them in the long run. Steam reformation of NG is just too cheap, that it will likely take a miracle for a sustainable hydrogen production method to be competative with it.

In the specific case of water electrolysis, such a miracle would likely include more efficient electric production. Which also keep charging a BEV more efficient than a FCEV per mile.

 

It currently takes about 52kWh using a PEM to electrolyze a kg of H2 according to DOE. There is research to get that down to 44kWh but they are talking 2020s. That cost does not include costs to compress and store. As stated above the availability of cheap natural gas is the largest impediment to seeing this improve anytime soon although there is research to support integrating over production of solar and/or wind power to produce H2.

 

+1

even at 44 kwh/gge, it still takes 3 kwh to compress and cool it, making 47 kwh.

If we think about $0.12/kwh of electricity this is $5.64/kg which is a lot more than gas costs. The merecededs b-class now has epa readings for both, 53 miles/kg for hydrogen, and 84 mpge electricity (worse than we expected). That means to go 100 miles that f-cell takes 88 kwh of electricty best case (today it takes around 65kwh/kg not 47kwh/kg for real world hydrogen), versus 40 kwh less than half of the energy of ideal hydrogen. The electric mercedes lease is also less expensive than the fuel cell mercedes lease.

We don't know mpge for the toyota fcv, but say it is 65 miles/kg and beats the honda claity 59 miles/kg by a good measure. The most efficient plug-in is the bmw i3 at 124 mpge. At 47 kwh per kg that toyota would take 72kwh versus 40 kwh for the b-cell and 27 kwh for the bmw i3.

That fuel cell mercedes will be about as efficient on hydrogen coming from natural gas if the natural gas is reformed at a large facility at the hydrogen pumped to the refueling stations with pipe lines as the electric mercedes will be on a mix of ccgt and ocgt natural gas from utillities including grid losses.

 

With NG so plentiful and cheap, relatively, in the States, it almost sounds as if just going straight to NG run vehicles, is a better option than the whole hydrogen/fuel cell route.


iPhone ?