Featured Toyota Believes Fuel Cell Prices Will Match Hybrids

Again, a fuel cell PHEV would have 1/10th the fuel cell and thus 1/10th the platinum, which could be as low as 1 gram per car. Calling the fuel cell stack a "platinum fuel stack" is disingenuous, like most of what you say, since almost the entire stack is made of materials other than platinum.

 

Thing I just read said Toyota was down to 30 grams a car. I didn't notice the date on the piece. That's still pretty low. A few grams of platinum to spare a few pounds of something else doesn't seem like a bad deal.

 

well - I always try to be genuous .... & in that same vein, it is well known that Toyota refuses to disclose exactly how much platinum it's fuel stack contains. wonder why? btw the smart auto folks that have investigated Toyota's fuel stack say it contains 30 grams .... a Herculean decrease in its own right ... but a far cry from one gram.
Bosch to drastically reduce platinum use in future fuel cells - Autoblog

Even so, if it ever becomes possible to decrease the Rare metal by 30x, there may be hope .... other than the cost of fuel of course.

hmmm - if only one could easily entertain the dark side ....

 

Batteries are big and hard to get to. So are fuel cells. Catalytic converters are stolen because of easy access.

So, to attain this level of efficiency in a car, we need install oversized fuel cell stacks.

The stack might be 60% efficient in that case, and you've traded fuel cell for more sucky battery. Add bulky hydrogen tanks, and packaging the car becomes an issue.

Nissan is using the small stack, big battery approach. They didn't add a plug yet. Their fuel cell also doesn't use hydrogen.

 

Haha haha Toyota!! What a bunch of dummies!!! That’s what Tesla Fan Boys would like you to Think! Toyota is on track and will grow as Hydrogen is being accepted in the coming years. Change takes time peps.

Hauling With Hydrogen: DHL Adding Fuel Cell Vans To Its Delivery Fleet

 

Good technical question... I am not sure why H2 is better vs. methane for cars. Some thoughts:

As @LeeJay mentioned, we know gasoline combustion is about 30-40% energy recovery in a car, and methane combustion would be about the same. So fuel cell gives better energy recovery to make electricity from H2, and electricity is efficient for running a car, as we know.

But H2 can also be made from coal gasification, and I think Japan is planning to import H2 from Australia. Also as mentioned above, other sources of H2 such as solar/electrolysis.

So why not use methane (eg; in Bloom Box) in a car fuel cell? I am guessing that does not fit in a car yet. Much industry R&D has been going on for other types of fuel cells (methanol etc)...I do not think that is feasible yet to go for use in autos. Lots of special interests (eg; ethanol fuel lobby) would like you to use their fuel in an auto fuel cell....so you don't have to worry...they will be first to tell you when they think they can compete with H2.

So why not just use electricity from a plug instead of make it from H2 FCV? Well, if the electric is made from fossil fuels, you are back to a combustion process which is 30-50% energy loss at the power plant. If your elecrtic is from renewable fine, but cars need one helluva lot of electrons, so you have the cost for solar/wind and transmission lines and all that, not to mention heavy batteries on the car which take space and you need extra elelctric just to move the batteries around town.

So making electric in-situ in the vehcile via H2 FCV has some obvious technical merits.

As far as FCV cheaper than Hybrids? Well, there is small matter of USA requirements safety which mandate $15000 to $20000 tank to hold the H2. That is part of the reason why nat gas vehciles made more sense overseas, you could just use a regular gas cylnder. In USA the Civic Nat Gas had about a $8000 tank if I recall for the nat gas, so guessing again, but the cost of the H2 FCV set-up is going to be country-regulation specific.

Also note when H2 is made from fossil fuels it is potentially quite low CO2, as a lot of the H2 is coming from splitting the water molecule (H2O). Also the CO2 made in H2 plant is 100% pure and easy to sequester to use for soft drinks etc, or pump it back in the ground. So possibly fossil H2 is carbon-free, but it is still an anathama for some to allow any future use of fossil fuels, so there is that emotion coming into play.

 

Or suicide.

Bob Wilson

 

No, as I've said about a dozen times in this thread, you need to use them in PHEVs.

 

Hmm the german government is paying DHL to add 100 hydrogen vans to their electric van fleet of more than 7500 bev street scooter vans. The van is manufactured by ford and street scooter (owned by dhl), I don't know who makes motors, fuel cells, hydrogen tanks. The battery packs in the bev version are made by bmw/samsung and benefit from sharing expense with the i3. Why not try hydrogen as an experiment, we can then directly compare maintenance, fuel cost, etc to see if governments should stop the hydrogen/fuel cell subsidies. Germany has already paid for the hydrogen infrastructure these vans need, and the stations are just sitting as stranded assets.

 

As a transition vehicle, what do you folks think of a multi-fuel vehicle? Maybe a small fuel cell, a slightly smaller-than-usual PHEV battery, and a small (motorcycle-sized?) ICE that runs primarily to recharge the battery?

Basically, I'm trying to think of a way to make something close to a BEV feasible for apartment dwellers without requiring landlords to install charging stations. If you had a small fuel cell that only needed to charge the battery over about 4 hours, and a small ICE driving a generator that had about the same capacity, you could have what's essentially a BEV that doesn't need to plug into the grid. I admit that running even a small ICE for several hours is not optimal for the environment, but it's the best I can come up with if you can't get to H2 for the fuel cell.

Thoughts?

 

Today the hydrogen tanks and fuel cell are much more expensive and heavier than a gas tank and engine. As stephen chu said in 2009 hydrogen needs some big technical innovations to bring cost down. Toyota is waving their hands and assuming the governments will make up the difference in price. Its a decade later and fuel cell vehicles are much further away than what fuel cell advocates claimed back then. Toyota was claiming 30,000 fcv per year just for itself by 2020, just a few years ago.

Nissan is experimenting with a small ethanol burning fuel cell in brazil in sort of the configuration you are talking about. I doubt it will be worthwhile without some of these innovations. Maybe in 10 years. Using ethanol or methanol gets rid of a lot of the cost of building fueling infrastructure for 10,000 psi hydrogen. A small ice (Say a 3 cylinder 1.5L version of toyota's dynamic force 2L engine) along with would easily made to be flex fuel including hydrogen, but making it run 10,000 psi hydrogen makes you carry bulky and expensive carbon fiber tanks. Hydrogen can easily be converted to methanol which california proved can burn fine in a flex fuel ice vehicle so if you want excess electricity and water to turn to hydrogen, you can probably more easily take electricity, water, and carbon dioxide to make methanol and fill fueling stations. I would say a phev methanol fuel cell vehicle is much more likely to be cost competitive than hydrogen if the cost of the fuel is taken into account.

 

Typically closer to the lower end - 35%.

Nuclear is in the 92% range, as these plants are not used for load following and typically run max capacity when operating. Plants used for load following have lower capacity factors depending on their cycle use. The average coal plant in the US has a capacity factor of 54% Hydro 43%, solar 24%, geothermal 77%, landfill 73%.

These are annual averages and they change with the seasons.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf

 

And that's one of the big down-sides to using nuclear.

Plants used for load following have lower capacity factors depending on their cycle use. The average coal plant in the US has a capacity factor of 54% Hydro 43%, solar 24%, geothermal 77%, landfill 73%.

These are annual averages and they change with the seasons.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf[/QUOTE]

The total generation for 2017 was 4,034,268,000MWh
The total capacity for 2017 was 1,151,619.2MW

4,034,268,000MWh/8760 hours per year = 460,533MW average.

460,533MW/1,151,619.2MW = 40% average capacity factor.

 

How is that a downside to nuclear? They run at 100% providing power when they aren't down for maintenance or refueling.

 

If we are starting with natural gas or methane, this is not a like comparison. Steam reforming is about 70% efficient. The fuel cells in currently available FCEVs are around 60%. The overall efficiency is a little better than the engine, but the difference is going to decrease once the higher energy requirements for transporting and refueling with hydrogen are accounted for.

Looking at it the other way, the 2015 CNG Civic has a 6% worse EPA rating than the Civic(though some of that is in the 5 speed auto to CVT difference). A Camry Hybrid LE's fuel economy rating would likely be 49mpg combined. The Mirai is rated 66mpge. Assuming best case reforming, and it gets 49 to 50 mpge for the same amount of natural gas.Compare Side-by-Side


Hydrogen FCEV does have a major emission advantage over natural gas. Car operation is zero, CNG is much cleaner than gasoline, but not zero, and the tiny bit of methane released when refueling CNG cars will quickly add up.

Other sources will be at an disadvantage compared to fossil fuel ones, and even if they become economically competitive, they don't address the infrastructure issue.

There are multiple fuel cell types. The ones in the Mirai, Clarity, and most FCEVs are PEM. The fuel needs to be pure hydrogen as the membranes can be easily poisoned. Plus, they use expensive catalysts. Using methane requires an autoreformer and likely some way of cleaning up the hydrogen.

Bloom boxes are solid oxide fuel cells. They run at high heat, but aren't sensitive to contaminates, don't use expensive materials, and reform methane right in the cell. Nissan uses a such a cell, but fuel it with ethanol. That requires an autoreformer, but the high heat of the cell lets it run more efficiently than it would in a PEM car. I have no idea how much space it takes up, but Nissan uses their 220 minivan as a test mule. There should be a car out for the 2020 Olympics.

I think methanol is simple enough to reform directly in a solid oxide cell. Most talk of methanol fuel cells are a PEM type. I think they showed potential for consumer goods, but batteries got cheaper.

The Model 3 is about the same size and weight as the Mirai. Its combined MPGe ranges from 116 to 133.
Investment in renewable electricity and the grid supports more than just cars and trucks. In fact, current renewable hydrogen requires it.
Hydrogen tanks are heavy and bulky. They are harder to package into a car than a battery. The Mirai's total volume is around 11 cubic feet less than the Model 3's, not counting the frunk.

A solid oxide cell with autoreformer has the potential to use other fuels, including gasoline and diesel. No need for high pressure tanks when the fuel is liquid. Get the majority of cars on the road to be plug in, and the public may except the higher cost of such liquid renewable fuels, regardless of whether it burns in an engine or fuel cell.

Another plus in its emission column. Plug ins just make better use of renewable electric, so such measures would be less needed.

I agree with this, but in order for your statement about fuel cells reaching 80% to apply to cars, the fuel cell needs to be oversized in order to run at that low load where the efficiency is reached, correct?

Where would the driver sit?
Dual fuel hydrogen cars have been made, and the same can be done for fuel cell ones, which would save some space, but that still leaves a fuel cell, battery, and two fuel systems, one of which is bulky hydrogen tanks, to pack into the frame of a car.

 

By the way, that's the fleet average, which includes all plants regardless of when they were installed. The average for installations 2014 and later is 42%.

Because they can't provide any grid services such as load following, spinning reserve, black start, etc.

 

That's a simplistic view.

If you're doing nothing but driving at 75MPH on the highway on flat ground, then yes. However, actual driving is much more variable and fuel cells would only drop into the 50s when at full load. The rest of the time, which is a lot even on long trips, they'd be higher. The average would thus be quite a bit above the stated full-load efficiency.

 

They aren't designed for this. They provide 100% baseload power, which every utility needs. Coal, natural gas, peakers, etc are used for load following.

Providing reliable baseload power with a high capacity factor and zero carbon emissions isn't a disadvantage.

 

Well, look at it from the other direction, then. What technology would be needed to come up with an off-the-grid capable, low-emission PHEV?

Ideally, it would be able to use multiple fuels to run the small on-board generator(s), which would be sized to fully charge the battery in ~4 hours. Power for moving the car would come either exclusively or primarily from the battery.

 

Yeah, it really is. Nuclear plants require a lot of grid services from other sources - much more than renewables do. That's one of many contributing factors making nuclear not economically competitive and one reason the number of nuclear plants is declining.

One of the biggest "fears" of grid operators is a large nuclear unit or whole plant tripping off-line and that requires them to be prepared for that if they have a lot of nuclear generation in their control area.