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

Let me quote Lentz from the article:

Because hydrogen fuel cells are cheaper on a cost-per-vehicle basis and are more efficient on a well-to-wheel basis, Toyota has turned away from a 20-year effort to create a viable battery-electric vehicle.

This is a shameful, bald-faced LIE, and I am being polite. Does Mr. Lentz have any numbers to back up such an audacious assertion?
We here at PC, along with numerous other entities, have completely DEBUNKED the notion that you can get more emissions reductions per dollar with FC & H2:
(1) Direct-burn of NG via LNG, CNG would mean lower infrastructure costs and easier transition versus central NG->H2 reforming and delivering to FCV. PERIOD. There is NO dispute on this
(2) Sending Electricity to an EV battery is SEVERAL TIMES more efficient than using it to split water to get H2, and delivering it to a station and on to a FCV. PERIOD. There is NO dispute on this

Lentz said the deal, through which Toyota agreed to buy Tesla components for 2,600 RAV4 EVs over three years, “was never about open-ended volume. It was time to either continue or stop. My personal feeling was that I would rather invest my dollars in fuel cell development than in another 2,500 EVs.

Isn't it better to make decisions based on physics and a good grounding in energy economics, instead of "personal feelings"??

At a time when EV maker Tesla Motors is the darling of Wall Street, Jim Lentz, CEO of Toyota’s North American region, said Toyota sees battery-electric vehicles as viable only in “a select way, in short-range vehicles that take you that extra mile, from the office to the train, or home to the train, as well as being used on large [corporate] campuses.

Exactly, Mr. Lentz. A Tesla Model S is no different than the golf carts used to get around large corporate campuses!
I mean, it only has enough range to get from "the office to the train" or "home to the train". Nothing else is imaginable!
I mean this can't be real, now can it, Mr. Lentz:
Tesla driver travels 12,000 miles plus – spends zero on gasoline - The Orange County Register

A word of advice....when Lexus is apologizing for its ads, it doesn't really help with comments such as these. We get it, you think EVs can't be anything other than your cute little Scion iQ. It baffles me how the world's near-largest car company will bet billions on a technology that violates physics and economics, but hey.......we tried to warn you

Not that Toyota has done poorly investing in Tesla. When Toyota President Akio Toyoda joined forces with Tesla CEO Elon Musk in 2010 with a $50 million capital infusion, there was no way Toyota would know the investment would be worth 10 times as much today on Wall Street.“It’s done OK,” Lentz said, with a hint of sarcasm.

Great. So Toyota makes a tidy profit off of Tesla, only to turn around and trash EVs.
Irony anyone?
Well, Tesla will have the last laugh. Keep it up Toyota! I am looking forward to the 2030 purchase of the (formerly great) Toyota Motor Co. by Tesla Motors.

 

Don't forget that an old BEV would produce much less power AND range (and, as you said, that may be acceptable to some) while an old CF tank that was operating at reduced pressure would maintain power, but only suffer decrease in range.

I am in total agreement with you that the tank should be replaced as soon as its certified life is up. It's just that I wonder if enough research has been done to see if what is defined lifespan could be increased with reduced PSI's in later years. I just don't know, and as you said the cost might not be worth it.

The entire point I was trying to make in this thread, which seems to be lost based on the replies to my comments, is that:

Natural Gas has SUPERIOR energy density to Hydrogen. PERIOD. This is Physics. NOTHING CAN CHANGE IT.

Sure, we can tinker with PSI's, type of tank, liquid or gas, etc., etc. But NG will always have an advantage, ceteris parabus.

SO, the real question is.........why would Toyota get involved with H2?

Yes, great point, that eliminates the CNG/Diesel vehicle since the diesel couldn't flow in the first place to initiate compression combustion. However, gelled lines should't be an issue in a dual-fuel CNG/Diesel car that had a hybrid drivetrain from which it could pull some watt-hours to warm up the diesel.
It would be no problem in an EREV with a diesel ReX......plenty of kwh's on tap to pre-heat the fuel

 

The 'idea' of 10,000 psi CNG tanks came from me. I think my comments may have been overly verbose, so allow me to be but more succinct, so that anyone reading, including, and especially Toyota, can understand what I'm trying to say here:

Holding all things equal, e ceteris paribus, there is NO way we will get a greater reduction in GHGs or foreign oil usage PER DOLLAR SPENT going the FCV route rather than the NG route. NO WAY.

Oh wait, there is one way. And that is to get the government to issue subsidies or mandates for an otherwise inferior technology.

Allow me to explain:

(1) First, start with the tank. No matter what PSI we are talking about, a NG tank will always outlive a H2 tank, due to the higher corrosivity of H2.

(2) Next, store whatever PSI you wish in a H2 tank: 10,000 or 5,000 or 3,600.
It doesn't matter.
The exact same tank with the exact same amount of CNG in it will hold 2.5x more energy. Period, full stop. No getting around physics

(3) But wait, says Toyota! Our Fuel Cell will burn the H2 twice as efficiently as an ICE would burn the NG!
OK, so please tell me how I'm not ahead burning 2.5x the energy half as efficiently? By my math, that puts my CNG car 25% ahead in terms of range. If the ICE is optimized for 130 octane, perhaps even more

(4) So, whatever specs Toyota gives in terms of range for their FCV, I could nearly increase it by 50% by:
- Ripping out the Fuel Cell and replacing it with a NG 130-octane-optimized high-compression ICE
- Draining the H2 from the tank and replacing it with CNG at the same pressure

(5) Ok, so now my CNG car has nearly 50% more range than Toyota's FCV. Can someone please tell me how this would NOT lower infrastructure costs? With 750 miles of range, just eyeballing the CNG map tells me a CNG ICE with 750 miles could cover 90% of the country. RIGHT NOW. Without 1 more CNG pump.

(6) The natural gas flows right to my house. That means I can FILL UP at home.
FCV? Not so much

(7) The NG that goes into my car flows cheaply and efficiently from the shale well (or wherever), right to my garage. Hydrogen? Oh, we have to build several large NG reforming facilities. Which will cost BILLIONS.
Oops.

(8) Oh, and a FCV will put out just as much as GHG's as the NG ICE. It's only a "ZEV" at the tailpipe; the NG->H2 facility will almost certainly vent Co2 in the absence of any carbon tax or other incentive to capture and store it. Doh!

(9) Last, but not least........did I mention that Toyota sill hasn't told us the FC's price per Kw? Betcha they won't. Because an ICE is probably lower in $/Kw.


To recap:
Toyota's FCV will (a) cost more (b) have a shorter driving range (c) put out just as much GHG's and (d) use more expensive fuel (since NG->H2 facilities will have to be amortized).
Can't wait!!

If anyone can come with a credible dispute to 1-9, please let me know.
If anyone can point to anything I've said in 1-9 that is NOT factual, please let me know.

 

Maybe Toyota should abandon the automotive market altogether and start selling bicycles if they're SO interested in having a GREEN image & product? Of course, since humans exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in their breath, maybe that really ain't as GREEN as you'd think.

 

I hope you are not serious.
You do understan the difference between CO2 that comes out of a tailpipe and CO2 that humans exhale, right?

 

My Chemistry Textbooks say CO2 = CO2, regardless of source; the ONLY difference is volume.

Of course, 1,000,000 bicycle riders is roughly equivalent to a LOT of cars (wink,wink).

 

Might want to check those books again.

(1) CO2 out of a tailpipe is from carbon reacting with oxygen. Where did the carbon come from? Why, we dug it up as oil, from deep in the earth, so you could burn it! It wasn't part of the atmosphere until you did so!

(2) CO2 in one's breath is also carbon reacting with oxygen. Where did this carbon from? From the plants one has eaten (or the animal one has eaten, which ate a plant). So, that carbon was already in the atmosphere, and me or you exhaling merely puts it back where it came from.

(1) Increases GHG's in our atmosphere, along with every other fossil-fuel burning device
(2) Does NOT increase GHG's in our atmosphere, nor does any other living, breathing, exhaling creature on earth

Class dismissed

 

Sorry, but facts are facts: Carbon-dioxide (CO2) from combustion is exactly the same as the Carbon-dioxide (CO2) from human lungs. The first has been sequestered away naturally for millions of years, the second comes from food the body oxidizes from the glucose in the blood and exchanges in the lungs and exhales. But, at the molecular-level there's NO difference between either one.

...and you might also lookup the word facetious.

 

I never said there was. I said there was a "difference" between them, not a "molecular difference". You are putting words in my mouth.
Obviously, a molecule of CO2 = a molecule of CO2.

The DIFFERENCE is in terms of atmospheric chemistry. And the ORIGIN of the carbon makes all the difference.

I'll quote you:

Exactly.
You just described the problem.
Millions of years of stored carbon is being released within the span of 200 years. The oceans and the plants can't absorb enough (50% and dropping), so the excess gets built up somewhere. And guess where that is

 

and, not to put too fine a point on it, but there actually is a difference at the molecular level too.....but you might want to check those Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 ratios (which are actually different based on fossil or biological origin).
Global Warming: Man or Myth - The Smoking Guns for Humans

 

Very simply because H2 is not a fossil fuel.

WARNING-Providing an answer is not supporting the Toyota position. Nor does providing an answer oppose your points.

 

There are LOTS--LOTS--LOTS--LOTS more humans around today than there were back when those forests were doing their CO2-to-O2 exhange cycle (wink,wink). Again, lookup the word facetious.

 

LOL.....looks like we might need an 'expert outside opinion'.........any Republican climate scientists out there care to take a shot?

Yes, I already know what 'facetious' means...but I'm not sure your point. If you've been following the thread, you see I used this word a week ago in a query to Toyota (and I don't use words I don't know the definition of).....I'll repeat that post, from May 14th:

Will the FCV be able to accept grid energy via a J1772? If not, does that mean the FCV will "self-charge" its batteries all they way up to the needed 25-30 miles worth of range using its fuel cell? Isn't that just a waste of the Hydrogen fuel I bought, when there is a power outlet on my garage wall only 15 inches from the car?

Any answers from Toyota or anyone else familiar with FCV operation would be appreciated. I'm not trying to be facetious, I genuinely do not know how this vehicle is supposed to operate.

So, I meant it genuinely and seriously.......I still don't have any clue as to how this FCV is supposed to work. I'm going to re-read the Motor Trend article I linked to and do some more Googling.

The fact that this FCV still has a battery and needs it to operate, I find to be very.......ironic

 

Amazing isn't it?

Clarkson and his brigade all rant and rave about how polluting BEVs are in needing a battery, yet their beloved FCV needs one to take the car at least 20 miles, perhaps further.

Well the more people we tell, the more people might think.

 

true, but since H2 doesn't occur naturally - the cheapest way of distilling it w/out breaking the bank is via natural gas. So... in the end, all you got is an ungodly overpriced natural gas burner, in need of an ungodly overpriced nonexistent refuelling infrastructure.
.

 

Honda has been playing around with home H2 refueling. Either with a home reformer, or solar powered electrolysis. Without the addition refueling stations, a homeowner would likely be better served by a BEV. With the electricity for it coming from the PV panels or a home natural gas powered fuel cell. The CNG car will also be better in terms of cost when the home filling station is included.

You did forget to account for energy lost in reforming the NG into H2.

It's an energy carrier most likely made from fossil fuels.
It does have the advantage over burning those fuels directly in a car when it comes to emissions. We got cars pretty clean, but it is still easier to clean emissions at a stationary source than on small mobile ones. Plus, there is no way of sequestering CO2 emissions from an ICE car.

These are also advantages of a BEV. A ICE PHV has them to a lesser degree, but a fuel cell can be a better range extender than an ICE without requiring the refueling infrastructure of the size that a non-plug-in FCEV needs. Then the H2 stations are really just needed along major highways. If metal hydride hydrogen storage works out, local refueling might be done by swapping CD sized discs at the supermarket next to the propane tanks and water bottles.

 

I find this fascinating. So, we have a FCV bus in Austin that uses a plug, even though they likely drive 101+ miles/day.
Meanwhile, most cars do 30-40 miles/day, but.......these upcoming FCV's......no plug.
I mean, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but why go to all the trouble of plugging in....no matter how fast.....if the electricity only provides a fraction of the driving distance?
Not surprised those busses can't compete.
Definitely good to have a hybrid drivetrain with all that stop & go, just not plug-in, IMHO
CNG tank + ICE should make a better ReX than H2 + FC. Of course, it's possible to get a breakthrough in using NG in FC's. Sharp says they got a DMFC up to .3 watts per cubic centimeter. See:
Sharp, MIT make strides in methanol fuel cells - CNET
If the engine bay of a Prius can hold 100 liters, this makes for 30.3 Kw of max power, roughly what's needed to keep Prius going at 70 mph. I think it's a better bet for your bus!

Another question regarding all the garbage trucks, UPS/FedEx/USPS, busses, fleet vehicles, etc.
What type of hybrid system do they use?
Is it GM's Two-Mode?
Would Ford's hydraulic hybrid make more sense and be cheaper for large vehicles in stop & go?

Making H2 at home seems like a crazy idea to me......and using solar electrolysis is beyond insane.
I think hydrides that can adsorb H2 have promise, and I've heard of the swappable cartridges.
In terms of using a FC as a ReX......yes, it's possible, and would greatly help with infrastructure cost, as you said.
But we need to know if the $/Kw is approaching an ICE. I doubt it, and Toyota certainly won't say. The DOE target is/was $30/Kw, so a FC delivering comparable power to an ICE would be $2000-$3000. I doubt they're close.

Yes, I did......but I 'deliberately' forgot.
You see, I could have made it my #10 point against FC's.......but then I realized that it'll take a lot of electrical power to home-compress my 10,000 psi CNG to my hypothetical CNG car.
So, I'll give H2 a 'pass' in terms of NG reforming loss, but I still maintain that cheap, overnight electricity rates + CNG still < H2 from station in terms of $/mile

Yep. This was tried in the past, but seems unworkable:
Saudi Aramco’s environment-friendly car | Arab News — Saudi Arabia News, Middle East News, Opinion, Economy and more.
GT | News Center :: Carbon Capture Strategy Could Lead to Emission-Free Cars
Georgia Tech proposes carbon capture concept for automobiles

 

Compare Side-by-Side

Everyone should take a detailed look at the specs of these 4 cars
(we're already familiar with the Prius).
I'd say none is as aerodynamic as Prius on the highway, save maybe the E250 BlueTec.

Take a good look at driving range, fuel tank size, passenger space, and cargo volume.

Now, who will be the first carmaker to do the following?:

Rip out the standard gasoline tanks, and replace with a 20-22 gallon volume carbon-fiber tank.
Yes packaging might be an issue, but not insurmountable.
Cost of the tank? A few thousand $$, sure (but less $$ than putting in more batteries of PHEVs).

Keep a standard hybrid drivetrain for regen and idle stop........just no plug.

Holding 10,000 psi CNG, we're looking at 15-16.5 gallons of gasoline equivalent.

Does anyone doubt these cars could achieve 50 mpg highway, or close, especially with improved aero and a high-compression ICE optimized for 130 octane NG?

There you go, a 750-mile range midsize sedan that can travel cross-country, RIGHT NOW, with the CNG pumps we ALREADY HAVE.

Toyota will obviously not bring such a vehicle to market. So I wonder who will? Because whoever does will sure make Toyota's FCV look pretty bad by comparison