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

I thought somehow I missed this subject on Monday when I popped online. Anyhow I know I'm probably going to regret jumping into this thread which has already taken many twists and turns, but I thought I would at least share with you what I can considering how little we say about future product plans.

Our contract with Telsa was for approximately 2500 BEV powertrains for the RAV4 EV. We think we'll reach that volume this year. We're evaluating the possibility of working with Telsa on future projects as well as evaluating our RAV4 EV program and will share more when we can. Toyota is still focused on offering a wide range of advanced technology choices to meet the varying needs of our customers--knowing what is right for one person in one area isn't quite right for the person somewhere else. To that point, one of our primary focuses this year will be preparing the market (including focusing on hydrogen refueling stations) for the arrival of our fuel cell which is set to bring a 300-mile range, 4-door ZEV sedan to CA in 2015.

Again, the FC is not meant to address everyone's needs and Toyota will learn a lot along the way, but it's another historic step for us as a company and hopefully the industry as well. Now with all of these fun advanced tech vehicles in our line up, our team is growing so in the Intros thread, I'm going to intro the team and you can continue this convo with Nathan who is now in charge of RAV4 EV and PiP and eventually FC.

Let the debates continue.

Best,
Erica Gartsbeyn
Prius Marketing & Communications Manager
Toyota USA

 

austingreen knows that. I read the RAV4 EV built on the last RAV4 body style was for a limited number of vehicles, and as for the tittle of this thread, go figure! ...It's official toyota is fool speed fuel cells for compliance after 2014

 

I wasn't saying a FCEV was superior. Just that it could work out. Mostly because country size means a smaller total cost for the infrastructure than for someplace like the US. This means a FCEV can be usable for the entire population quicker, too.

Sweden is where the Hyundai FCEV is going on sale, but I know nothing about the country. So can't comment on why they are interested FCEVs.

Cheap, renewable, electric in Iceland can make fuel cells attractive. Yes, more efficient to just go with BEVs, but what affect will climate have on their operation. Same for a country like Norway, and I just realized Sweden. The population is interested in zero emission vehicles. Tesla was the most popular seller in Norway. The model S has a huge battery pack, so any range reduction for cold winters isn't critical. So FCEVs might be attractive in that they have waste heat for the cabin, and won't be as heavily penalized in freezing temperatures.

So hydrogen fuel cells might work out, but the technology is starting from behind in the market place, and the others aren't standing still.

Japan, and likely Germany, is doing it for political reasons. MITI's low emission vehicle programs that eventually subsidized Prius sales started out looking into BEVs. They were deemed unsuitable for Japan because of limited performance. Those studies took place in the late '70s to '80s though. I think tradition has just keep away fro the BEV and focused on hybrids and FCEVs.

 

Yes, there are advantages to fuel cells waste heat in places like Scandinavian countries, Iceland, and especially Russia with its huge territory, extra range would be welcome.

But let's not kid ourselves! IIRC, fuel cells take 15-20 minutes to warm up, and I'm assuming this is going to be more like 20 minutes in these cold countries. So, these cars will have to have a battery good for at least 25 miles or so of range, which - you guessed it - lose their range in cold weather. So, you have to have more batteries than you would in, say California. More weight, more cost. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the FCV won't start producing waste heat until it has been warmed up....I don't know this for a fact, but logic would dictate than any 'waste' heat initially be used to warm up the stack itself, as opposed to anything else. Well, that means when you first get into a FCV on a cold day and turn on the heat, then the heat is coming from the batteries via a resistance heater....is this correct? Isn't that how the Tesla and LEAf do it? Well, that would require again more batteries so that you could simultaneously heat the cabin while providing sufficient range. Yet more weight, yet more cost.

I just really, really have a hard time understanding the attraction of FCVs compared to what's already on the market. I mean if a Tesla Model S meets your needs, and you can afford it, go for it. If not, I think the Fusion Energi is the next best thing....20 miles of electric range and plenty of interior room. Oh, and also get instant heat (or even pre-heat, via smartphone) from the ICE in cold weather which acts as a generator, even with fully charged battery.

There are several things I don't understand about the economic logic of a fuel cell infrastructure versus alternatives, but I'll leave that aside......

With regard to how a FCV actually operates, I'm hoping to get some answers for everyone, especially since a representative from Toyota has chimed in.

My main question centers on warm-up time and the fuel cell stack life (which will be a prime determinant of warranty terms/length).

It is my understanding that the stack life is measured in hours, and the clock starts ticking the minute H2 is injected.
This seems to be problematic, especially if one makes frequent, short trips with cold starts and lasting less than 15-20 minutes duration. In fact, that pattern describes the morning commute of millions of people.

Well, if the propulsion energy is coming from the battery while the stack is warming up, what happens if you get to your destination in less than 15 minutes (before the stack has warmed up)? Then, it warmed up for nothing, and it delivered little to no power compared to the battery's (grid?) energy. That means 15 minutes off the fuel cell life gone for nothing. This adds up over time.

I mean, every time I get into a FCV, how is it supposed to know I'm just going to the gym 10 minutes away as opposed to a city 100 miles away? Will the center display ask me how far I'm going to drive every time I start up the FCV? How will it avoid warming the stack up when it is clearly not needed?

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.

 

Makes electricity on board,
Drives like other electric vehicles,
Refuels in 3 to 5 minutes,
Then if necessary, power your home in an emergency? Some may like that!

 

TIME will TELL...and so will the Toyota Marketing "spin doctors."

 

I think FCHV has great potential. DOE is now tech neutral again after Steven Chu is out.

Green Car Congress: DOE issues request for information on fuel cell research and development needs
Green Car Congress: DOE to issue funding opportunity for hydrogen and fuel cell Incubator projects
Green Car Congress: DOE releases three reports showing strong growth in US fuel cell and hydrogen market

The ball is rolling and AG and TB may hate to see it but it is one of the path to the ultimate ECO car.

 

How, exactly? Leaving aside the "economics" involved in the H2 infrastructure, you haven't addressed a single one of the day-to-day operating problems I pointed out.

The "ball is rolling" down a huge, money-wasting rathole boondoggle.
FCVs make NO sense other than in a zero-emissions continuous highway travel application.
Against PHEVs already on the market, they fare poorly.

Physics is physics, no matter what AG and TB say or do.

 

no - here in so Cal (largest driving market) we were already experiencing $3+/gallon and 2004 was the year we $h!tcaned our Ford Exploader for the GENII Prius ...and never looked back.

You like Lutz ... fine. Lutz and his ilk have a long history of slamming the Prius
GM CEO: “I Wouldn’t be Caught Dead in a Prius”
That GM attitude of "Prius is for geeks" mentality continued on right into GM's bankruptcy. That attitude reminds me of the bigoted racists running several big companies .... they no longer spew their inner thoughts of biggotry ... but they still think it. So - what really changed.

 

Any fool knows why hydrogen is continually pushed and FCVs are part of that. The reason? To keep the status quo. To keep the infrastructure, to keep the oil producers selling you a product day in day out.

Electric vehicles like the Tesla with its quick charging and battery swap stations cut out big oil and they just don't like that. Imagine, your average Joe could run their car for free from their own solar PV. They don't like that. They want you turning up pumping petrol, diesel or hydrogen into your car and be reliant on them for the next 100 years.

Big oil needs to die like the cigarette manufacturers did back in the 1990's. Oil has a place, but not the manipulation and nastiness that goes into it now.


On a foot note and a small question about hydrogen that I don't believe has ever been asked or answered before: You know the benefit of hydrogen is that it only emits a little water vapour? In years to come with millions of FEVs in a city could you end up with lots of damp, humid air? Road tunnels dripping with condensation? Narrow city streets unwalkable humid zones? Would it turn LA into Florida? Would it be worse in a damp winter in London?

They say the amounts of water vapour is small and insignificant, but that was said about lead back in the 1930's. Just a pondering I had.

 

This has been discussed here, but good luck finding it with Search broken.

I believe that gasoline's energy is roughly evenly split between carbon and hydrogen, mole-wise (i.e. by atom count). If a FCV keeps the same tank-to-wheel efficiency as a gasoline vehicle, then its hydrogen emission (water) needs to be double that of the gasoline rig.

But look at motor vehicle fuel efficiency history. MPGe has risen sharply, from old cars to new Otto-cycle cars to hybrids to plug-in EVs. Even if the hydrogen is combusted in a modern Atkinson-cycle ICE hybrid, it shouldn't exceed the water emission of a traditional gasser from a few years back. A FCV run more as a true EV should put out significantly less water.

 

I don't think there is any conspiracy or bad will here. This is just a very large automaker doing their due diligence to ensure they don't get left behind if the stars align to make hydrogen a viable replacement some time in the future. Don't get me wrong - I love BEV's - but I can also see why a traditional automaker might want to pursue alternatives. First, from Toyota's point of view, there is little to be gained by putting a lot of money into BEV's right now. Their operation is well understood; we are just waiting for energy density and refuel times to come down - but this is not a need specific to the auto industry - the entire world wants the same exact thing for every device made.

While today's BEV's are a wonder in many respects, it also pays to look at their negatives from the view of an old-guard automaker like Toyota. They rightfully believe that people will not accept even 30 minute refuel times for 200 miles in their primary or only vehicle. These automakers who test their vehicles extensively from the desert to the arctic under load and looking to make things fail realize that batteries suffer greatly in both cold and hot. Will owners accept losing 30% or more of their already limited range because it's cold outside? Will they accept that even fast charge times may extend to an hour or more if the car has been sitting and is cold?

I absolutely agree that this 'old guard' is playing it too safe in only building limited range EV's in very small production numbers, but at the same time, I can also see why they are hedging with hydrogen. In a potential future where gasoline is prohibitively expensive, hydrogen need not be AS cheap as a BEV, it need only be cheaper than gas while offering much the same experience.

 

You're probably not far off there. In the same way we in the UK had to change from pretty much exclusively petrol cars 25 years ago, to a 50/50 split today between petrol and diesel because of the cost of fuel; I think there will probably be a similar split between BEV and FEV in the future.

A BEV is fine for many private owners who won't do more than 200 miles other than the odd road trip and then wouldn't mind a 45 minute rest to charge the car and have lunch, and the working person who needs a car to travel up and down the motorways on business, needing a quick refuel time but also clean emissions for access to many cities (which will probably be zero emission zones by then).

This split above is probably how petrol and diesel play out here: private owner generally has a petrol car and the company vehicles are generally diesel.

So perhaps we shouldn't see FEVs as a threat by the old guard trying to keep the status quo, but a compliment to enable a larger majority to travel emission free (at the wheels).

 

Irony of irony - the thread Toyota Shows Distain: Even for their Own RAV4-EV | PriusChat
talking about Toyota's distain for plugin's ... they got such backlash that Toyota/Lexus has apparently pulled it down. Toyota can hardly contain their zeal for hydrogen - to the point they slam one of their best/fuel efficient modes. Cabby's "oil industry" post above (oil industry vested in hydrogen because fossil fuel still gets used to manufacture transportation energy) does sound like conspiracy talk ... that's true ... but 'IF' there is an evil interest (not saying there is) let's not forget how much money there is to be made on the parts that wear out on the hydrogen hoax mobile ... like the stack ... the traction battery (yes ... it still needs a traction pack ) fuel tanks ... oh yea ... lots of stuff to be continually purchased with fuel cell's .... never mind all those fuel lines you'll DEFINATELY want inspected - carrying 10,000Lbs psi. The service department would LOVE to supply parts/service for FC, as there'd be more junk to go wrong than with plugin's. It feels like we're re-living the early 2000's - when GM was crushing EV1's ... de javu.
.

 

I'm not saying it's conspiracy but just harsh business practice. BEVs would send such companies to the wall. FEVs would ensure they keep making profit out of us all.

 

I enjoy being in agreement with Toyota on the latter. FC tech is NOT meant to address everyone's needs. It can't. As the economy slowly (inevitably) sinks more & more into stagflation (endless paper money/QE printing), the naturally overpriced FC car - heavily subsidized as it will have to be (more printed money please) - will become less and less affordable to the middle class (which itself continues to dwindle) car buying segment. Without large sales (as the Prius has managed - being more affordable) volume, Toyota will never be able to achieve its goal of selling so many that the cost can then come down. So - yes we are agreed. As to a 300 mile range though one has to consider how close the next FC station is. Since the public can only be fleeced into building so many FC stations, it's reasonable to never go more than 145 miles, as there won't be another station at the end of the line. Unlike plugin's - one can almost always find a place to refuel.
.

 

My understanding is that the battery on a FCEV will only provide a few miles of direct propulsion after start up. When you see FCEV battery stats, they are reported in kW not kWh like BEV batteries. Its main job is to warm up the fuel cell stack during that time. The stack doesn't have to be completely warmed up to produce electricity. It will do so at lower temps. Just at a lower efficiency. I assume heat can be pulled for a warming up stack for the cabin as is done with an ICE car. The heat won't be hot, and stack warm up will be delayed. Just like with an ICE. Perhaps supplemental electric heat from the battery would be better overall, but I don't know that.

A FCEV will be like an ICEV on short trips. The stack will provide power to move like the ICE. They just won't do so as efficiently as when on trips that allow them to fully warm up. So those with short trips will just use more gasoline, diesel, or hydrogen per mile.

None of the companies bringing a FCEV to market in the near future are talking plug in. They also aren't talking about fuel cell lifespan or the shelf life of the gaseous hydrogen fuel tanks. The tanks aren't going to be a huge issue. The best CNG tanks have a 25 year shelf life. As a guess, the higher pressure hydrogen ones are likely good for 15yrs. It is just that no one is willing to say what it is.

Considering the CARB emission warranties, the stack should be good 100k miles at least. The tanks are likely good for that time. Same with the traction battery. But what will the resale value of these cars be? I think the battery will last like one on a hybrid. The tanks will have date on them for when they have to be taken out of service, but there will be cheaper alternatives that hold less hydrogen for installation in used FCEVs.

The fuel stack will be the big unknown. A new battery for Tesla ranged BEV will be pricy, but a bad battery may only need a few stacks or cells replaced. Refurbished ones will also be available as a lower cost option. Can the fuel cell stack be refurbished, or does it have to be new. Will the price be low enough to make it worthwhile for a high mileage, used car, or will the car just be scrapped?

I think the draw of FCEVs to the manufacturers is that they will be disposable cars.

Except the oil companies seem to have little interest in building hydrogen stations in California.

 

Yes, I'm the one that did the post........
Bottom line: Water vapor from FCV's is NOT an issue, nor will it ever be; they put out approximately 37% more water vapor per mile as compared to a gasoline hybrid.
Here it is:
Burning 1 Gallon of Gasoline Produces 20 Pounds of CO2 - by blinkin - Newsvine

From the article:

Now lets see how much H2O or water is produced:
A H2O molecule has two Hydrogen atoms (atomic weight 1) and one oxygen atom (atomic weight of 16 each). Each Hydrogen atom has a weight of 1, and the oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of H20 an atomic weight of 18 (2 from Hydrogen and 16 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of H2O produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the Hydrogen in the gasoline is multiplied by 18/2 or 9.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the Hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline weighs 0.8 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .13). We can then multiply the weight of the Hydrogen (0.8 pounds) by 9, which equals 7 pounds of H2O or water and water vapor.

As you can see, 1 gallon of gasoline contains 0.8 pounds of hydrogen and produces 7.2 pounds of H20 when burned.

1 kilogram of hydrogen has the same BTU energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline; 1 kg = 2.2 pounds, so burning it would produce 19.8 pounds of H20

HOWEVER:

We must keep in mind that a Fuel Cell Vehicle is twice as efficient as an ICE vehicle. So, let's say we have a 20 mpg ICE SUV.....it would produce 7.2 pounds of H20 per 20 miles

The exact same SUV with a fuel cell in it would achieve 40 miles per kg of hydrogen. So, it would produce 19.8 pounds of H20 per 40 miles, or 9.9 pounds per 20 miles.

comparing 9.9 pounds to 7.2 pounds, we see that the FCV will produce 37.5% more water vapor per mile than a comparable ICE car.