Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai answer fuel cell questions

Electrons I can get at home and gasoline is sold in a local retail stores, for now. But high-pressure hydrogen, well I'd feel a lot better if it were found at truck stops or fleet garages. I can remember when diesel was available at truck stops and co-ops and then slowly penetrated Mercedes neighborhoods.

The fuel-cell vendors believe they scale better than batteries. Certainly there have been fuel-cell powered busses but not by these vendors in this country. And where are the fuel-cell delivery vans and large trucks. But this is not the first, proposed alternative fuel.

T. Boone Pickens hasn't had a lot of success spreading his natural gas operation. Honda Civic CNG is not really flying off the lots. Worse, our own EPA rules makes individual conversion dicy. You have to go through a full, EPA certification, ~$250,000.

I wish them luck but there are so many issues. Perhaps Japan Inc. will make it happen.

Bob Wilson

 

Do they really believe they scale better than batteries? Or is that lobbying for money?
Toyota finally gave an estimate -3000 fcv sold in the US in the next 38 months. 200 in 2015, then 2800 in 2016 and 2017 combined. Tesla S and X along with the outlander phev seem to scale faster bigger stronger and probably cost less to make than these fcv.

Cng seems better for delievery vans or plug-ins. Large trucks? Really. No one believes that.

Pickens plan is for lng for long haul trucking. This may work but got blocked in the congress so it is going to be state by state.

When they get it going there, then its time to try it here. Lets finish this experiment and then if it fails again stop subsidizing these things.

 

Here is Jim Lentz CEO of toyota north america trying to sell the mirai.
Toyota's Mirai hydrogen fuel cell vehicle to hit streets in 2015 - CBS News

Sure is a hard sell for something they only expect a total of 3000 cars in the US by the end of 2017.

 

why doesn't anyone ever ask,'where does the hydrogen come from'?

 

'we comb the internet for customer complaints'. i guess they have a priuschat filter.

 

Alright, I suppose it's time for us to weigh in. You have all the information available about the product and the announcements yesterday. No need to rehash all that.

I just want to say this: We welcome the dialogue, and we even embrace the skepticism and criticism. The reality for us is that this IS a long term play. It is NOT about compliance, though yes these vehicles do comply. This is about believing in the technology and a better future.

If you had access to the inner sanctum at Toyota, you would find that there has been deep, thoughtful study on the topic, and enormous amounts of research. You would hear authenticity and honesty in people when they tell you, "This is the future we truly believe in." Now, you may or may not agree with us, and that is totally fine. But I am putting my reputation on the line to say that we, Toyota, are doing this because we believe in it, first and foremost.

Thanks as always for welcoming us in Prius Chat, and looking forward to all the spirited debate.

Doug Coleman
ATV Marketing
Toyota Motor Sales, USA

 

HI Doug! Nice to see you are still in the Toyota fold.
Many of PC have no doubt that Toyota believes in their hydrogen product. The issue I believe is that many of us don't believe in staying addicted to carbon-based fuel and that's really all hydrogen is ... albeit wrapped in a very expensive infrastructure and automotive package. So .... those hidden issues maybe couched ... but that too, is what Toyota must know & believe. Others though, continue to find that very troublesome. If/when FC car manufacturers and/or the oil lobby actually build their hydrogen infrastructure (instead of saddling us taxpayers with the burden) perhaps we too - might begin to believe in Toyota's 'smart people'. Isn't that why people find Elon Musk to be smart? .... because he believes in his products enough to build his own infrastructure? Toyota doesn't seem to believe in it that much. But good luck with that.
.

 

i would love to see toyota lay out all the facts. 'well to wheels' so to speak. perhaps we could be convinced to get on board. 'we believe in it' just invites skepticism. i don't want a car that runs on a natural gas derivative. natural gas isn't going to be around forever, and we are better served to use it for home heating and electricity, as a bridge to alternative electric production. nothing about a fuel cell car makes sense, from hydrogen production, to the complicated vehicle to the outrageous fueling stations.

 

Doug, I'm very happy you guys keep "an ear to the ground" here.
I'm not so upset at the idea of hydrogen cars, it is the outrageous, and sometimes outright lies told by some of the executives.
The recent "no one is knocking on our door asking for a BEV" is the most blatant. I myself have made requests to Toyota dealers and corporate asking for exactly that.
The anti EV ads recently run by Lexus, and still as online ads, is another.

You guys are starting to look like GM did in the early 2000s when they were making fun of hybrids. It made them look childish and deceitful then, and is starting to make you guys look that way now.

I look forward to seeing what you guys can do with hydrogen vehicles, but please build your own infrastructure rather than forcing in upon taxpayers.

 

NY Times has what seems like a reasonable summary of the opposing views and history re full cells:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/science/earth/hydrogen-cars-join-electric-models-in-showrooms.html?mabReward=RI%3A12&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&WT.nav=RecEngine&src=rechp&_r=0

 

Hi Doug,

I wish you luck but I'm 64 years old living in Huntsville AL and have two Prius, 2003 (170,000 mi) and 2010 (60,000 mi). Any guess on when a hydrogen station will show up?

Now I could do my own, high-pressure hydrogen:

• aluminum + sodium hydroxide
• sealed reactor

So it isn't that hard but I'd have this mess of chemicals to deal with later. Just I'd rather have an air-aluminum battery and not deal with high-pressure hydrogen.

In contrast, used Leafs are coming off lease and affordable. Even the current Leaf has the option of chargers at Nissian dealers. A day-trip Huntsville-to-Nashville appears possible with a fractional charge somewhere after 40 miles from Huntsville.

Bob Wilson

 

Hi Doug. We met in Detroit at the unveiling of the 2010 Prius. I was standing chatting with Darrel when he told you "The Prius is the best gas car money can buy." I hunch you remember that moment.

I appreciate your honesty. Having this kind of a connection with a huge corporation is rare. And I don't doubt your sincerity - we're all hoping for a better future. The question is how to get there. As far as hydrogen is concerned, the questions include emissions and efficiency. On both counts, because of the source fuels and phase conversions, hydrogen/electric seems inferior to battery/electric. Many of us don't understand why Toyota would pursue a less efficient and more polluting option, especially after selling us on the improved efficiencies and lower emissions of the Prius.

 

I'd love to be convinced of Toyota's sincerity but they need to put out some sort of white paper explaining exactly how and why they came to the conclusions Doug described. Vague beliefs and platitudes don't cut it. From the article, the most convincing arguments to me as a layman are

1 the inability to scale current batteries past a certain level, which is being somewhat undermined by Tesla's success,

2 we need to keep developing and exploring all available technology,and just see what works out long term - of course if the particular tech is fundamentally flawed, ie does not reduce fossil fuel dependence or pollution, and is not more efficient, that argument is also undermined, and

3 we can produce the hydrogen using renewable energy sources and or water instead of natural gas (if I'm understanding this argument correctly) - should I be concerned that water is also becoming a scare resource (in addition to the scarcity of platinum)? I suppose you could also argue hydrogen is better for North America, since we seem to have plenty of natural gas in the short term.

Since hydrogen (1) doesn't acheive the stated goals of being overall cleaner, more efficient and less fossil fuel dependent, (2) is expensive tech without existing infrastructure, and (3) is dependent on scarce resources, the cons seem to be outweighing the pros, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. It's all moot anyway until they figure out how to make hydrogen cars and infrastructure much cheaper than currently appears possible. I certainly won't be lining up to buy a fuel cell car like I will the relatively cheap 200 mile range Tesla (when and if it comes).

 

doug,
Thank you for replying. I am certainly convinced that some inside toyota are sincere, but when the released plans are to sell the car in compliance numbers, only in compliance states it is hard not to be cycinical. This is especially true given the anti-plug-in PR toyota and lexus have been churning out. Does toyota believe only CARB states should have alternative fueled cars? Even if toyota believes California will somehow pay for all these hydrogen stations, does it really think texas or florida would prefer fuel cells to phevs? I can't wrap my head around the belief, with the price. Certainly given the price, we can only expect small numbers, so I have no problem believing 200 in the US by the end of 2015. I think those 2800 buyers in 2016 and 2017 may be hard to find. We should expect over 100,000 plug-ins to be sold in each of those years, leaving fcv at less than 1% of the us plug-in market.

 

I'd also love to hear an explanation of why the PIP is not available in Toyota's adopted State of Texas!

 

forgetaboutit.

 

Thanks hill, bisco, and hyo silver. It is very much in our plans to lay out all the "facts" as we see them, so they can be discussed. I want to be careful with the word "facts", because it is easy for one participant to say "see, here are my facts, they are undeniable" and the other participant to say "I don't agree with those facts." Then, even the notion of facts as something that is truly indisputable, is in dispute. So when I can get the figures we look at in terms of "well to wheel," I personally won't portray them as facts. They are estimates that we believe are as accurate as possible, but still up for debate - which is what we look forward to. I hope everyone here has an open mind, because that's what makes it fun for Toyota to engage in PC.

GIVEN THAT, I want to state something that I heard from Steve Ellis from Honda at a conference, which I thought was well stated. FCVs and EVs have three goals:
1) Reduce oil usage, especially foreign
2) Eliminate tailpipe emissions
3) Reduce GHGs
On the first two, FCV and EV both accomplish the goal nearly 100%. The only point of discussion is the 3rd. Here's the first "fact" on this point: Both EVs and FCVs dramatically reduce GHGs relative to conventional ICEs. I suppose you can dispute that too, but I think it's fair to say. So then the question is, why must the question be FCVs OR EVs, instead of both? More on that below....

Thanks Zythryn. Regarding "no one is knocking on our door asking for a BEV"... that certainly has been a lightning rod. I get that. Also understand that I work with Craig Scott everyday, so I understand what was his intended point in that quote. It was not meant to be absolute (i.e. "no one"). It was an exaggeration in the moment, but meant to say that, relatively speaking, the fraction of the population that is asking us for a BEV is small relative to other types of consumer requests we get. FURTHER, and more subtly, it was meant to say that - when push comes to shove and someone has to put down money to purchase a vehicle - quite often even self-proclaimed BEV-handraisers can become gun-shy and not pull the trigger. For the record, this is true also about hybrids, and will certainly be true about FCV. But our internal data shows that on aggregate, this is more pronounced effect for BEVs (due to the perceived limitations).

Regarding the Lexus ads, please know that they were executed by a marketing team that was trying to do it's job to promote the Lexus products in the market, and that team does not typically spend time thinking about the advanced technology topics we like to here on PC. So please, we have pulled the ads, recognized the mistake, and ask that we all move on. This occurrence is NOT a reflection of our overall view - which is that the world needs a portfolio of different technologies.

Thanks Bob. Point in case. It's great that there are off-lease Leafs for you to buy, and that they are perfect for your needs. That is the reason we believe in a portfolio. When will hydrogen come to your local area? Probably not for a long time. As I said, this is truly a long-term play. I wish we could wave a wand and make the infrastructure pop up overnight, but we can't. That's why YOU as a consumer need a choice.

So I'm anticipating.... "if you believe in a portfolio, why no BEV right now from Toyota?" I'll be honest, we have a lot of electric R&D going, but right now haven't developed the right product that we truly think can be strongly successful in the market. We also are investing a lot of energy and resources on the sales and marketing side to deploy FCVs, and there is only so much we can do (yes, even us). Every company in the world has resource limitations, and that requires choices. Today is a reflection of the choices we have made as a company. If the market ultimately punishes us for that, then, well... there will probably be a great HBS case study to write.

Thanks austingreen. You have to start somewhere. If it is required that we sell in certain states, then that that is a an easy choice for where to start. And this is a technology that can't start everywhere all at once. It's just not possible given infrastructure. And on that topic, if you look at the last 15-20 years, every new ATV powertrain has been supported by the public sector in one way or another. Everyone wants a fair and level playing field, but that is so much easier said than done. So then we get into the argument of "I want more support for my preferred technology" debate.... I'm not so keen in participating in that one. To reach the goals, I personally think they all should be supported, but I leave the details to others.

On the topic of PHVs... we're just getting started. Nothing I can say today, but we have more ambitious plans in the future. Stay tuned.

Phew. This thread has been a long one. Last thing I want to say... when we look at all the consumer research that we've done for Mirai in the past years, it feels a lot like 1999 again. We have customers saying, "wow, this is something new that I have to have." just like we heard with Prius. And I'm the guy that focuses on the customer... not the GHGs, or the policies, or the R&D. So that brings me a smile.

Can't wait for all the great discussion to come with you guys. Keep it up. Thanks

Doug Coleman
ATV Marketing
Toyota Motor Sales , USA

 

hi doug, thank you for your thoughtful replies. i believe this kind of dialog will help to reduce the hype and hysteria. i don't know any 'facts' but as someone who has put his money where his mouth is, i'll be enjoying the discussion with an open mind! (i hope) and not so humble opinion's. great to see you involved here, thanks again.

 

Doug, I also want to thank you for your time and thoughtful reply.

Most of what you say is very reasonable and I would agree with.
I definately agree we should move forward in multiple ways.

Regarding the infrastructure, for BEV's it exists today, nationwide. Yes, it needs to be improved upon, but it exists.

I know many BEV owners who don't care about not using oil, or costs to fuel. Their primary drivers for vehicle selection is quality of the drive experience, convenience, and for some, performance.

This broadens the market for alternate fuel vehicles beyond that of hybrids.
I hope you guys will emphasize the quality of drive (silence, smoothness and instant response which I'm guessing the FCEV will have) rather than throwing mud at other alternatives in your marketing.

 

OK, I won't cling to these as facts. For the purpose of discussion, let's call them working theories....

1) We already have the energy infrastructure. Electricity works, now. And in future.

2) Hydrogen is not a fuel. It's an energy storage system, and one that is less efficient than batteries.