Interesting. The author of the story seems a little confused on how Fuel Cell vehicles work. It mentions either the electric motor or the fuel cell can power the car.

I'm pretty sure it's a fully electric drive train with the electric motor being powered by either the fuel cell (which can't be recharged), the traction battery (which can be recharged, just like our Prii), or a combination of both.

I'm sure mechanically, it'll be much simpler than a gasoline-electric hybrid.

If fuel cell's were simpler they wouldn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Hybrid technology is jsut what H2 has been needing to become viable. Hybrid drivetrains can extend the range of a given volume of H2 so you can get sufficeint range out of a given volume of H2. In essence increasing the efficiency of H2.

A bullion of gold is mechanically simple, but costs a lot of money.

Mechanically simpler doesn't mean cheaper, especially at the baby stages of technology. A fuel cell is mechanically simpler, but harder and more expensive to produce at this point.

What I mean is the only source of mechanical drive will be a single electric motor. That means no split differential to divide up ICE and motor torque / speed, no secondary motor/generator to capture and convert excess speed/torque.

No ICE, meaning, no water cooling system (radiator and hoses) for it (just your "hybrid coolant"), no oil pan, oil pump, etc.


By the way, the other huge hurdle for hydrogen (worse than even for electric), is the lack of an H2 fueling infrastructure. I haven't seen a lot of H2 stations on the road at this point. Something else people need to think about is, where is the H2 coming from. If it's produce from natural gas, it's still a fossil fuel (though cleaner than gasoline, and more efficient, hopefully). If it's produce by electrolysis of water, then it depends on where the power's coming from. If your power is coming from a coal burning power plant, you're contributing to carbon emmissions in a dirty and heavy way. If it's coming from a renewable source or nuclear - carbon footprint is negligable.

teslamotors.com
evnut.com

and the attatched.

all worthy reads about the hydrogen bandwagon.

Why would we throw away almost 4 times the energy just to get hydrogen to move us the SAME distance as all-electric, battery transport? It boggles the mind...

1 gig of data storage in the early 80's was about a million dollars and took a whole room of computers. 1 gig today can be stored on a small flash SDI card and costs 6 bucks. Maybe this will happen with the fuel cell industry after gas hits 10 bucks a gallon.

Except that I don't know of an all electric that does 500+ miles on a single charge of the size of that Toyota (looked like a small SUV, like a RAV4).

As of now, H2 is more energy dense than batteries. Meaning, for a given weight, H2 will give you more miles.

I agree all-electric is the way to go, but I think I prefer hydrogen made by renewable power over gasoline.

Basically, H2 is an energy carrier, not a source (like fossil fuel). I wonder how the equation would go if we had local H2 production (in-car or in garage), using power from the grid and tap water. Then the transportation costs of H2 would be negligable (still a lot of energy loss in conversion). Honda's got one that runs on methane.

Besides, if we ever do go renewable, the inefficiency of energy conversion and transport won't be as big a deal, as it's all renewable energy and more will come, right?

Except data storage doesn't involve platinum, and given the physical constraints of hydrogen input and electrical output needed, a fuel cell can't be shrunk in the same manner. Maybe 1/2 the size or something, but not 1/1000th the size. They aren't saying how much these cars cost, just that they're too much for the consumer to buy directly, so they're leasing them instead (sounds kinda like the BEVs of the early 90's). BEV's are now feasible, so maybe, just possibly, FCV's will also be feasible in 15 years from now, but I wouldn't count on it.

That is an advantage, and maybe fuel cells will have a niche market (rental) for that purpose when gas goes to $20/gallon. But for real life, day-to-day activities, you don't need to go more than maybe 120 miles between charges. And most of the time, most people don't need to go more than 40 miles between charges. Why not give us a range of options? Maybe even have an extra battery pack you could put in your car for the days where there's extra driving involved, but other days you save the weight and the cycles on the battery.

might be interesting if we could generate our own H2 via electrolysis, using a home mounted wind turbine.

i'd also wonder about the environmental costs of the manufacture and eventual disposal of batteries vs a fuel cell.

Here's a link to photos of the new car. I love the concept. Toyota's welcoming Fine-X Fuel Cell Hybrid - Image Gallery

I guess Toyota isn't immune from making stupid decisions after all. Pity. Hydrogen is a crock.

It is so fascinating to see the math come up with numbers and stats and such showing H2 is a loser for transportation versus BEV (battery electric vehicles). And people still want it. Or think they do. Has anyone read differently where H2 is more efficient than BEVs? Anyone? Please show me and I will carefully read and study it. so far, all the numbers come up FAR short for H2. BEVs should be in our driveways NOW, like they were a few short years ago. It is unbelieveable we are at the top of the food chain sometimes...

But there is nothing new here! EVERY FCV that has been on the road has been a "hybrid." There isn't a single practical FCV that did not use a bank of batteries from which the car takes its traction power. If this is what H2 has been waiting for... well, it has been here as long as they've considered H2 to propel a vehicle.... which means 100+ years.

If simply adding a way to charge the batteries from grid power is the big news here... then nobody should be surprised that adding more BEV will make any car more efficient with greater range. Take out the FC stack, add more batteries and you have a cheaper, faster, less complicated, better car.

Nope. Doesn't give you any more range. The Fuel cell stack just sits there charging the batteries while the traction motor takes power OUT of the batteries. This doesn't *extend* the range. It simply gives it range.

I don't know of one either. But then I can claim that it is possible at some distant time to build a cheap, 500 mile battery car. I could even show you a picture of what I think it should look like. We can't compare the reality of BEVs with the dreams of Fuel Cells. That's what got us into this crappy situation in the first place.

Err. No. Or are you just comparing the weight of the full H2 tanks with the batteries? You must also include all the weight of the fuel cell stack, the plumbing and pumps... and of course the batteries that make any FCV actually work.

We shouldn't and do not need to make that choice.

Basically, H2 is an energy carrier, not a source (like fossil fuel). I wonder how the equation would go if we had local H2 production (in-car or in garage), using power from the grid and tap water. Then the transportation costs of H2 would be negligable [/quote]
Energy cost to do this is huge. On par with gasoline at this stage, at a minium. And that doesn't include the capital cost of the machine that converts your tap water (needs to be pure) to H2.

Renewable energy is quite expensive. We can't afford to just throw it away. If we can power EVs with 10,000 wind turbines, why would be choose to power Fuel Cell cars with 40,000 wind turbines instead? Just because the energy is free does not mean that the devices to capture it are free. And they all come with associated environmental issues to produce.

the MASSIVE abandonment for the support of the "hydrogen highway" this past spring should be a pretty strong indication of where we need to go. industry has a 6-18 month lead time on emerging technology in most cases simply because the want to have something to go on (except gm) before making an announcement. with the multitude of announcements in the alternative transportation markets that have simply not happened as stated, companies i think are being just a little more hesitant to announce something until a time frame is more definite.

i think upcoming developments in charge storage technology will relegate hydrogen to a niche solution only used where dirt cheap forms of electricity are available like hydro and geothermal. but does that mean that Toyota is stupid for pursuing this?... no, not likely. discovery by serendipity is common and the #1 method of technological advance. by studying hydrogen, there is no doubt some other technology that will come of it. now to put all your resources into hydrogen (like some companies we know) is foolish and is obviously not what Toyota is doing.

i believe that gas and hydrogen will be 2nd rate options for most people in less than 5 years simply because we really dont have a choice. that does not mean that we will all be "Zenning" along by then... sure some will still be driving gas guzzling cars simply because they will be very cheap to buy... just expensive to run is all.

Not exactly a big technology breakthrough. The father of a friend of mine in grammar school (yes, several decades ago) worked for the local gas utility. His company car was run on natural gas, pressurized tank in the trunk. Natural gas or methane, same technology to get the wheels rolling.

from the article:

For bio-energy, Toyota is studying cellulosic ethanol, which is fuel from grass and wood chips and the stalks and stems of plants, as well as the biomass-to-liquid process, which produces liquid biofuel from biomass, including cellulose. Toyota is looking at these alternative fuel sources so as not to compete with demand for crops grown for food.

well i'll be...(in best andy griffith voice) 'bout time someone started thinking with their head instead of their a**

True with some elements & appliances. Others though permanently stay far far away . . . warp drive, cold fusion, time travel, rocket belts, & flying cars.

Hydrogen just doesn't work. In almost every aspect, it fails with little hope of becoming useful and only at a massive cost to the consumer. Of course this always opens up possibilities for a few to make a large profit. Hydrogen fuel cell cars have full electric drivetrains, so technically they are all hybrid. The problem is that the hydrogen part of the system is not efficient from start to end. [Fuel manufacture, to producing electricity in the vehicle.] They don't perform as well, they don't go as far, and they would take billions to add infrastructure when we already have a dormant electricity infrastructure at night when the power companies are idling. Hydrogen isn't very potent in storing energy on a vehicle. I think batteries do much better. The problem here, is that BP, Toyota, and other companies have a lot of power. Moreso than the power companies, which should fight harder for chargeable cars. BP sees that even after billions updating the fuel grid, they can make profit. They can control the market. Would you like the same people who have been making record profits telling you that their Hydrogen plants are experiencing downtime or something and jacking the prices of your fuel up? Let some local electric company jack up the rates. Anywho, I am sure the automotive industry doesn't want to go full electric. They make too much profit from parts and things that wear out. The ICE was amazing for this, however I think a Fuel Cell might have some issues to be ironed out every now and then. [Sorry for the lengthy post.]

hydrogen does have a place and now that Toyota has developed one with a reported 500 mile range, the only hurdle now (big argument coming now!!) is the price to the consumer...

the reason i say its the only hurdle is that infrastructure costs to put up fueling stations is not a hurdle, its a normal course of development and something that is always ongoing even for plain ole gas stations.

but as i said, hydrogen is a niche product, used where electricity is abundant and cheap and clean. so areas that have extra hydro or places where geothermal is practical is where hydrogen belongs. realistically speaking, with today's technology, hydrogen will never be mainstream...other storage methods will outpace and outperform hydrogen