Toyota: $50k Hydrogen Sedan By 2015

I like the way all those charts omit EVs to make FCHVs look like they're the best. While they're better than EVs are definitely a step in the right direction in terms of emissions and efficiency, EVs beat FCHVs hands down.

Tesla says that the Roadster is twice as efficient as the Prius. And that's in an EV that wasn't designed to be super-efficient, but very sporty.

Not to mention that in 5 years with batteries improving about 8%/year in cost, batteries will be about 50% better than they are now. So if Nissan can produce the 24 kWh pack for ~$9k as claimed, in 5 years they'll have a 36 kWh pack for the same price. Double the pack size to get a range similar to FCHV vehicles (72 kWh and 300mi range) and you'll still have a car that's less expensive (~$40k), similar range.

By then, quick chargers should be fairly common along major thoroughfares, so even 500 mi road trips should not be an issue.

 

I don't see renewable-source electricity on the charts, either for efficiency or for CO2. That was my question, admittedly obtuse as it was. Where are the figures for hydroelectric, wind, and solar-generated electricity powering electric vehicles? Never mind the well; call it wave to wheel.

How can turning CNG into electricity and then into hydrogen possibly be more efficient than turning CNG straight into electricity? And is either of those more efficient than running cars directly on CNG? There are efficiency losses at every 'phase change' or conversion from one form of energy to another. I don't understand how hydrogen gets all the hype when electricity seems so much cleaner and more efficient. Especially with renewable sources - that's where we should be focusing our mental energies and research funds. NOT on hydrogen, which will only cause us to burn more oil, not less.

 

I saw that. But it says FCHV, which is Fuel Cell Hydrogen Vehicle, right? That's not an EV.

 

And this says the first priority, at least in England, should be offshore wind power to generate electricity. So we agree on something.

 

True enough, seawolf, we don't have to agree. And learning is always good, though it seems our learning has taken different curves.

When I first heard of hydrogen as a fuel, I thought it was great. No pollution, abundant availability...it seemed the way of the future. But the more I learned about it, the less I liked it. It's not a source of energy at all, as many people are led to believe; it's only a way to store energy and move it from place to place. The costs and inefficiencies of generating hydrogen, storing it, transporting it, and turning it back into useful energy make it less attractive than it initially appears. So much less attractive that there are better alternatives. I no longer see it as the way of the future, 10 or even 100 years from now.

As far as allocating our research and development, I think the biggest effort should go to the most immediate prospects with the biggest returns, which would seem to be EVs. The smallest allocations should go to the most distant possibilities, which is where I would classify hydrogen. Judging by the hype and the money, obviously many people would disagree. I wonder how much of it is really for the long term benefit of society, and how much is to get government grants and perpetuate the status quo.

Without petroleum, in the absence of sustainable and renewable power, there is no hydrogen economy. And if we had sustainable and renewable power, we wouldn't need hydrogen.

 

Have I gone stupid? . . . or has something changed since "The Hydrogen Hoax" was drafted. Hasn't the industry promised, "hydrogen cars are just a few years off" ... ever since the ninteen SEVENTIES? then the eighty's? then the ninety's? and 2000's? Don't worry Charlie Brown, this time I really really promise I won't pull the football away when you try to punt ... no, not THIS time". Shouldn't folks wait until the industry can get the price down under a half MILLION, before making a $50K promise? After all THAT, I'll start to think about all the wasted energy it takes to pull hydrogen atoms apart from their existing source ... and the TRILLIONS of dollars it'd take to build infrastructure ... you know ... just a few little things like that.

.

 

Gee, Hill, at least I was trying to be polite about it.

 

I'm sorry (ok, maybe just a teeny bit) ... sometimes I think the industry posts this stuff just to drive me nuts ... not a long trip, I admit.

 

yep ... pathetically predictable . On a happy / fantacy note - think how far battery research would be right now had all those millions in hydrogen research been put towards EV batteries (sigh)

.

 

You completely omit the efficiency in converting Hydrogen to Electricity in your percentages above. Fuel cells run about 50% efficiency - pie-in-the-sky estimates put them around 70% efficient at best. This still ignores pumping losses (energy it takes to compress hydrogen into your onboard storage tank).

70% * 50% = 35% (CNG->Hydrogren->Electricity)
70% * 70% = 49% (Best case using Mr. Fusion of Fuel-cells)

Wikipedia references an study which found that Well to wheels using CNG as a source, the EV comes out around 35% efficient while the FCHV (using reformation) comes out around 25% efficient.

If Tesla can fit a 53 kWh pack into a Roadster using 5-year-old battery technology, I find it hard to imagine that you couldn't fit a 72 kWh pack into a much larger vehicle using technology from 5 years in the future.

Nissan has already stated that they are already testing their next-generation battery which doubles the storage capacity of the current battery going into the Leaf. That battery will be ready by 2015.

Hydrogen fueling stations are obscenely expensive compared to quick charge stations.

"In The Future" they plan on using electrolysis from renewables to generate hydrogen. Given how inefficient that is (25-40% at best), that only further drives the advantage to an EV where a battery will charge at 90%+ efficiency.

 

I didn't know batteries were that good. About the only thing better is a bicycle.

 

You forgot the disclaimer (Number above are only valid when reforming Hydrogen from Natural Gas) and completely skipped what happens when you try to generate Hydrogen from electricity.

Never mind that 70% efficiency from well to tank would be absolutely remarkable given that:

80% efficiency is what you can accomplish in the actual reformation process which completely ignores transportation costs and hydrogen compression costs (at best you lose 12% energy compressing to the extremely high pressures you need to contain hydrogen in a reasonable amount of space).

Toyota is being quite selective in using the best case scenario when comparing FCHVs to the alternatives, particularly EVs.