Toyota Fuel Cell To Compete With Tesla?

I'm OK with some incentives for FCV. However, it should be noted that pretty much however you look at it EV driving takes less energy than gas driving. I doubt this is true for hydrogen driving. It either requires a significant amount of energy and NG for gas reformation...or 3-5x as much electricity for electroylsis from water.

Mike

 

Are you saying if they did not buy the volt they would have bought a prius? That is simply wild speculation. But lets go with your worst case, every volt would have been a prius liftback 15000/3/37 = 135 gallons of gas. 15000/50 = 300 gallons of gas. That is 165 gallons of gas saved.

Then wouldn't toyota simply raise the price for the subsidy? $3000x 220K + prius family is $660M in 2012 and they were close to capacity. Drop the subsidy and sales would drop the next year. This versus the $350 M for the plug in tax credit. Would you only allow the credit on the prius or would domestic cars like the camry hybrid get it too. Tax credits on the camry hybrid might actually increase sales, but wait it gets worse mpg then the prius liftback so you would count it as increasing fuel consumption. Remember the credit was to get the makers to build the cars. If it works payoff is in the future. A hybrid credit of the same amount needs to be applied every year.

I just think the FCV shouldn't get more than a $10,000 tax credit. I don't think we need to buy 63 fueling stations unless we get tens of thousands of fuel cell cars a year. We are down to 9 in california because there are less than a thousand cars. Why should federal tax payers put up the money. Let Toyota and Hyundai build their fueling stations or test them in Japan, Korea, and Germany. Stop putting out press releases about how batteries aren't ready but fuel cells are here today. I've been hearing it for about a decade. Hydrogen infrastructure currently needs diesel trucks to deliver the hydrogen to some stations. Tesla requires no oil.

I don't believe toyota is ready to roll with anything the country wants. They are politicking for more US subsidies. This is part of the CARB politics angle. In 2017 when CARB will have failed to reach the 50,000 cars, they will claim 2022, they just need a few billion more dollars. GM was one of the originials with Honda and Toyota that made the promises. Why isn't Japan good enough to demonstrate the car? I would think the subsidy Toyota got to build a hydrogen station in Torrence, and the tax credit for fuel cells should be enough. They don't need CARB ZEV rules to be against PHEVs, they don't need taxpayer money going to build stations with no cars, they don't need more R&D money from the US government.

 

We could completely eliminate gasoline moving the fleet to natural gas. The technology is proven and already in use. New NG cars will be cheaper than FCV ones. Vehicles already on the road can be converted to it. There is already an extensive nation wide infrastructure for NG, and we should be expanding it for home heating.

Going natural gas will be get more gasoline free vehicles on the road than FCV per dollar spent.

Well, Honda and Mercedes are the only ones with leasable FCVs on the road now. GM still has some FCV mules puttering around. Considering the extent of the future markets(California, Japan, Germany, Norway), GM stopping their fuel cell research during the bankruptcy was probably a smart move. Teaming up with Honda was another good move to share expenses.

A $60,000 car isn't going to make much of a dent in gasoline use and emissions, ready to roll out or not. That's 50% more than the Volt and quite a bit more than the gen1 Prius. Assuming they do become available in 2015. What will it be, a year or two after that when Tesla comes out with their more affordable BEV.

Fuel cells will have a future in a PHEV, but it is too soon for a nation the size of the US to commit fuel cells now when better hydrogen storage and other possible fuels are in the pipeline. Why spend billions building hydrogen stations when they might end up obsolete?

 

Majority (I recall 99%) of H2 is reformed from domestic natural gas currently. There is no coal in H2, like in electricity. FCV vehicle efficiency is not as efficient as an EV but it is better with fuel production efficiency, when using natural gas. From well to wheel, they are about the same.

So, why convert natural gas to hydrogen? Just burn it in a combustion engine or convert it to electricity. Both NGV and EV refuels slowly, creating a bottleneck hence range anxiety.

The battery has very low energy density per weight. Compressed NG density is probably about the as a compressed H2 tank but FCV is more efficient and can hold less fuel. Due to the nature of higher efficiency of fuel cell stack over combustion engine and advantage in tailpipe emission (lack of), FCV is the better choice with EV driving experience.

Regarding the cost, $40k Volt would cut 1,500 gallons. $50k Lexus FCV would all 3,000 gallon that a Prius would use. We need all types of alternatives and support.

As pointed out before, for the best bang for the buck, they should drive more demand of regular hybrid like Prius and C-Max. GM should come out with a similar competitive model. Toyota may set the price high but it is unlikely since they'll have to compete and the competition model will have similar incentive.

I know the sale would drop if the $3k incentive stops. However, the cost of importing 1,500 gallon cost us more than $3k which is why the incentive should continue for not only national security but also for emission/health related reasons.

I am not saying let's put all our eggs into FCV basket. All I am saying is that it is an alternative that has great potential and unique set of advantages and disadvantages. Let's not bad mouth it but give it a chance, at least a level playing field and even support it.

 

Its created from oil and natural gas, the feedstock changes with the price, but if you are doing a national roll out of stations many would use electricity. That is at least according to the fuel cell lobby. They also fielded the question what if gas supplies are low and it gets expensive. Here the lobby has proposed coal. The question isn't what is used for 20 stations. If you are going to do a roll out nation wide what really will happen? Coal with sequestration is going to be less expensive than many alternatives in Japan right now. The government just doesn't want to talk about it so they are going to subsidize cleaner energy.
DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program: Hydrogen Production

We have CARBs survey of EVs in california, an 39% of them use solar. If we look to that state, BEVs will be much less carbon intense than FCV, and CARB is a big lobbiest for fuel cells. If We ever get fcv in west virginia they will likely get fueled by coal and wind. They won't set up reformers everywhere. Texas natural gas and wind same as BEVs.

But PHEVs fuel on electricity at night, and can fuel on gasoline fast. Why not convert that natural gas to methanol, that will fuel almost as fast as gas. California had M85 set up and working, but killed it when natural gas prices got high. Both Honda and GM stated fuel cell customers had range anxiety because of the lack of stations. Say it costs $200M to get enough stations in just southern california to alieviate range anxiety. If you can get 200K cars that's only $1000/car, but what if you only get 5000 cars? You have to spend $40K per car just for the stations, and right now these stations are giving away the fuel for free. How much will that keep costing? California has built stations then closed most down because there were not the promised cars.

Yes so toyota and CARBs fuel cell slides say, you can't get the batteries with the energy density. Its impossible. Meet the Tesla S. It seems to be able to carry around its batteries just fine with the range people want. If the S doesn't go far enough there are phevs. Who really cares if energy density is better, its really a non-sense point trying to say a car like the S was impossible, you need fuel cells to do that.

I thought the rumors changed to around the cost of a tesla S. That is $50K after tax breaks, unless toyota changes its mind back, and I think they are thinking they are getting a lot of tax breaks. How many people will buy the beast. It should get the same tax breaks as the tesla. Maybe toyota should pay its fair share for more fueling stations though. I mean they want this test, and keep saying how much better the cars will be than bevs. Tesla is paying for charging stations, why shouldn't toyota contribute more than one? I am guessing your FCV vehicles won't save much gas, because FCV people will have anouther car they use, and very few will get purchased. I don't think anyone is saying don't give them a tax credit. What most are saying is don't give it more ZEV credits than a leaf. Don't kick in free hydrogen, and pay for more fueling stations.

GM has gorged itself at the government trough for fuel cells just like toyota. I don't care if either of them produce them. What I don't like is the wining that bateries will never work. Give us more money for fuel cells. Give us more credit for fuel cells.

I really don't get this. Is there a bill in congress to earmark $600K a year for toyota alone. I don't think most would agree. Hybrids don't need to be incubated. CAFE standards are going to force car makers to make more hybrids. Its already in the law. The biggest thing that would help move efficient cars right now is an oil tax. If you made it fairly neutral, paying for unfunded roads, and had the rest reduce payroll tax it might even help the economy. The Japanese successful tax policy to push hybrids starts there, with higher gas prices. It just is not politically easy to do, congress hasn't raised fuel taxes since 1993. I am not sure what this has to do with fuel cells though.

Its been given billions of taxpayer money. I'm all for giving it a second chance, its already blown a lot of promises on the first chance. But if toyota is going to get us a $70K before tax credit fcv that is speced similarly to a volt, it won't sell in the tens of thousands, it may not sell as the RAV4 EV. Let's not buy into their hype. We don't need to give fuel cell companies any more doe money, or carb any federal money for the hydrogen highway. JUst leave the tax credits, or rather extend them for more years. If they build something worth buying, then maybe help pay for the infrastructure. mercedees is paying for hydrogen stations in germany. If toyota wants them in california and has confidence in there car, and wants them to have free fuel, let them build them.

 

NGVs have been out in fleets for awhile. Yes, there are some slow pumps out that could be over a decade old. There are also slow hydrogen pumps out there. I see no technical reason for new retail NG pumps to not be as fast as new hydrogen ones.

Tesla can swap a 85kWh battery in 90 seconds.

Both NG and H2 tanks have an expiration date. At that time the tanks need to be replaced. Do to hydrogen's properties, the tanks will have a shorter shelf life and cost more. The fuel cell stack also has a shorter life than the ICE, who's life is extended on cleaner burning NG. Those replacement costs need to be factored in with the FCV overall emission and material costs.

The EV driving experience is acceleration from the instant torque without noise. FCVs deliver the first, but not the second. Fuel cell stacks and their ancillary equipment aren't quiet. Another plus of EV driving for some consumers is that they get their fuel from their home outlet.

Toyota has backed off from the $50,000 quote, and went with $50k to $100k.

2015 Toyota hydrogen fuel cell car will have 300-mile range, Tokyo debut

The OP article has them narrowing that down to the price and range of a Tesla S. So in the $60k to $70k range. Best case is that it will cost $50,000 after incentives. Which makes the comparison a $50k Lexus to a $30k Volt.

Fuel cells are already in use for stationary power supply at homes and businesses. They do have potential as a range extender in a PHEV. For some countries, FCVs might make sense at this time. It doesn't for the US at this time. A nationwide gaseous and liquid hydrogen refueling structure will cost billions of dollars. Without that infrastructure, FCVs are less practical for the majority of the population than BEVs. Even if cheaper than a gasoline car, no one will buy a FCV if they can't refuel it.

At this point in time, it is too soon for the US to commit to fuel cell vehicles. If we build the infrastructure for gas/liquid H2 and laser hydride comes to market, the country will be out of some of its investment. If it's NG or methanol powered fuel cells, then we are out all of that investment. It's like pushing for coal dust powered diesels when liquid fuels look like a possibility.

The car companies not kicking in to the infrastructure doesn't inspire confidence either. If Tesla can build their own recharging network, then Toyota and the rest can throw in some cash for H2 stations and infrastructure. Of course, if it doesn't happen in the US, that doesn't mean it won't happen. Japan and other countries are already committed to this. Let them do it first, and the US can learn from their projects on what will work best here.

Bringing up the current facts that pro-fuel cell sources gloss over or leave out isn't bad mouthing.

Part of the reason it is free is because the stations can't legally charge yet. The refueling station regulations still need to be updated.
"Hydrogen is free because Shell doesn't know how to charge for it. The California Division of Measurement Standards is waiting for state lawmakers to authorize it to regulate sales of automotive fuel in kilograms, which is how compressed hydrogen gas is measured, said Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the agency."
Shell offers free fill-ups for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles - Los Angeles Times
You would think Carb would want this settled.

 

I doubt mary nichols wants stations charging for hydrogen. There have been 8 years for her and her predecessor to get pricing regulated, and they have a huge staff to not get certain things done. The latest DOE survey found the average cost to be $9/kg. If these stations put that price up on big signs, there would be more opposition to CARB's rules and plans for a hydrogen highway. DOE say's prices may come down to $3-$5/kg, but even that makes it hard for CARb to push rules for favorable for fuel cells than plug-ins. The longer that the fuel cell lobby can push that hydrogen is cheaper than gasoline, the better CARB likes it.

On the hydrogen highway, california and DOE money were approved. CARB wrapped the money in so much red tape that very little was given out. They did hire staff to create the red tape and regulate. Federal money was spent and created far more hydrogen stations than the 140 fcv that came to california could use, so many have closed down. Now we are on round 2, and Nichols has been politicting for more federal and state money. This time for 63 stations. The fcv goals for 2010 failed. The coals for 2012-2014 were recinded. The new goal is 50,000 cars by 2017. That is less than 1/20th promised in 2002. I am expecting another failure. If they do get those 50,000 cars, state and federal tax payers will have spent over $20,000 per car on fueling infrastructure, + $10,000 per car on tax credits in recent years. That is on top on over a billion speant on research for fuel cell cars spent by the federal government.

 

I wonder why mister I hate GM John is not here to talk bad about Toyota? If this is GM, he would have went off on GM doing this in this thread.

 

GM's no-hybrid, no-plug, only-fuelcell approach of the past did get my attention. Diversity within models, categories, and fuel is important.

 

Wow did you really want to whip that up? You know that toyota is always right.
Here is a possible angle GM+Honda+DOD+Hawaii
US Army Could be silent partner in GM Honda fuel cell collaboration

What are their credentials?

That's a pretty big resume. They have real world experience that says they aren't likely to make money selling fuel cell cars to the public in the next decade. They seem to be cutting their fuel cell R&D budget and going on this thing together. If the public isn't likely to by fuel cell vehicles, how about the military?

Yep. GM and now Honda will likely get their Fuel cell vehicle research paid for by the DOD. It won't really hurt them if fuel cells fail in california. Hawaii is also one of those places that's electricity is generated mainly through oil.

My question is really why doesn't the military simply save oil and money by closing foreign bases. This hawaii project just sounds expensive, but no where near as wastefull as other things on the DOD budget.

There are plenty of successful fuel cell vehicles running around in the world. The two major classes are fork lifts and buses. Fork lifts operate indoors so there is a reason to pay extra for the hydrogen technology. They also don't go long distances so hydrogen production technology isn't important. On busses, these are expensive vehicles with central fueling, they can absorb costs better than individual cars. The local hydogen bus/hydrogen reformer from natural gas was written off as Educational.

 

You really have to ask that question?
Purely from a strategic military point of view it is advantageous to be diversified, geographically.
It is also more efficient to be located closer to strategic areas.

Arguing to just shut down the military is one thing. But arging that every ship at sea in the Pacific has to return to all the way to San Diego instead of Hawaii isn't very smart.

None of this is meant to imply that the military is actually efficient.

Mike

 

I said foreign. Last I checked hawaii was part of the US. I also wouldn't close all of the bases. One of the reasons that the military uses so much fuel is because of so many legacy foreign bases. These were set up to fight the cold war,not the current world picture. The large footprint is not needed for military readiness, it just costs a lot of money and fuel.

The military used about 4,600,000,000 US gallons of fuel a year in 2005. 70% is used outside the US. Sure its nice to be more efficient in hawaii, but its a small island, and more efficient land vehicles there won't save much of the billions of gallons of fuel used every year. Smaller and fewer foreign bases mean less fying of men and equipment, and lower fuel, personnel, and equipment cost.

The airforce is still buying green jet fuel
Not to worry: DoD still buying $59/gallon “green” jet fuel, despite sequester « Hot Air
There are over 600 foreign bases outside the war zone, and military personnel in over 100 countries. No one can tell me that we need all of those, all the money wasted, and all the fuel used in those places. If the dod can afford $59/gallon green fuel during the sequester, I doubt there isn't more fat to be cut out of the dod budget.

 

Don't want to drag this into politics, but the DoD would rather furlough its civilian workers, reducing the income by 20% until the end of the fiscal year, than cut off programs that pay their 'private sector' employees.

 

My bad, I should not have put in that throw away line. Yes I agree with your sentiment but didn't really meant to derail the discussion.

My tiny point was that its not just the DOE and CARB that is funding this stuff, when the fuel cell lobby or biofuel lobby can't get enough money there they bury the money in the DOE budget. GM and Honda are feeding off government fuel cell money just like toyota. They all want the government to help pay for their R&D.

But back to fuel cell infrastructure
Road Signs on the Hydrogen Highway - Road & Track
That is moldy from 3 years ago. Projections for fuel cell sales and hydrogen station sucess have decreased, but currently.
Gas Station Owners Push for Hydrogen Fuel Cells Cars in Japan
Gas station owners in Japan seem to want hydrogen, while in california we know they are fighting carb who is trying to force them. Japan and Europe seem like a much better places to test.

 

Gas station owners in Japan probably realize they'll have better chance of staying in business in the future with hydrogen versus electric.