Test drive report from upcoming FCV (Fuel Cell Vehicle) - pictures of prototype!

Equally important, it costs only 10 percent as much to build as the original, although that figure remains a staggering $100,000. That said, Satoshi Ogiso, Managing Director of Toyota Motor Corporation and pioneering figure in the firm's 21st century transportation efforts, anticipates that number will be cut in half by the time the car goes on sale and reduced half again as volume numbers ramp up and generate meaningful economies of scale. Even so, the base price of this new FCV seems likely start somewhere around $50,000.

 

Toyota Schools U.S. On Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles - Forbes

 

I read it is being build in the Lexus HS/Toyota Sai platform, not the new Prius platform, hopefully, a hatch instead of trunk, and bigger than the HS 250h.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20131014/OEM06/310149959/toyota-predicts-big-cuts-in-fuel-cell-costs

 

It has been confirmed that it is a Lexus hs (sai) modified platform, and will be sold as a toyota. The unibody will be different, but we do not know how much. The two 10,000 psi hydrogen tanks will likely change the rear seating, but it has not been confirmed whether it is 4 seat as the current fcv-r prototype, or 5 seat.

 

I look forward to seeing it on the roads!

 

Honda Clarity FCV has been out for years

 

The more competition the better.

 

I hope it has a better paint job.

 

Hyundai ix35 is already in "limited" production like the prius phv demo phase, and is promising customer sales in 2015 with more limited production (perhaps with changes, like the prius phv went through). Really because of very limited infrastructure, and costs, neither car will get further than very limited production in the next 5 years, but will be the first fcvs sold not leased. The question is really will the cars sell enough to gather enough critical mass for hydrogen fueling stations to be viable without large government funding. With their much lower costs electric charging stations are viable now at least for funding by tesla, nissan, and nrg. Germany looks to be the best testing zone, with governments and companies deploying more of a hydrogen highway, as well as very high gasoline taxes. Unlike Japan or Korea, american and german companies can also compete there on a more level playing field. Unlike california, which will already have good charging stations for tesla and much plug-in competition, different commute patterns and taxes give fuel cells a better chance.

 

This Toyota FCV is absolutely dead in the water compared to the Tesla Model E (with a nationwide Supercharger network) and the upcoming 200-mile EV from GM (w./ SAE combo that will also have a substantial nationwide rollout by 2015). Both of those will be $30k after fed tax rebate, compared to $50k for this FCV.

Toyota has still not answered THE prime question w./ regard to FCV's:

Where will the hydrogen come from?

 

The DOE has answered that question for the US, some will come from reformation of natural gas, which is less expensive, and some will come from grid electricity. Hydrogen produced by grid electricity can be offset by installing more renewables, but so can electricity for plug-ins, and we do have statistics that 39% of homes with plug-ins in california offset the grid with solar, and tesla charging stations, city of austin charging stations, and many other public chargers are 100% renewable.

In the 2020s might a plug-in with a fuel cell range extender be commercially viable? It could be. The big question toyota has not answered is why should someone buy this fcv-r instead of a volt or bmw i3. I expect details to be out soon, but I doubt there is much of a value proposition.

 

Two notes...
First, Tesla expects there will be no rebates left when the gen III comes out in 2017. The price target for the base model is $35k without any rebates.

Second, GM has refused to give a rough date for a 200 mile EV. At this point I don't think you can count on it for anything.

That said, I would rather not put up with the inconvenience of fueling, so hydrogen is a non starter for me.

 

Since toyota wants government to pay for it, it is toyota's responsibility to be honest about the cost and source of fueling. They still are putting out their circa 2008 slides about fuel cells pumping out less ghg and being more efficient than plug-ins. These slides are deeply flawed. If they don't like the governments answers, they do need to come up with some of their own. Toyota is trying to buy politicians with their pacs, to help fund their fuel cell development. Mercedes is the leader of this pac in Europe. In the US and Japan Toyota is leading the politics.

No it is simply a matter of money. It is not a technical challenge to produce 10 euro per kg hydrogen, there are challenges to produce low priced hydrogen at a low price.

I too think it has a better chance of working in Europe, mainly because of tax policies. Plug-ins may be a less expensive path to using less oil and producing less ghg, but it will be good if a german hydrogen highway is a test site to see if these fcv can become commercially viable.

 

It really isn't Tesla's responsibility to provide the supercharger network either. They went ahead and did it anyway. Why? Because the question of what to do with a BEV on a long trip is a big question that makes people hesitate about taking the plunge, and Tesla wants to sell their cars.

In the early days of the automobile, kerosene and diesel was readily available for lighting and heating. Gasoline was a waste product being sold as a cheap solvent cleaner and degreaser. Depending on the circumstances, it may not have been convenient to get fuel for early adopters, but they could get it.

That isn't going to be the case with hydrogen. A welding supply store might be able to supply the gas, but not at the pressures needed to fill a FCEV's tank completely.

Regulators need to step up to set the standards for a station to charge a customer for hydrogen. Hydrogen stations legally can't charge for the fuel in California at this time. Even if they could, what incentive is there for fuel companies to open stations when the only models available are $50k plus? If Toyota wants their FCEV to sell, they have to do more than get taxpayers to pay for the refueling infrastructure. Tesla believed enough in their product to do so.

 

Some really great points mentioned.

Allow me to make a few observations:

(1) Making H2 from renewables is a non-starter. You are taking expensive electricity and wasting half in electrolysis. Way too inefficient compared to just sending solar/wind power directly to an EV battery.

(2) Natural gas prices are low in the U.S., relative to global LNG prices, and are likely to remain so for decades thanks to shale fracking. H2 from NG can be up to 70% efficient. However even in Europe, with expensive NG, making H2 from NG would still be cheaper than using renewable electricity to crack H2 from water.

Some back-of-the-envelope #'s:

$15/MMBtu NG
@ 70% efficiency you get 700,000 BTUs of H2, or 6 gasoline-gallon-equivalents assuming 115,000 BTUs/gallon
This works out to a raw feedstock cost $2.50/kg (1 kg H2 = 1 gal gasoline), but you have to include capex for the H2 facility.
Figure about $5-6/kg

Assume North Sea wind power @ $.10/kwh
It takes 70 kwh to make 1 kg of H2 from water.
That's a raw feedstock cost of $7/kg! Even if you use surplus overnight wind @ $.05/kwh you're still at $3.50/kg!
And you still have to add in capex for the electrolysis facility.

So, let's just go with the assumption that Toyota's "H2 Economy" is simply a derivative of NG

(3) Well.......this is an awful lot of trouble to go through just to get water vapor out of a tailpipe! Much more efficient to just burn the NG directly in an ICE.........e.g., Honda Civic Natural Gas.

1.00 unit of NG--->.7 units of H2---->.35 units of motive power in a FCV that's 50% efficient
1.00 unit of NG---->.30 units of motive power in a hypothetical Honda Civic Hybrid NG

So why bother? The direct burn of NG would pretty much eliminate energy imports (in the U.S., not Europe) while providing a 25% cut in GHG's compared to gasoline. And you can get progressively larger cuts in GHG's by making said hypothetical Honda Civic Hybrid NG a PHEV.

Sure, it doesn't eliminate GHG's.......but why make the perfect the enemy of the good? If a NG->H2 facility captured its carbon, then you have zero GHG's well-to-wheels........but it would take a really, REALLY large carbon tax to justify such a scheme. I think I calculated somewhere in the $200-$300/ton range.......and currently there isn't even the political will for $10/ton!

(4) Will FC's ever be as cheap as an ICE? This is an important question. I applaud Toyota for advancing the tech and driving down the costs. But let's keep in mind every FCV is really just a hybrid with an FC instead of an ICE. You still need battery power during warm-up. So, the FC is best relegated to the role of range-extender.

Well, let's say there were 2 Volts: one with an ICE ranger and the other with a FC ranger, and let's say the FC ranger costs only $2k more (still a distant goal). The ICE Volt gets 40 mpg in CS mode, while the FC Volt gets 80 mpg in CS mode.

Most Volt owners get about 100-200 mpg, which means they are only using about 75-150 gallons of liquid fuel per year (@ 15,000 miles). Chopping that in half, to 38-75 gallons, by using an FC instead of an ICE only saves $200-$400/year assuming $6/kg H2 and gasoline. It would take forever to pay back. Much better to install workplace charging to effectively double EV range of Volt.

(5) Will the H2 network be as large as Tesla's Supercharger network or the forthcoming SAE combo network? Doubt it. If Toyota wants to rely on the feds, then sure. But arm-twisting state-by-state or city-by-city will be very problematic for them.

As any current Tesla owner can testify, "fueling" is a non-issue. It's only on road trips that there is a 'slight' inconvenience of having to wait 45 minutes for a "fill-up". But most people rarely take road trips where this would be a drawback. Unless you are on the run from the law and making a cross-country getaway, I just don't see how someone would choose a more expensive FCV, with a higher cost-per-mile, just to save a few minutes on a once-a-year-or-less long-distance trip.

I am not trying to be cynical here, but I've always felt that FCV's were a distraction foisted upon the public by Oil and Gas interests (FreedomCar) in order to stifle a true solution.....EV's. Even a 'partial solution' (PHEV's with a NG ICE) are superior, IMHO.
I really wonder who is making these decisions at Toyota, and what their motivations are. The math seems pretty clear to me.
I have repeatedly read that (and this could be a smokescreen) it has to do with "consumer behavior".

In other words, Toyota thinks that people are so used to filling up their car at a station in less than 5 minutes and being able to travel 300-400 miles per tank, that they would rather accept a technically and economically inferior solution then to break this habit.

I disagree. Everyone these days plugs in gadgets; it doesn't take much effort to plug in your car before you go to bed.
It is a very easy consumer behavior to pick up, but someone has to initiate it like Tesla and the Volt are doing.

People will get used to it.

You plug in before you go to bed, you have great mpg and/or EV range the next day.
You forget to plug in before you go to bed, and you have lousy mpg (or EV range anxiety) the next day.

Not too hard.