Toyota to announce hydrogen fuel cell breakthrough

Regardless of the chemistry, high energy, "air" batteries are likely to have poor, peak power needed for acceleration and small but steep grades at high speeds. Ultracaps might be a suitable buffer or batteries designed for high peak power operation.

Bob Wilson

 

Tell that to the people that own Teslas.

 

I guess I'll have to start saving my pennies now.

 

I should have included "air". The types of high energy batteries I was thinking about are air+<anything>. This is the only way I see getting energy density high enough to be competitive with today's gas engine vehicles.

Bob Wilson

 

Technology File | TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION GLOBAL WEBSITE

 

Source: Fuel Cell Systems - 1 kW to 5 kW - Fuel Cell Store

Ok, about 6.7 hp and for only $26,555.95. Let's just say I'm curious but "a miracle occurs here" needs a little more detail.

Bob Wilson

 

The blending of electricity is not as difficult as the ICE and motor blending in a hybrid, but I buy that an EV has no blending, so no HSD there.

A fuel cell car without a traction battery would not be commercially viable. Fuel cells need to heat up before they start producing electricity. Back in the days of steam power, people were willing to wait 10 to 20 minutes between starting the car and driving off. That is not so now. Fuel cells also cannot adjust their output quickly. Push the accelerator to pass somebody, and you will have to wait for the cell power output to meet your demand. Slow down, and electricity will have to be wasted as the cell's output drops.

The solution to these disadvantages of the fuel cell is the traction battery. It powers the car on start up until the cell is warmed up, and acts as a buffer absorbing excess energy from the cell during low demand, and providing the spurt of energy during periods of high demand.

FCVs are just serial hybrids with an exotic genset, that needs a battery buffer.

 

Any info on the time needed (seems this would determine size of battery based on driving needs during warmup)

My understanding is that PEM fuel cells+hydrogen, as in the Toyota, warm up and produce electricity fairly quickly, of course this will vary based on outdoor temps......but you are right that the throttling ability is not ideal and so a battery would be needed for that purpose even if no regen were harvested

I think it is the SOFC + LNG combo that takes 10-15 minutes warmup, although there are some recent attempts to cut this down (as well as reduce operating temps) so as to be more applicable for transportation. My guess is we'll see them in big rigs first if they ever solve the technical hurdles.
HowStuffWorks &quot;Can solid oxide fuel cells change transportation?&quot;

Great thing is they don't use expensive platinum, and they can utilize the fast-growing LNG infrastructure. Truckers are already converting to LNG ICE's, so a potential future migration path is to LNG+SOFC once the price of natural gas inevitably rises.

Ditto, this would make a great fuel cell for cars. They could easily re-fuel at truck stops just as diesel drivers do today. No need to build an expensive hydrogen infrastructure.

But, as mentioned, the problem is the start-up time. If it takes 15 minutes to warm up, a car could travel 20 miles in that time, so the battery would have to provide at least a 20-mile AER.

For a midsize sedan, that would mean at least 7 kwh available, so figure a battery of 7-10 kwh. That puts it squarely in the same class as PHEVs like the Acccord and Fusion and C-Max Energi's.

The only way they could compete is if they can get the SOFC down to ~$3000-4000 greater than the ICE. The premium could be made up by using cheaper LNG at twice the efficiency of an ICE.

Emissions would be super low, as low or lower than EVs in most states.

 

If Toyota has truly hit the $/kw target for their fuel cell (and there's no reason to think they haven't), then the only barrier remaining would be build-out of the hydrogen infrastructure.

I am sure Big Oil is more than willing to do so, and here's why:

Lately, more and more of their business has come from natural gas. Since the shale boom, many companies have a majority of their assets or production in natural gas (by volume) as opposed to oil. And soon, they will have a majority based on dollar value as well. So, Big Oil is becoming Big Gas. Exxon bought XTO, etc., etc.

Well, they would obviously want to drive up the price of natural gas.......heck, they are furiously lobbying for export permission - which is a stupid way to make use of our gas. It would be much better to use it to displace expensive and dirty foreign oil.
Anyhow, point is there is a much more direct relationship between natural gas prices and a potential hydrogen economy, then there is between NG prices and EV's.
EV's drive up demand for electricity, and NG is commanding a larger and larger share of electricity production..........but there is very little overlap between these two. In fact, it could be argued that EV's barely use any NG at all, as they are charged at night when most NG plants (peakers, load-followers) are offline.

So,
EV's = weak or no incremental demand for NG
FCV's = strong incremental demand for NG

Clearly, Big Oil would favor FCV's.

This is due to the fact that most of the hydrogen will be made from natural gas. This won't change even with a carbon tax (Big Oil can simply install capture equipment at all their hydrogen plants). NG is so cheap now, it's crazy to use electricity to crack water, much less expensive renewable energy.

I am sure they were simply waiting for FC costs to fall to the point where they could compete with ICE and EV's. If Toyota thinks that has happened, then there is no better time to build large hydrogen-production plants. Both natural gas prices and interest rates are low, meaning the facility could be amortized very quickly, and capital easier to acquire with less risk.

As a bonus, it would be easier to capture emissions from large facilities. This could be a big benefit for Big Oil, because they could use the captured carbon dioxide for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

Building a few large hydrogen-production plants (and then delivering H2 to gas stations with trucks, in much the same way refineries do today with gas/diesel) certainly sounds do-able. This would probably be cheaper than having micro-reformers at each gas station.

Delivering H2 by truck may not be as inefficient as it sounds. A 10,000 gallon tanker truck would hold about 2,500 kg of liquid H2. This doesn't make it one quarter as efficient. For one thing, fuel cell cars will be far and few in between, so the H2 delivery trucks may very well be making fewer trips than their gasoline and diesel counterparts. Also, FCV's are twice as efficient, so each truck is really carrying more like 5,000 kg when viewed as "miles delivered-per-truckload" as opposed to "gallons delivered-per-truckload"

Perhaps it would even be possible for the trucks themselves to be powered by PEMs, siphoning H2 from the tanker as it boils off. This could lengthen the time the H2 remains liquid, as well as reduce insulation requirements.

The one problem with this Toyota and all other FCVs that I don't think anyone has addressed is how you take a road trip.

Sure, they could build a nationwide network of hydrogen re-fueling stations. But the ones along remote stretches of highway have a problem.

They need to sell all their hydrogen within 7-10 days or it will start to boil off.
At that point, it becomes a money-loser because energy would then be needed to re-refrigerate the H2.

Seems like a lot of trouble to alleviate the range anxiety of a very small population of FCV drivers.

 

And Toyota's decision to use compressed H2 as opposed to liquid H2, is odd.

Only 1/10 the energy density of gasoline, or up to 1/4 at 10,000 psi, but this means expensive carbon-fiber tanks.

It seems FCV's need all the expensive stuff
- Lithium battery for warmup buffering
- Platinum for the fuel cell
- Carbon Fiber for the tanks
what's next......thin film solar panels!?

 

About the range of the PiP . . . hummmm.

Bob Wilson

 

We don't really have any new information on these new fuel cells, maybe we will next week if toyota announces anything new. The old ones took about 10 minutes to fully warm up. That doesn't mean they didn't provide any power, but cold they are less efficient and can't provide as much power, this changes as they warm up. How much energy depends on how big the fuel cell is. You could also use the battery to heat the fuel cell.

Yep, also fuel cells are much more expensive per kw. A more powerful battery not only can capture more regen from braking, they can allow a smaller fuel cell. Say a cold a fuel cell for the first 3 minutes can only provide 25% of power. Pretend the battery has full power when started in the cold, this is wrong, it has less

In the old 2008 toyota vehicle, the latest they provide information for, had a 90kw fuel cell, and a 90kw motor, and a 21 kwh nimh battery. Cold start power would be 43.5kw (21+90/4) and peak power 90kw.

If instead they drop in a more powerful motor and battery, these things have advanced since 2008, Say the next gen prius battery around 27kw and a 80 kw fuel cell and a 120 kw motor, you have reduced costs and now have 47 kw cold start power and 107 kw peak power. That seems like a no brainer, engineering trade offs all tend toward a more powerful battery and motor in 2015 versus 2008. You could even grab the mg2 from the next gen prius and put it on both the front and rear axis giving you 4wd.

Its likely Honda/Gm and Mercedes/Ford/Nissan are looking at plug-ins with bigger batteries that can plug in to use renewable electricity. Toyota press releases seem to disagree with this approach.

The hyundai ix25 (tuscon fuel cell) has a 100kw fuel cell and a 25 kw battery with 0-62 mph(0-100km/h) of 12.5seconds when warmed up. They are currently producing 1000 of them, with plans to do a run of 10,000 in 2015 (we don't know how many per year or how many years that will take).

I am pessimistic that we will have more than 5000 fuel cell vehicles on American roads in 5 years, but lets see what Toyota comes up with. They may do better in Europe, Korea, or Japan. IIRC the american federal tax credit on fuel cell vehicles expired last year. I do not know if congress will pass another one. Given that these cars are only for california, I can't see much of a push to get it passed if plug-ins are selling well and oil imports are falling. Japan and California can definitely subsidize them though for toyota, but I don't know how much they will.

 

If the toyota fuel cell vehicle drives like the volt, but you can't fill it at home, but costs tens of thousands of dollars more, how many people will buy them? Let's see what they got and if anyone wants it before spending tens of billions to roll out a fueling structure.

Second Try For Calif. Hydrogen Highway | NBC 7 San Diego

sounds like oil companies want no part of this. Where is the profit? Even if the state and federal government put up funds for building the infrastructure will people actually pay for hydrogen?
One of the majors was in favor of it, but can't even charge for fuel.
Shell offers free fill-ups for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles - Los Angeles Times

-1

It takes a lot of electricity to liquify the hydrogen, then it takes diesel to deliver it in trucks (or lng if thats what the trucks run on). These trucks are more expensive than the tankers for gasoline as the liquid hydrogen needs to stay cold. Few and far between means more miles and more diesel are used to deliver each gallon equivelent of hydrogen. That means more costs and more fossil fuel are used.

I do not buy at all the efficiency argument. Let toyota bring out a 100 mpge fuel cell car before that happens. The prius gets 50 mpg, the honda clarity 60 mpge, the volt gets over 100 mpg in gasoline when supplemented with electricity, the leaf uses no gasoline at all. Sure the next toyota fuel cell may be more efficient than the clarity, but the next prius/volt/leaf will also likely be more efficient.

 

Volt is rated 60 MPGe (combined composite) by EPA. PiP, 58 MPGe.

60 MPGe Clarity is a midsize 5 seater whereas Volt is a compact 4 seater.

We'll have to wait and see the production version of Toyota sedan FCHV. Judging from the concept SUV (FCHV-adv), it will be more efficient than Honda's outdated tech.

 

Remember that FCHV-adv numbers released were on a Japanese test that the prius gets in the 70s mpg. The EPA has dropped there combined gas/electricity mpge task, and I was only addressing real world gas (from onstar, which is very complete data) only mpg of the volt (no electricity) to talk about the problem of building hydrogen infrastructure. YMMV on a phev based on percentage of miles in EV. IMHO the prius phv or volt would use fewer gallons of gasoline, than a fuel cell owner will use kg of hydrogen taking similar trips. Because of lack of fueling infrastructure a fuel cell vehicle is not going to take long out of state trips in that vehicle.

Given the prius c gets the same mpg as a prius, I doubt having a 4 seater versus 5 saves much fuel. The clarity like the toyota fcv-r is a 4 seater so there is room for the hydrogen tanks. Toyota has had more time, and technology moves on so toyota could definitely improve past 60 mpge, but like I said the prius, volt, leaf will also likely improve in their next generation and be available nationwide soon after this vehicle materializes.

I'm rooting for toyota to come out with a great car here, but the odds are against it being a car with many sales in the US.

 

A liquid hydrogen tank has its own challenges to address. It needs to be well insulated. Vacuum, like a Thermos bottle, is best for least amount of extra space. This will also make the tanks costly, and the vacuum doesn't hold forever. The hydrogen is still going to to warm up.

The BMW Hydrogen 7 uses liquid H2.

The tank that can empty out in 12 days on non-use is 45 gallons.
BMW Hydrogen 7 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think there are some companies working on liquid H2 tanks that won't need venting, but that doesn't negate the fact that it takes more energy to get hydrogen to liquid than to compress it. 10k psi was likely chosen, in part, as a compromise between volumetric energy density and cost.

 

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vs Electric Car: Buyer Beliefs May Differ

 

IMHO those that distrust hydrogen will be built, and want more range will buy a phev.

I don't know who would trust that hydrogen would be built and superchargers not built in 2015 when there will already be supercharger networks. That leaves fuel cell vehicles niche as people that don't have anywhere to plug in but want to drop 50 large on a vehicle. IMHO that is a very small target market. That is unless by then the fuel cell vehicle has some other advantages over a phev or bev. The hyundai is going to compete with the tesla X, but be less expensive, but is squeezed with the rav4 bev and mitsubishi outlander phev which should be less expensive. I don't know what the toyota fuel cell will be.

 

Some great points.
This made me look twice to make sure I was reading it right:

Green Car Congress: DOE seeking input on proposed automotive fuel cell cost and durability targets

See the chart where DOE has set as a target for 2030 of fuel cells to have an energy density of 850 watts / liter.

And yet the Toyota press release says their 2015 FCV has an energy density of 3 kw / liter!

 

Yep.
I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations....literally.
Determined that fuel used per GGE delivered would be 10-40x higher in a H2 truck.

Still.......I don't see why these would have to be diesel-powered.
They are already starting off at a facility that turns natural gas into hydrogen.
Seems the would either be LNG ICE, or H2 PEM. If Toyota can make FC economics work for a passenger car, then that means PEM would amortize even faster in a truck, given miles driven per year.
Don't see why boiled-off H2 couldn't be siphoned off from the tanker to feed the PEM. Still inefficient, but less so.