Toyota Chairman STILL down on EVs

I think Toyota is simply hedging their bets.

a.ka. "Heads they win, Tails, they don't lose"

'Heads' for FCV's.........if the breakthroughs occur in storage and the $/kw DOE metrics are achieved (as Toyota apparently believes will happen), then they get First Mover advantage.

If consumers accept FCV's (and I think that's a big IF) then they corner the market, it'll be the Prius all over again.

If not,

'Tails'......let others (Tesla) pour billions into advancing battery tech. Whoever creates the 'winning' battery chemistry is likely not to be carmaker, but rather a supplier like A123. So, if EV's take off, just pop a Tesla or whoever's battery into an EV......

shouldn't be too hard for Toyota to stay in the EV game while fending off competitors in the PHEV market, all while developing the FCV market.

I'm not saying I agree with this strategy, I'm just trying to see things from Toyota's point of view

 

agreed, and isn't toy already involved with tesla?

 

It all depends on what you are doing. If you are taking natural gas and reforming it at the hydrogen station, compressing it there for fairly high traffic, then we are around 75% efficient converting natural gas to 10,000 psi compressed hydrogen. Some of the energy come from electricity, most from the natural gas. Fuel cells for vehicles can be up to 60% efficient, leading to 45% efficiency from natural gas to electricity, which is quite good.


If the hydrogen is made from electricity and water, then compressed it is about 78% efficient with the energy coming entirely from electricity. This will give a 47% efficiency electricity to electricity through the fuel cell.

Until now plug-in vehicles have been more efficient than fuel cell vehicles, but theoretically they could get closer. Plug-ins fueled by electricity then are theoretically with a 15% charging loss would have 85% efficiency to charging. This is just under twice as efficient as a fuel cell vehicle, but given real world vehicles the figure is around 3 times more efficient than fuel cell vehicles.

If the fuel for that plug-in is natural gas through a 50% efficient ccgt gas power plant, then including transmission losses its (50%*92%*85%) = 39%. This is theoretically less efficient on pure natural gas.

 

Except they have been on an offensive anti-bev.

Honda, GM, Mercedes, and Hyundai have moved first.

 

Only Honda has moved first, but like the others, have/had very limited production. Mercedes Fuel-cell had 60 units. FCX Clarity about 200.

There are no big moves towards mass production FC cars...

 

H2 production from nat. gas is about 70-80% efficient.
Toyota apparently believes that an FCV using H2 from 100% nat. gas has better wells-to-wheels efficiency than an EV powered by a grid with 100% nat. gas combined cycle turbines.

There was a flow chart in a previous post, I will try to find it and link.
Anyhow, I don't agree with their numbers.......the power plant efficiency # they used was unusually low, IMHO, since they didn't factor in combined-heat & power (CHP). And, assuming a 100% gas grid is less and less realistic every year as we move towards more renewables...........and the efficiency of EVs from straight electricity blows away the efficiency of trying to crack H2 from water using electrolysis.

Further, I have calculated that the process of obtaining H2 from nat. gas is no more efficient than simply using the nat. gas directly in a vehicle (Civic GX) as opposed to cracking it into H2 for use in a FCV. It would only be cheaper with a massive carbon tax, which the H2 facility could avoid by capturing and sequestering its (pure stream) of co2. GHG emissions from tailpipe of Civic GX can not be captured to avoid tax.



Some approx. numbers:

100% Renewable grid
---------------------------
10% line losses, 20% drivetrain losses in EV = 72% well-to-wheels
50% efficiency electrolysis of water, 90% distribution efficiency, 50% efficiency of fuel cell stack = 22.5% well-to-wheels for FCV


100% Nat. Gas grid
--------------------------
60% power plant efficiency, 10% line losses, 20% drivetrain losses in EV = 43.2% well-to-wheels



Nat. Gas to H2
--------------------------
70% steam reformation efficiency, 90% H2 distribution efficiency, 50 % efficiency fuel cell stack = 31.5% well-to-wheels


Nat. Gas to ICE
----------------------------
90% distribution efficiency, 30% efficiency in hypothetical Civic Nat. Gas Hybrid = 27 % well-t0-wheels

True. But this is just PR trash-talking.
GM said similarly negative things about hybrids.
After the Volt came out, they shut up.
I agree with your earlier post, though, that this talk is counter-productive for the industry as a whole and makes it seem as if it is a zero-sum game when in fact it is not.

It is my understanding that the FCV-R will be the first FCV to be offered on a wide scale to the general pubic (not just fleets and municipalities), for sales instead of just lease.

 

+1

I hope you are right and that toyota is actually working on a 200 mile bev, just waiting for the price of batteries to come down. By 2018, a tesla pack for a 200 mile ev should be less than $15,000. It takes around 5 years to design a car.

We don't know what that means. It can't be offered nation wide since there isn't hydrogen infrastructure. Toyota has been working on fuel cells since 1992 (according to an article about possible cooperation with mercedes), but still hasn't gotten one into the hands of the general public. GM, Honda, and mercedes all have leased to the public, in that chronological order. GM's equinox was not a polished product. The honda clarity was designed from the ground up as a fuel cell vehicle, but honda's costs were too high to attempt to sell much volume so it was limited lease only. Mercedes f-cell is built on a gasoline platform (b-class) but quite polished, but because of costs is a limited lease that includes insurance. The f-cell platform the b-class, also is an electric car that will be sold to the general public early next year, engineering work and some of the parts for the b-class electric drive were done by tesla. All three of these companies up until now have probably spent more than toyota, honda and gm are partnering and each have more patents than toyota. The honda/gm partnership really have the first mover advantages, but IMHO this advantage is not worth what they spent on it. Fuel cells just aren't ready, so there is plenty of time for toyota to catch up.

The first sold to the public fuel cell vehicle is likely the hyundai ix35 (tucson). They are now being built and leased. They are planning on leasing for 2 years hoping costs come down and fixing problems that come up during leasing, then selling to the public in 2015. Hyundai is claiming the first sold to the public production and counting 2013 as the year it happened even though these sales will be in the future. Toyota is with Hyundai with promising 2015 sales to the public. Will these 2 in 2015 have first mover advantages? Its doubtful, but they do get headlines like gm and honda did in the past. I don't think the headlines helped gm and honda though. We will see in 5 years, whether claiming 5th as first helps toyota out.

 

I'm not terribly worried about something said in late September 2013. Technology changes and given a good, air-<anything> battery, product development and mix can easily change.

Given the climate changes, I'm wondering if anyone is planning amphibians . . . yet. Something like:



Bob Wilson

 

They have been repeating the mantra fuel cells good, bevs bad since 2011.

I do not give toyota a free pass. When its time to put up or shut up, and Toyota asks the american to subsidize their experiment more (tax credits for fuel cell vehicles will be expired by the time the toyota car ships, toyota wants bigger subsidies for fcv than bevs), I want the government to say no! Toyota has been politicing against adoption of plug-ins, they should not be rewarded with special tax breaks, and I have to believe this is what this is all about. Note Hyundai and Mercedes are helping to pay for hydrogen infrastructure, toyota wants the american tax payer to do it, and we are. To me this is bad corporate citizenship, just like hiering regulators to help with your pack in lobbying the NHSTA. The fuel cell lobby already has gotten fuel cells favored over plug-ins in california, but much of this special treatment ends in 2018.

 

Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Today's batteries just don't have the energy density to excite me. Air-<any_metal> does but the closed batteries don't have what it take for my applications.

It isn't "perfect being the enemy of good enough' but they just don't have the energy density.

Bob Wilson

 

Do you think 0-60 in under 5 seconds and 265 mile range is too little with a quick charger network? I don't know anyone interested in a bev that says battery tech is not available for enough performance. There are many that would like less expensive batteries, and costs have been falling at about 7%/year. With breakthroughs they may drop faster, but there do not seem to be any technical challenges to get down to a $200/kwh battery.

Saying batteries are too expensive for the mass market is one thing, and may be correct, idk. Saying they don't provide enough acceleration or range, is a lie, as anyone who has driven a tesla S should know. If your problem is performance not price, but don't like refueling, that is a much simpler matter than hydrogen, battery swap stations can change batteries in less than 2 minutes and cost less than a hydrogen station.

I call bs to that. The energy density of batteries today is fine to build a car better than a fuel cell car, with a less expensive infrastructure. Want 500 mile range, simply make it a phev or add more batteries.

Really the dream of hydrogen is more likely in a phev with a big battery pack and fuel cell range extender. It is all about cost. Hydrogen gives no performance advantage over today's battery technology.

 

There's no efficiency or cost advantage, either. Which is why I don't get why hydrogen is given serious consideration as a transportation option. I don't pretend to know better than Toyota, but from what I do know, their actions do not make sense. Being paid to alter their plans - via subsidy - seems the only rational explanation.

In a perfect world, we'd have no subsidies of any kind, and each source of power would have to stand on its own merits.

 

My application:

• 60 hp - 80 kW - sustained power
• 212 lbs (466 kg) - motor, controller, and full charge battery
• 12 hours every 24 hour day
• up to three, 1 hour duration recharge events

This can be handled by:

• one recharge - 1000 kwHr battery
• two recharge - 500 kwHr battery with a 500 kW recharge rate
• three recharge - 333 kwHr battery with a 333 kW recharge rate

This will provide the same energy density and weight as:

• Hirth 3502, 60 hp, engine, with 3-bladed, electrically adjustable prop, 3.8 gal/hr
• 15 gallon gasoline gasoline tank (three refueling in 24 hours)

So do you have something like this in an existing battery technology?

Bob Wilson

 

In my opinion, the big problem of an EV is "refuel" time. If I would be on the road and the battery would need to be recharged, I don't want to wait for 3.5 hours or so. I want to refuel in 5 or 10 minutes and be on my way. So in my view, a hybrid fuel cell car is a much better option than an EV. But it depends on your needs.

 

No, Mr Wilson, I don't. But then, is there anything like this in existing hydrogen technology? I'm sure it's only ten years away.....

 

Without subsidies we would have no prius. The Japanese subsidies were key to it being developmed. Car companies form an oligopoly, well tesla has broken in. Car companies will given their own devices will not give consumers what the market wants, because they are involved in group think. The problem is the subsidies and mandates are too high, not that some exist. I have no problem with the R&D split to try to develop more efficient technology, or some tax credits giving them a helping hand. The problems come up with the huge subsidies. Cash for clunkers was $4B, much of it doing no long term good. It was supposed to save the auto comapanies but 2 were later bailed out costing $20B. The tax credits for plug ins are only of the order of hundreds of millions a year. The US taxpayer has already paid billions for fuel cells, but gotten only about 300. Until they are closer to competitive, and with germany building a big test market, I think we tax payers have paid enough. Congress, fueled by the fuel cell pac, has consistantly added more money for fuel cell vehicles than the DOE has requested. Its time to tell these lobbyiest we have paid enough, and you have broken every promise. There were supposed to be hundreds of thousands of fuel cell cars now.

 

DC charging should largely solve this issue. With tech available today, batteries can be recharged to 80% in ~15 minutes time. A car with 200 miles range and a 15 minute recharge is not so much of a compromise.

 

These are numbers for a plane that requires low weight and higher power, not a car. I didn't promise that, only that the energy would be enough to pull its own weight. With fuel cells, you would need to build hydrogen fueling stations at the airport, and likely make liquid hydrogen. For aircraft I don't think battery or hydrogen technology is appropriate.

On the other hand for cars the typical day for the typical american is only 29 miles, 1/8 of the range of the tesla S. For longer trips battery swap stations could be built much faster, less expensively, and easier than hydrogen, giving it more real world range (not this utopia, after the government builds it all). For those typically going over 100 miles a day, a phev is a better choice. For aircraft traction batteries to run flap motors and other electric systems along with biofuel for an ice, seem like the right idea after oil.

 

I'm not sure we'd have gas cars, either. Subsidies are larger and more common than most of us realise.

I'm pretty sure rubber bands and balsa gliders aren't going to suffice....maybe an electric sled launch?

 

How many days per year do you "need" this?

Mike