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

The first and last part of your statement are somewhat contradictory, though the points you make are valid.
The fact is, there IS a huge amount of natural gas that has become technically viable in the U.S. thanks to fracking.
The question is, is it economically viable?
There is no doubt that a lot of drilling companies over-hyped reserve estimates, but savvy investors are not going to stand by and lose money. The real question is, how much will it cost to get these reserves to market? All of those dry holes you mentioned are already factored into the price of natural gas you and I pay. Despite the high depletion rate, natural gas is still at a decades-low price here in the U.S.

It almost is. There is more energy in the natural gas of the Marcellus Shale under Pennsylvania then there is in the oil of Saudi Arabia.
I would say we have about 3 decades -at least- of cheap (and by cheap I mean relative to global prices) natural gas.
This gas bonanza could not possibly have come at a better time. It is helping to shut down dirty old coal plants and will soon be replacing oil imports in transportation.....with LNG in semi trucks and methanol/CNG in passenger cars.

And by the time it gets expensive, we'll of course all be driving Tesla-class EV's powered by grid-parity solar.

I think the real question is not who will distribute the hydrogen.......that's the least of our concerns when it comes to using H2 as a fuel. When one asks where the H2 will come from, it has to do with the energy pathway. Since making it from solar and wind is so inefficient as to be laughable (if not an outright scam), the only logical source is natural gas. This would produce CO2.... but hey so do power plants that power EV's (until we remedy both with a carbon tax).
The real issue, as others have pointed out, is why go to all the trouble when you can just use CNG and methanol in our existing car fleet, with far fewer infrastructure requirements?

This would make sense. But I guess it shows governments in all parts of the world, not just our own, are slow to respond to new information.

Just because something seemed like a good idea in the 90's doesn't make it so now in 2013. If it's the Japanese government driving this, then I have real questions about their judgement, in addition to Toyota and Honda who are probably just trying to play along (and grab subsidies).

I mean seriously.........Japan was afraid of 'liquid petro-fuel disappearing'!?
Japan has never had serious petroleum deposits. They have always been a large importer, and were probably just afraid of being out-bid by emerging markets like China and India. The oil shock of 1973 spurred them to become the most oil efficient ($ GDP per unit oil) country in the whole world, and Fukushima will only make them more so. The Nissan LEAF is already very popular there, and I don't see any reason Tesla won't also be, unless its tariffed to death.

Japan, Inc. needs to get with the program. In a country that lacks oil & gas, why would you push a technology that requires converting natural gas when you can just burn it directly? And if they switch to renewables -plenty of geothermal energy there- then no credible scientist can possibly claim you'd get more transport miles extracting H2 via electrolysis as opposed to just sending it directly to a battery.

The whole thing seems seriously misguided. It appears Japan may have seriously large methane clathrates off their coast (but extraction cost could be high):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/global/japan-says-it-is-first-to-tap-methane-hydrate-deposit.html?_r=0

Even so, NG->electricity->EV is superior to NG->H2->FCV

 

Sure probably until 200 mile range that is true, which is why perhaps fuel cells will eventually make range extenders. Not today, not tomorrow, but in 10 years or 20 years that is possible, especially in europe.

In Europe we have more
excess nuclear + wind electricity -> BEV or hydrogen as a range extended plug-in fcv
High gas taxes, high car taxes (that can be played with for hydrogen or bev in the
Infrastructure being built to test.

In europe we have lots of coal so we also get coal->hydrogen + ccs, which may be less expensive than nat gas to hydrogen there. Japan imports coal and lng. Excess nuclear doesn't look viable. I don't quite get fcv in Japan other than they were subsidized before and government programs seem to go on forever.

I just don't want my taxes to pay for the hydrogen highway until prices for fcv are at least down to reasonable levels. If the facts are correct this fcv-r will likely be very volt like, but cost $20,000 more, and require a huge infrastructure investment.

 

Hydrogen has a lobby? And they receive subsidies? Good grief
It's the Big Oil & Gas Lobby (or BOGL for short)
One can only hope their influence has waned since the FreedomCar days.
Certainly the current administration was less favorable to them until very recently.

With regard to lobbies and subsidies, I am inclined to agree with you that perhaps Washington is beyond repair.

Here is my thinking: Any tax money spent on hydrogen fuel cells has certainly yielded benefits.....there is no doubt that DOE metrics in terms of $/kw and other parameters are on track to being met, and certainly a HUGE improvement from a decade ago. Whether this was worth the money spent is debatable, but technical improvements HAVE happened.

This is not true with H2 production. No matter how you subsidize it, the amount of H2 that can be made via electrolysis of H20 -or reformation of CH4- is fixed by the laws of physics (although if they could, I'm sure this congress would repeal the laws of not just physics but thermodynamics as well )

The only hope are these 2 methods, but they are highly speculative:
Discovery Means New Potential for Hydrogen from Plants | The Energy Collective
Low Cost Hydrogen For Fuel Cells Uses Solar Power and Iron Oxide

So, in the meantime, yes......a waste of taxpayer money, especially when viewed against commercial introduction of EV's.
I'm not sure what a kg H2 sells for these days, but if they can't come in at less than twice the price of a gallon of gasoline, even fuel cells won't help your cost-per-mile

 

Chevron and Exxon have fought the hydrogen lobby, while Shell and BP (the european oils) are for it. The oil lobbying companies have split, and the station operators are against the hydrogen lobby. Toyota partnered with shell in their one fueling station. CARB is the leading non-elected governmental organization that lobbies the federal and state of California for hydrogen money. The DOE has been rolled by CARB on a number of votes, where DOE removed money, and Congress voted with CARB for higher subsidies.

 

Fuel cells do make great range extenders (or, to coin a new term, rangers) from a technical point of view.
Problem is cost. They'd have to reach near parity with the ICE (which is still improving). The more the AER of a particular PHEV, the less the ranger is used, so the more important it is to be at ICE parity.

Highway vehicles are another story.

I know you and others on this thread have described Europe as an ideal test market for the FCV. This might be true (your point of high fuel taxes) but what about Germany?

Are FCV's really going to work on the Autobahn? It is my understanding that the Model S tops out at 130 mph, and I'm sure FCV's are around the same.
Is that good enough for the Germans? Sure you could go faster with an ICE (BMW Hydrogen 7) but imagine what driving 120 mph in that car on H2 would do to your range..........you'd be stopping every half hour to fill up!

 

I never have exceed 200km/h (124mph) on the autobahn. I just drove what was in my skill and conditions. I don't think that is a problem. Germany seems like a better test than california. I am not proposing that it will work there, but there are plenty of places - busses, fork lifts (all of bmw's use fuel cells), to test these things and bring the price down.

 

Interesting. One would think Exxon would change their mind since they bought XTO?
They have been chided by Wall St. recently for their portfolio being lopsided towards natural gas, which is currently price-depressed compared to oil.

Seems like pushing H2 would be a way to goose the price of their natural gas holdings...but its hard to pin down the machinations/calculations that go on behind closed boardroom doors.
Kind of like when Chevron bought battery technology in the 90's..........

 

I just was pointing out the oil lobby is not the same as the hydrogen lobby. Exxon said they did not think they should be forced to compete against themselves to build subsidized hydrogen pumps. Its just a poor business for them to be in. They do want to supply the California power plants with natural gas to power plug-ins, which they see as inevitable.

Even 100,000 fcv is not going to use much natural gas compared to power plants.

 

Sure they will. Did you believe the industry 10 years ago, when they promised production hydrogen cars? Did you believe it 10 years prior to that? What about 10 years prior to that. If Toyota can go from this:

All the way down to $50K ... a price cut in HALF ... in only what - 12months - 18months ... then I'll buy the Brooklyn bridge from Toyota too. But then again ... Toyota ONLY "anticipates" that they can magically cut the car's cost in half in such a short time.
Then there's infrastructure. If Toyota truly thinks folks can pay even $50k for a car that can't be practical due to no infrastructure, then that's bizar. How do you get mass production with no one crazy enough to launch into that market. Even the oil industry (remember? ... the folks who frack natural gas needed for hydrogen?) doesn't want to touch that project. Instead of expecting our nearly bankrupt states and fed governments to pay for infrastructure ... why doesn't Toyota pony up for that huge cost. After all - Mr. Musk of Tesla is footing the bill for his EV's infrastructure. Heck, even Nissan is installing quick chargers for their Leaf at their dealerships. Now if Toyota follows suit ... maybe then folks can believe that Toyota is truly on to something.
.

 

Germany is building one, and Japan might be also. The Netherlands also has one. Note that these are all much smaller than the US in area.

Why should the US tax payer pay to build one now when there are plenty of markets doing so for the FCEV makers to experiment in?

The vehicles are going to be expensive. In the time frame it takes for those prices come down, gaseous or liquid hydrogen may no longer be the fuel of choice for a FCEV. Laser metal hydrides might make it to market. Work is on going with methanol fuel cells. On board natural gas reforming might become possible. If any of those happen, then some to all of the money and resources spent putting in high pressure hydrogen infrastructure is wasted.

 

No animosity intended ... it's just that you said Toyota (or any manufacturer for that matter) will be 'mass production' prior to Honda (or any other manufacturer) ... when in fact the jury is still out. Based on how many decades the hydrogen promise has ended up being the hydrogen hoax, one can easily extrapolate that it may just be another money grab for endless research - even as our country (and others) continue to real under their massive debt spending.

Rapidly coming into place?! . . . . . you're still doing it ... saying it like it's really happening. The article you quote talks of tons of hydrogen stations to be built IN THE FUTURE. That's like me saying i'm going to breed unicorns IN THE FUTURE. Simply saying it just can't make it happen. The article talks about this happening FIFTEEN years from now.
Due to the hideous cost involved ... do you know how many hydrogen stations there are in Germany right now?

Germany Floats New Plans to Keep Hydrogen-Powered Cars in the World's Transportation Mix: Scientific American
Do you know how hydrogen stations there are in the U.S.? About 2 dozen
http://www.fuelcells.org/uploads/h2fuelingstations-US4.pdf
btw ... those stations got built only after FIFTY years of hydrogen promises ... started way back when our country was much farther away from its fiscal destiny with bankruptcy. So ... do we simply print up another trillion bucks? That ought to tip us over the edge.

.

 

15
Daimler to build 400 hydrogen stations in Germany by 2023 | Digital Trends
$427 million estimated to build the 400 stations by 2023 and 100 by 2017. IMHO they will get those other 85, built, but they need a positive test to go beyond 2017.

Since some have closed, and others are private or not in range of a california test

Read more here: Whatever happened to the Hydrogen Highway? - KansasCity.com
Given the failures of California government to building the hydrogen highway, and since they already have more station, money, and a plan, I would have to give the big edge to Germany for any test.

 

Toyota to Showcase Future Mobility at Tokyo Motor Show
.

 

The above link didn't work me, but I found this one with Toyota's Press release.
Toyota FCV (Fuel Cell Vehicle) Concept ready for Tokyo, maybe not 2015

 

Toyota to unveil concept fuel-cell car at Tokyo Motor Show

Oops. today there are 9 in California and 15 in Germany. I'm not sure how many in Japan. If toyota wants an excuse to not ship to the US in 2015, but around 2015 (2016 or 2017 anyone) lack of refueling in california is certainly there. But I'm sure it will launch to the tens of stations that will be in Japan at that time.

Is that JC08? Or NEDC, or EPA? I guess we will find out soon. If its JC08 500km that falls far short of the tesla S 85kwh range.

I do not know how this helps refueling infrastructure. All the infrastructure is in place for an improved prius phv, this requires lots of work.

 

Honda To Reveal Pre-Production 2015 Fuel Cell Car In LA

2013 L.A. Auto Show will be open to media representatives on Nov. 19-21, and the general public Nov. 22-Dec. 1.

 

I can't wait to see the production model. It won't weight like a tank and will refuel in 3 mins.

It will be the ideal green car for those looking for national energy security. Hydrogen will be produced from natural gas, plenty in USA.

It will also be more efficient (well to wheel) than a comparable EV with electricity generated from natural gas.

 

It will just cost like one. People think the tesla is a great handling and efficient vehicle. If the lower weight car costs as much, but handles worse, accelerates worse, and is less efficient, what is the problem with the weight? Weight is only a problem if it makes those things worse.

As others have pointed out in fuel cell talks, building a great deal of fueling stations then transporting hydrogen is not as "green" to many of us as plug-ins which can use the solar and wind more efficiently and does not require all those buildings. That "green" claim is problematic.

Hydrogen vehicles if they are sucessful, will be part of the energy security puzzle.

I thought we had gone down this road before and debunked it.

Until at least a decade the only place in the US these things will be sold in any quantity is California. In California we have surveys of electric car owners, and 39% of them have built solar. I only expect that percentage to increase with all the state incentives. What about the other 61%? Here is the energy mix in california

Total Electricity System Power

7.5% coal, 43.4% natural gas, 0.9% solar. The rest is other renewables, nuclear, and hydro. Lets say coal is bad and we multiply by 2 to penalize it, and lets say none of the solar is used we get
(2x7.5%+43.4%)/(100%-0.9%) = 58.4% natural gas equivalents. Now say you are 37% efficient to get this natural gas (and coal natural gas equivalents) from the pipeline to the plug. We get 37%/58.4% = 63.3%. Now the least efficient popular plug-in is the tesla S at 89 mpge, we can multiply this out at get (89 mpge)x63.3% = 56 mpge on really high coal costs and no solar, ignoring all the homes with solar, and that we can build a new 60% ccgt natural gas plant and really get the power to the plug at 54% with new infrastructure, not that 37%.

Now lets say we have unlimited money and build very efficient natural gas reformers at each service station and get 80% efficiency converting natural gas to hydrogen. In order to beat that 85kwh tesla S at efficiency you need to have the car perform (56 mpge)/.8 = 70 mpge. Its possible, but using the worst case for electricity in california toyota needs to get at least 70mpge out of their fcv to be equivalent to the tesla S at fossil fuel emissions. The clarity is 60 mpge so its not a trivial exercise. Coal is going to decrease, renewables especially wind, geothermal, and solar will increase in california. That fuel cell is not going to be more efficient on fossil fuels. You need to ignore all the non-fossil electricity to get there.

Now Mary Nichols had an answer to this, its not about california its about indiana, that's why we need fuel cell cars. To me this is the worst politics. Indiana doesn't even want to put in much clean natural gas power, but they would rather do that then build a huge hydrogen fueling structure. The fuel cell lobby rhetoric about more efficient numbers just don't add up in california.

 

This just keeps getting better & better:

Motorists to foot bill for California’s touted ‘hydrogen highway’
Just when I was hoping the hydrogen hoax would be over - I find out it'll soon be time for CA motorists to grab their ankles:

Wow - Big Oil (the source of the carbon fuel needed to distill hydrogen) - the folks who certainly know whether they can turn a profit building hydrogen infrastructure not only REFUSE to build the highway - they'll sue if we attempt to force them to build it.
Oh yea - prepare for major cost over-runs. "only $2 million per station"? The government can pay $1,000 for a toilet - I think $2 mil might just cover environmental impact reports, subsequent law suits, & the ground breaking ceremony. Prepare to flush at least quadruple that $200 million down that $1,000 toilet if cost over-runs are anything like what usually happens with piss poor government project planning.
Then of course ... $50,000 hydrogen cars will NEVER materialize, much less materialize in any where near that 18 months or so window. There they'll sit ... non-functioning / half built hydrogen stations, with tumble weeds blowing by - in one of the most heavily over taxed states.
Maybe I'm understating the waste though. Let's see, if we took that $200 million - with NO cost over-runs and just bought Quick Charge stations ($10,000 + even double that amount to include the install) you could have what . . . . Ten Thousand or more QC stations? Oh yea the hydrogen highway is pure genius. I need a couple more beers to find humor in this.
EDIT
ok now I'm full of beer, so I can see the humor. MORE state employees, to run the state hydrogen stations. CA is laying off their state employees right and left ... with furloughs / shorter work weeks for others, because they have no budget to pay their people! What would the hydrogen station's state employees make ... minimum wage? Will their retirement be as generous as some of the other state employee (80%-100% full salary upon 20yrs)? Hey! where do I sign up!
OK! one more joke . . . to make hydrogen viable ... CA needs another 1,000 stations minimum. That's another $2 BILLION! Prepare to crank up the registration fees again!
And yet we're afraid to crank up fees to further EV's. Perfect!
How many more 10's of thousands of QC stations would that extra $2 Billion buy?
Last bit of humor (if my math is ok) ... if I compress just a couple Lbs of hydrogen using electricity, to 10,000lbs psi - your mile to mile ratio cost for electricity used in an EV would be about the same ... and that doesn't even include the cost of the hydrogen.
ok! now I'm on board
.