Toyota plans to sell fuel cell car by 2015

Fueling Stations: Electric Cars Trump All Other Alt-Fuel Types

 

Well, Nissan's fast charger costs $10,000. New York is paying about $13,500 per charging station. So for the same cost as a hydrogen station, we can, conservatively, install 180 fast chargers. A Leaf could be charged in under an hour, possibly less. Thus, 180 cars could be charged per hour.

Most articles on hydrogen stations says there are 2 pumps, if it says anything. I'm going to assume that each pump can serve 2 cars at once like gasoline pumps. For easy math, I'll go with 5 minutes for fill up. So a station could handle 48 cars in an hour. Best case with a 3 minute fill, it will be 80 cars in that hour.

For the same installation costs, 2.25 to 3.75 as many BEVs can charged as hydrogen gas powered cars can be filled.

Of course, the longer relative range of a fuel cell car means that we only need about a third as many fill points as for BEVs. Then again, the majority of charging takes place at home. Which also mitigates the fact that fast charging is hard on the battery because most people won't be using fast charging. Fast charging will only be used for long trips and unplanned needs.

With the range of most BEVs, an interstate trip isn't really practical even with fast charging. When just one charge up is needed the time could be used to grab something to eat. More than that with a BEV that can go 100miles at most will start dragging out the time on the road. Then with the unexpected need, or emergency, the fast charge time may be longer than you want.

That's why a BEV for a single car will be rare. Even in multi-car families, the most common plug-in will be a hybrid for the near term.

Not be left out, there is also a hitch for hydrogen cars. Shell's pipeline fed station built a little over a year ago, can only supply 48kg of hydrogen a day. Those serviced by truck pump less per day. The Honda Clarity has 4.1kg tank. Toyota's FCHV has a 6kg one. Maybe a dozen cars can be filled a day. A much quicker fill up time isn't going to help when the station is empty.

Shell uses Hydrogen Pipeline for Fuel Cell Cars from Toyota, Honda and Mercedes
New York state to install 325 EV charging stations | Digital Trends
Nissan downsizes EV quick charger, slashes price while eying US, EU and Japanese markets -- Engadget
This report seems to have more detailed analysis on EV charger costs. I didn't feel like registering though.
» Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Pike Research

 

It is really difficult to compare EV chargers to gas or hydrogen stations.
Yes, it takes longer to 'charge' an EV than a gas or hydrogen fueled car. However, EVs will typically require less charging out in public.

As an example, I have needed to use a public charger once in 27 months of EV ownership. Even our Volt can't match that

 

That just shows the lack of viability of hydrogen fcv before 2020.

I'm not sure you are getting it. A few of the hydrogen stations are closing for lack of customers. You need to have government or industry to pay for these while waiting for cars and customers to come along. A hydrogen station is not going to service the same number of customers as a gas station, even if the hydrogen is heavily subsidized by the government.

Industry - Tesla - is planning to build a nation wide network by 2017. Tesla's Supercharger just changed EVERYTHING! | PriusChat
I'm sure there are some government subsidies for the solar panels and other things, but its much less expensive than hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Tesla owners will be able to charge for free on solar power. By 2017, the frankenplug (SAE) standard should be up and running also. Leafs will be able to run on this or perhaps chagedemo. Five years from now should be an intersting time for plug-ins.

Tesla designer reveals future EV models | The Car Tech blog - CNET Reviews

I would expect that would be after tax credits and may not be able to use the fast chargers. I would expect by 2017 such a model with at least 200 mile range for less than $45K that could use the fast chargers. Since it would mainly be charged at home and/or at work very little additional infrastructure would be needed beyond the national fast chargers that are being built. There is already a large network of L2 chargers to prevent range anxiety.

There maybe future fuel cell breakthroughs, but infrastructure is a much bigger problem for fcvs than for plug-ins. In 2017, I doubt you will want to travel much more than 300 miles from home in a fcv, which would mean it is the vehicle with the range limitations.

You need to look at least 10 years out for any adoption of fuel cells. They require an infrastructure and large cost reductions. This is likely to happen first outside the united states. The cost of gasoline is too low for fuel cells to over come their high costs relative to phevs. If only the rich are buying them it will be tough for the asian car companies to convince the US government to heavily subsidize a fueling infrastructure.

 

Shell offers free fill-ups for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles - Los Angeles Times

That seems to be a major problem if hydrogen is going to get popular. If hydrogen need is so rare that shell needs to give it away for free, the cost per car for infrastructure is extremely high. 68 stations serving 50,000 cars 5 years from now is the optimistic projection, what if there are only 7000 cars? As trolbait said the torrence station at toyota headquarters can only service 12 vehicles a day. If a car needs to fill up every 10 days it can only serve 120 cars. I'm sure this newport beach shell station can serve more, but will people actually bring them?

For interstate trips with a plug-in you want to either be very patient or have a phev or a tesla A long interstate trip in a FCV requires a refueling truck following you. Many people never take their vehicles on long trips, and this will be 100% of private fuel cell purchasers for the near term.

 

Wth?

1. Its good that Tesla is offering free charging.
2. Shell offering free hydrogen is proof of horrible product
3. Hydrogen charging is slow
4. EV charging is not a problem - even if SC charges 10x slower than hydrogen, and using regular wall outlet is useless.

my head is spinning. You cant even buy hydrogen car now and you wont for next 3 years. Why would there be infrastructure right now?

On the other hand, you can buy EV's now.

 

why not read press release from Toyota, instead of two threads created here?

It has pretty pictures.

Shows EV's for shorter commutes and FCV's for longer ones as well as busses as trucks.

On the other hand.

I cant understand that people are advocating use of other fuels instead of hydrogen, for instance natural gas or alcohol mentioned above - reasons for using EV's are same as for using FCHV - renewable and clean future.

If natural gas is deemed ok by experts here, or alcohol, then we shouldnt have EVs either, because it is infinitly cheaper than EV's too. Brazil has huge industry based on E85 right now, so why spend billions on EV's?

 

Chuckle...everyone did...Toyota backing off the EV route in one press release and picking up hydrogen fuel cell in the other press release.

 

But it does limit sales to those who have home charging and those users still have issues with range and refill...it's a perfect storm to a large degree for EV.

 

Its pretty simple if you understand Its impossible if you are biased for fuel cells and think non-sense.

Tesla is setting up a nationwide charging infrastructure. Its included when you buy their cars. Its part of the sales plan. NRG is also putting in L3 stations. Corporations are investing in charging infrastructure.

Shell on the other hand is offering free hydrogen and gets nothing from selling cars. Its not going to spend much more of its own money. Its closing stations.
Critical hydrogen fueling pumps closing in D.C., New York

The big announcement of shell toyota in torrance can only fill 12 cars a day. This is much less usefull than a tesla or NRG quick charger to help with infrastructure.

120 VAC is fine to fill a car over night for a daily drive. A super charger can add about 150 miles to a tesla S in half an hour. If you leave LA area you likely have to drive back to get any hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle. How long does it take to drive back, versus refuel. Yah, I thought so, range anxiety.

Well yes. FC cars were supposed to be here now, that is why they built those hydrogen stations they are closing down. Why is your head spinning? There are those on this thread that think in 5 years FC cars will be a slam dunk. The news seems to be, in 5 years FCV will be further behind PHEVs and BEVs and FC anouncements are just PACs trying for infrastructure funding. 10 years from now who knows, but 2015 fcv will have lost more ground.

 

Wonder how they can be called "critical" when there are no hydrogen vehicle prototype programs using them as there is in LA where Honda and Shell have demonstrated why hydrogen so easily fills the role of gasoline while doing it with a non-polluting, renewable, non-fossil fuel.

An image we'll never see with EV's and one that will become common with hydrogen as Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and others move forward, per the recent announcements, with hydrogen vehicles.

 

Very true with your first point. At the start, dual car households with a garage/plug will find EVs much more convenient. For many, it is already a slam dunk.
As to your second point (range and refill), I don't believe most will find issues with either.

Sales of all vehicles are "limited". There is no vehicle that meets every bodies needs. Would someone that regularity needs to haul a ton of materials buy a Prius? No, just as no one that regularly drives 300 miles in a day (except in California) would buy a Model S.

Instead of limits, look at the size of the market each vehicle does work for.

 

Because we do not have to take a large corporation's word as gospel. We can discuss what is distorted in press releases, and what is old that is no longer true.

One market that Toyota thought would be good was the city car BEV. It doesn'tlook like a good market right now. BEVs are fine for most commutes in the US, they are not so good for other occasional miles. FCV using 10,000 psi hydrogen for long distance trucking is unlikely given its low energy density. BEVs are also bad here. PHEVs may work, as well as other technology. Plug in hybrid fuel cell buses appear to be a good market.

Well many of are saying that if you are using natural gas anyway, there are better forms. We are not advocating, we are saying 10,000 psi hydrogen may be the losing technology if and when fuel cells become viable. FCHV only from renewables is really a clear loser when you drill down. Toyota's pretty picture of efficiency looks much worse if you use renewable electricity. A plug in will travel 3 to 4 times further on the same renewable electricity. If you are using renewables with fuel cells you better add a big battery and plug too.

Ethanol is one possible substitute for gasoline. With today's technology is competes badly in the US with food. That is why flex fuel ice are not the decided way for getting rid of gasoline, although flex fuel phevs may be enough. M85 flex fuel phevs also may be a good way to add range extension. I don't understand your infinitely expensive, for many BEVs are cost competitive. YMMV.

 

Honda and Mercedes have been leasing FCHVs for at least the past year in southern California. No one is going to buy or even lease one if there isn't any infrastructure in place. So we, the taxpayer, are being asked to foot the bill for an energy carrier/fuel for a fuel cell vehicle that may not work out.

Why hasn't any of the hydrogen proponents brought up laser hydrides? Toyota doesn't support it?

The only infrastructure BEVs need is an outlet in the garage. As the range increases, a home EVSE unit is needed, but that's cheap compared to annual gasoline costs. You can even have it outside, if you don't have a garage.

Natural gas is where the hydrogen comes from now. There is an energy loss reforming it. The hydrogen needs infrastructure. There is already infrastructure for natural gas. A natural gas station can also serve CNG ICEs, hybrids, and PHVs in addition to fuel cells. Hydrogen ICEs have horrible performance and economy.

Methanol can be made from natural gas. The energy loss might be worth the advantages of liquid fuel. It might be able to use the gasoline infrastructure. Again, the stations can serve more than just the fuel cells.

Both natural gas(methane) and methanol can be made renewablely. Hydrogen can then be made from them if need be. However, most renewable hydrogen uses electricity. The losses that way are far worse than transmitting it to a home and charging a plug-in.

 

Many are fine with the current BEV range. Others are not. The big push of hydrogen fcv is for those that want more range than BEVs can give them. With the pack size of the tesla and refueling network, it is expensive BEVs instead of expensive FCV that have the range advantage. PHEVs allow for the easiest infrastructure, we have it today, and no range anxiety.

300 miles a day, even in california is not suitable to a BEV. 500 miles on the occational trip seems like it will be fine on a tesla.

+1

 

Toyota cited both EV vehicle limitations, range and refill, as the reasons for cutting back on EV development.

 

The only EV Toyota had coming out that was in house was the eQ. A minicar not much bigger than a Smart Fortwo doesn't have a lot of space for batteries. With the Rav4EV only being offered in California, I don't think Toyota had much interest in EVs to begin with.

 

Just want to reply this for the record. I support any electrification that lowers emission (life cycle or at least well-to-wheel), whether it be EV, PHEV or FCV.

In case you have not noticed, that's the same criticism I have with EVs and PHEVs (especially Volt and Karma). Natural gas, Coal and Diesel are converted to electricity as an energy carrier.

The emission of most of the compact and subcompact BEVs are actually lower or about the same as Prius PHV. Some badly designed PHEVs (Volt and Karma) and BEV (CODA) are the ones I criticized. I praise a well designed PHEVs (Prius PHV and Ford Energi) and well designed BEV (Model S).

I am still confused on why you are behind electrification. It appears, you only like anything that runs on battery (the bigger, the better).

 

My reasons for being behind it are within the definition I gave for electrification.

Carbon emissions are not the sole reason for many. There are the other emissions. Plus, energy independence for national security and economic reasons. Focusing on just one will lead to tunnel vision and missing, what might be an imperfect, solution that the masses can support.

Hydrogen gas does have some good pros. It won't have the mass support nation wide. With the cost of expanding it to the nation, we can build alot of solar and wind generation along with a decent amount of chargers. If society rejects the BEV, we have only lost out on the charger investment. There'll just be more green power for AC and video games. Like the Leaf commercial, people would find powering their coffee maker with hydrogen silly.

Yes, fossil fuels are used to produce electricity. It isn't a con against PHVs. It isn't one for using electric lawnmowers. It's a con on against current power production. A con that can be, and is, addressed. When improved, so are the plug-ins. Also true of hydrogen made with electric. It just isn't an efficient use of any electricity.

If we do need fossil fuel for electricity, natural gas is the best choice now. It's cleaner than the others. Efficient with quick speed up. I have concerns with fracking regulations, but it doesn't level mountains and leave gigantic piles of trailings. I'm not familiar with 'clean' coal (is IGCC correct?). Sounds like it has some of the pluses of natural gas plants. How is it with mercury and radio isotope emission?

Even better than electric generation is using nat. gas for heating and cooking. Extending the pipelines to more homes and upgrading them will be a bigger bang for the buck than using it for hydrogen cars. We replaced an oil boiler that was decades old for natural gas last year. Oil is a major heating fuel in the North East. I've met people that still burn coal for home heat around here.

Fuel cell cars may have a place. I don't see that hydrogen gas with its limitations and costs. Japan and Germany are small compared to the US. So will be the infrastructure cost. Germany also has pushed green energy if they want to go the hydrolysis route. It might work for them and other small nations, like Norway. There is a lot of area to cover here if they want a chance at replacing gasoline.

Why all the focus on hydrogen gas for fuel cells? I came across laser hydrides, and was amazed by the potential. Fueling it like a regular car still requires a hydrogen distribution network, but it is low pressure, so a little cheaper for the stations. The biggee is that fuel stations aren't necessary. The hydrogen is bound to metal disks the size CDs, that can be swapped out just like CDs. Need a fill up. Just swap discs at the supermarket. It can be done at a vending machine next to the Red Box.

Without the bulky hydrogen gas tanks, there is space and weight for a larger battery pack and a plug. Swapping out disks will even be less often. Why do I have to make the arguments against myself here?

 

I am curious, in your mind, why do you label the Volt "badly designed" and the Model S "well designed"?