Slashdot Mirror
Toyota's Fuel Cell Car To Launch In Japan Next March
puddingebola writes with news that Toyota will be bringing its first fuel-cell car to market in Japan next March. It's expected to cost about $68,700, and Toyota plans to bring it to the U.S. and European markets later that summer.
With two of Japan’s three biggest automakers going all in on fuel cells, the country’s long-term future as an automotive powerhouse could now hinge largely on the success of what they hope will be an important technology in the next few decades. ... Japan’s governing party is pushing for ample subsidies and tax breaks for consumers to bring the cost of a fuel-cell car down to about $20,000 by 2025. The government is also aiming to create 100 hydrogen fuel stations by the end of March 2016 in urban areas where the vehicles will be sold initially. ... Hydrogen vehicles can run five times longer than battery-operated electric cars, and their tanks can be filled in just a few minutes, compared with recharging times from 30 minutes up to several hours for electric cars.
The real price is $70,000. The target $20k price is subsidized by the Japanese government, don't expect similar subsidies in the US.
Right now at the Gas Pump we have 87, 89 and 91 gas.
Having this change to Gas, Charging, and Hydrogen would be a welcome sign.
The problem we have with our energy policies is that we are trying to find a sliver bullet. This isn't the case anymore, we will need to have a more diverse set of engines that run on different methods. This will allow for greater competition in the energy market and keep price per performance uniform.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The nice thing about fuel cell technology working it's way into to the automotive arena is that it can dovetail quite nicely with the ongoing developments being made with electric vehicles, since there is significant overlap between the two.
In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.
Fuel Cells run on hydrogen. Hydrogen can be obtained by refining oil, but that is more expensive than making gasoline and the only reduction in CO2 comes from the centralization of production (easier to cleanse a refinery's emissions than a vehicle's). Hydrogen can as be obtained without oil, but it is always more difficult than electricity to create and store. Hydrogen is also more difficult to transport than electricity. And now we find out that an established, mass market auto company can't even create an inexpensive Fuel Cell car. Their effort ended up with a car that is just as expensive as a very high quality, fully electric car which was created years ago by an almost brand new car company. Electric cars are superior to Fuel Cells in every possible way. They are the present and future of transportation.
...a true statement in any year.
When did HFC cars start getting a range of 1000+ miles? Certainly not Toyota's. Did the petrol-heads re-entrench with the HFCs now?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The oil industry likes fuel cells (have run advertising showing off their benefits in the past) - i.e. big money wants this to keep fuel cells going and happen.
Unsubsidized hydrogen is more expensive than gasoline (to go an equivalent distance in a fuel cell vehicle) at this point.
Electricity out of the plug, for a battery electric vehicle, in the U.S. averages $1.25 per gallon in gasoline equivalency (sometimes much less at night).
This is a well-understood technology that has existed since the 1960's -- aside from some materials tech not normally associated with car production, it isn't a big leap to create a vehicle that uses a fuel cell -- heck, they could take an existing Plug-in Prius, pull the battery pack, add-in a fuel cell, and job done.
What *precisely* is making the car this expensive? (I did not RTFA, this *is* Slashdot after all)......
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Forget subsidies for a moment. In 2025, 20K won't buy you shit with the rate of inflation we have now!
Life is not for the lazy.
Nice to see fuel-cell cars, but they're addressing the wrong problem. Shrinking net energy availability is the problem, fuel-cell cars don't address that. I think smaller cars and (motor)bikes would be more useful. Why does a 100 pound woman buying 10 pounds of groceries need to take a 3000 pound vehicle along with her when a 20 pound bicycle and a back pack would suffice?
Just don't park next to a Tesla and you should be OK.
Just what I want, twin 10000 PSI bombs waiting underneath me for just the right fender bender.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
As opposed to an electric car with a battery containing enough juice to power a entire house for a whole day, or a 15-gallon fuel tank filled with a highly flammable liquid? Energy is energy, and no matter what form it is carried in, it is not without risk that needs to be accounted for in engineering. Fuel cell cars would be no different in that regard.
So for $70,000 why would I want to buy this car versus a Tesla Model S? Or two Chevy Volts?
Electric cars are superior to Fuel Cells in every possible way. They are the present and future of transportation.
I couldn't have said it better. Fuel cells are much of a roadbump in the long drive of automotive technology development as are 3D TVs for home entertainment (i.e., not quite as bad as DIVX, but ultimately not mainstream usable). The manufacture and distribution of hydrogen alone is a herculean task let alone the fact that it would require changes to an entrenched distribution network of gas/diesel.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
the only reduction in CO2 comes from the centralization of production
...where you can do CO2 sequestration and, theoretically, bring emissions down to zero.
(Other than that, I agree with everything you wrote. I worked in R&D on automotive fuel cells for seven years and quit because I believe there's no future in it. They might have been a good idea when the competition was lead-acid batteries, but not any longer.)
Hydrogen can be obtained by refining oil
Sure it can. But nobody does it that way. Most hydrogen comes from steam reforming of natural gas.
Electric cars are superior to Fuel Cells in every possible way.
Except for range, fueling time, and (maybe) cost.
Since 2008, inflation has been 3.0% or lower every single year. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but if it was "inflation is out of control!!" then you're obviously not reading about the history of inflation over the last 50 years.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
HFC Cars *are* electric cars. Hydrogen *can* come from fossil fuels, but can also come from water, or other sources.
On the plus side however hydrogen production would be a perfect match for intermittent power sources like wind or solar. Send any needed amounts to the grid and instead of wasting the excess run a hydrogen production plant.
The future. Perhaps before you can get a $20K Tesla.
Unless you'll settle for a forklift. These are starting to make big inroads on battery powered forklifts in warehouses.
There are distinctly different failure modes between those energy containers. I think I'd go for the battery's failure mode any day over the other two. Between those, I think it's a bit of a toss up. Given though that I suspect you'd be more likely to have prolonged suffering with the petrol I'd probably favor the hydrogen bomb for its immediacy.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
This is a common, but knee-jerk reaction. But as bad as it looked, I think many would be surprised to learn that most of the people aboard the Hindenburg survived the disaster despite it being engulfed in flames hundreds of feet off the ground.
Imagine if it were filled with gasoline fumes. Everyone on board would've been dead as well as most of the people on the ground.
Toyota was fired bullets at its pressurized tanks. Regular bullets just bounced. 50 cal rounds too chunks out. It took an armor piercing round to penetrate the tank. When that happened, the hydrogen simply leaked out. And, being lighter than air, it just rose up into the atmosphere instead of pooling on the ground.
Actually, given the standard size of a car and the amount of energy you could store in each of the three cases discussed, I would think that gasoline would be the hands down winner for the biggest boom. Hydrogen would run dead last.
Hydrogen's biggest benefit would be that any leaks would quickly dissipate, epically out doors, while hydrocarbons sink and stay close to the ground.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In the case of fuel cells, they are expensive because they contain platinum. That isn't going to get any cheaper.
And the current generation of fuel cells can only use hydrogen as fuel, which is still a fossil fuel (as another poster points out, produced from natural gas). Just because they conveniently removed all the carbon for you centrally and you can feel better about none of it coming out of the tail pipe, doesn't make it less of a fossil fuel.
So long as you're allowed to leave out everything that's actually going up in price, yes. Like houses, or food, or gas, or... well, pretty much everything you actually need. But if all you buy is Android tablets, wow, inflation is low.
Even better... Just burn Natural Gas in existing equipment.... Very clean compared to gasoline or diesel and refueling times that rival hydrogen.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Why use hydrogen with a fuel cell? Why not internal combustion instead? Wouldn't it be more efficient, simple, only by-product is water, etc.? .
(ICE x drive train) efficiency is maybe 35%. Fuel cell efficiency (%60) x electric motor efficiency (%90) is 54%, so the hydrogen ICE is not more efficient.
Simple depends on how you define simplicity, but ICE and drive train have many more moving parts.
Hydrogen ICE still produces NOx, so "only by-product is water" is not true.
Three strikes, your out!
The gasoline has to be mixed in the right proportion with air for it to be highly combustible. Though, if you watch a lot of old police chase shows on TV, you might not know.
Hydrogen is extremely reactive, the instant it leaks out.
Sure it can. But nobody does it that way. Most hydrogen comes from steam reforming of natural gas.
Which is predictably energy-intensive.
Electric cars are superior to Fuel Cells in every possible way.
Except for range, fueling time, and (maybe) cost.
Twice the range is good, but nothing to write home about when diesels are now getting 800 miles, and have been getting 400 for decades — and they can be filled up with carbon-neutral fuel right now, instead of carbon-positive hydrogen-from-natural-gas.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When that happened, the hydrogen simply leaked out. And, being lighter than air, it just rose up into the atmosphere instead of pooling on the ground.
I don't assume they're going to put the fuel tanks on the roof of the car?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
According to Honda's website, the Clarity has a range of 240 miles, less than Tesla's EPA range of 265. Definitely not costs seeing as how the hydrogen costs more than gasoline. But you do have fueling time, assuming you can find a hydrogen fueling station.
Right, because tesla haven't sold any of their $80,000 car that goes 1/5th of the distance, right?
Hey, don't we all want flying cars?
signature is pants
Hydrogen is extremely reactive, the instant it leaks out.
So what's the flash point of hydrogen? It may be reactive, but it's not going to just explode unless you have the right mixture and an ignition source. I've played with H2 on occasion (in small quantities) and it's not that dangerous.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I used to be extremely excited for fuel cell vehicles about 10 years ago. Then I learned that they don't perform well in cold weather, are very dangerous during impact, hydrogen is not easy or cheap to make, and most importantly of all, you still have to go out of your way every so many miles to find a damn station to fill up. Compare that to electric cars which require less maintenance, are safer, work better in the cold (albeit with slightly degraded performance), already have established channels for generating and distributing energy, and allow me to leave my garage fully recharged every day. At this point, electric cars have a big competitive edge and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Could I get a map of hydrogen refueling stations?
I want to plan all of my driving to remain at least a quarter mile away from those things.
One big "boom," and no one will ever drive these things again.
>I don't assume they're going to put the fuel tanks on the roof of the car?
If it's safer, they will. Why not?
Gasoline is somewhat unstable, and only comes from nonrenewable sources.
Hydrogen is also somewhat unstable, and comes from renewable or nonrenewable sources.
Of course, diesel is very stable, and comes from renewable or nonrenewable sources.
Diesel is the future, because the future is a relatively boring place once you get there.
There's no mention of how they managed to store the hydrogen safely. It's a small and spacious gas, so trying to contain it in a high enough pressure safely to give a car powered by it enough range has been the historical biggest challenge. I want to know what guarantee there is that the hydrogen tank won't spontaneously burst, or what happens after I leave the car parked for a few weeks.
Hydrogen is extremely reactive, the instant it leaks out.
No it isn't.
The natural gas version of the civic is available, right now, goes about 250 miles on a tank, enough for all but the most insane of commuters, and costs less than 30k.
A massive natural gas delivery infrastructure is already there, we just need a commitment, via tax credits or outright subsidies, for existing gas stations to add CNG pumps.
Switching a good portion of the auto fleet over to CNG would lower CO2 emissions and a lot of the nastyer emissions that create ground level smog
Is it as good as electric vehicles powered from a clean grid? No, but it's a great bridge technology.
This has nothing to do with the flammability of hydrogen nor the energy released through its combustion. At 10000 PSI even a minor structural weakness will rip the tank apart sending a shrapnel ladened shock wave ripping through anything near it. This isn't a 150 PSI air compressor tank we're talking about, you will be carrying the equivalent of nearly a kilo of TNT under your arse.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
You've been watching Myth-busters again eh?
High pressure vessels don't generally "blow up" creating shrapnel and the energy released when they vent is pretty limited. Just not enough energy there to overcome the generally over engineered pressure vessel which is designed to withstand the working pressure plus a fairly large safety factor. As long as it stays attached to the car, if you punch a hole in it somehow (or more likely knock the pipe fittings screwed into it off) it's just going to vent. Venting is pretty quick, but unless it ignites it's going to be generally harmless if you are more than a foot or so away with nothing in between. I still think the issue would be an explosion cased by the vented hydrogen gas, but even if there is an ignition source you are more likely to get a quick flame and not something that goes boom. This is similar to gasoline, only the fuel will dissipate much faster if it doesn't happen to ignite so your window of risk will be shorter.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
After owning a Nissan Leaf for 8 months, I think fuel cells are A Dump Idea. Given a choice between nearly free electric charge in 30 min vs paying for fuel cell purchase, I would rather wait 30 min.
The point is that hydrogen is very light. It doesn't easily accumulate in rooms since it's much lighter then air - when it leaks it disperses. Unlike say, heavy petroleum fumes, which hang around and accumulate near the ground.
It's pretty clear the pure EVs won the race against hydrogen options so I though the days of news reports such as these was history. Looking back at the history of hydrogen offerings I can't help but think they were promoted by the oil industry as a way to slow pure EV development and as was fall back plan should someone actually work how to make a cost effective hydrogen vehicle. Lets hope that news sites such as Slashdot don't waste space on such rubbish in future.
CO2 sequestration as conventionally imagined is just a huge hand out to the coal industry though. Depending on geological strata which no one's even sure can reliably hold that much CO2 as an energy plan is just absurd. It's a plan we don't know will work, which has a limited range of viability to start with, and the results to date are not promising.
That said, Orico and the CSIRO in Australia have been doing something much cooler with the idea: chemical reactors where heat and CO2 is reacted with minerals to permanently sequester it as carbonate rock which can be dumped (or as they propose: refined into concrete). That process I fully support, since they're proposing running it as a retrofit to pretty much any fossil fuel powerplant, anywhere.
Diesels cannot, in anyway, be scalably filled with carbon neutral fuel. Biodiesel and it's ilk have all the same problems as ethanol.
Mythbusters debunks this. Every single pressure vessel explosion they've ever done has involved having to disable 2-3 different safety features in dramatic ways, and then subjecting the whole thing to absurdly extreme conditions before anything happens.
Yea, my point exactly. Didn't they have to use a high powered rifle to get that scuba tank to come apart? Or was it C4? I forget....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Industrial-scale hydrogen production comes from natural gas anyway, so it solves nothing (look up steam reforming).
Diesels cannot, in anyway, be scalably filled with carbon neutral fuel. Biodiesel and it's ilk have all the same problems as ethanol.
False, and also false.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Better them than us.
Though I would rather they'd make fuel cells that run on alcohol, sugar, or a hydrocarbon. I don't expect storing hydrogen will turn out very well, especially for a fuel cell for a cell phone.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I don't assume they're going to put the fuel tanks on the roof of the car?
Why would you think that that would even be a good idea? It would actually be much safer than mounting a gas tank up there (and much lighter)
But Honda, Hyundai and Toyota, (among others) have not found it necessary.
Isn't in the government's interest to report a low inflation rate? Cost of living increases for government checks (social security, active duty and retired military personal, etc.) are based on the calculated CPI. The "basket items" are never revealed to the public (as far as I have been able to determine). Inflation "being under control" is just what the doctor ordered for an austerity minded federal government, is it not?
Just like the nissan leaf, it is highly overpriced, and pretty ugly. What I find interesting is that most major car makers want to go down the pay of H2, when in reality, it is one of the most expensive alternatives to gas/diesel.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Until splitting water is far cheaper than CH4, then CH4 will remain the main choice for H2.
And when it comes to declaring HFC an electric car, well, no. It is a hybrid, nothing more. Just becuase it uses motors to drive the wheels does not mean that it is a true electric car.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just ICE alone is MAX 25%. Their drive trains drag it much lower.
And the fuel cell is MAX 60%.
But, otherwise, you are correct.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
exactly. In fact, electric cars are currently far safer on this than is any fuel, BUT, stored energy is still stored energy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hmmm. Lets see.
.12/KWH, and only .05/KWH during the nighttime. With a battery, I get around 90% efficiency combined with 90% motor. .10/KWH. In addition, the LH2 was shipped around via truck, Then stored on a property. All of which adds costs. Then you have around 45% efficiency of the fuel cell, combined with 90% motor.
All fuel cell cars up to this point has been around 300 KM. Now, this one will be 800 KM or 500 miles. So, you can now drive 250 miles away from all 4 locations in which you can fill up at. Not, really that good at range, eh?
Fueling time does you no good when there are only 12 fueling stations in all of the USA, and only 4 cities. OTOH, you can fuel all over the USA.
In addiiton, starting next year, Tesla will be doing 90 exchanges of batteries, and will offer batteries with 500 MPC.
Costs? Hmmm. Lets see. Electricity for daytime is
OTOH, H2 has to be created from CH4, using loads of electricity that was bought at around
Just in the car itself, the electric car is around 81% efficient, while the LH2 car has less than 1/2 of that.
So..... How exactly will hydrogen fuel cells produce cheaper costs when the vehicle itself starts off far more inefficient, and then you have to waste butt loads of electricity on conversion and transportation?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
scrubbing does not remove CO2.
In fact, using LH2, will increase CO2, vs. simply using electric cars.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
even better would be to charge batteries.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There's a much better article here, with numbers (including side-by-side comparisons of efficiencies of battery cars, fuel cell cars and internal combustion cars for fuel processing, fuel usage and total) and interviews with both Toyota, Plug in America etc.
You are basically correct that there are only a couple ways to get hygrogen on an industrial scale. There are of course some very promising new methods, but these are only working in the lab so far.
You also say, "Electrolysis is extremely inefficient. You loos about 50% of the electrical energy you put into this process.". ..
This is totally correct. However, does it really matter?
If I use coal or gas to create the the power, then sure it does. A lot. But what if we used something else to create the power?
What if we parked 100 square miles of solar reflectors and molten salt towers in Nevada? These type of plants generate loads of power. I could imagine to use them just to power hydrogen production. Then we do not even have to care that they only work in the day. Hell, we don't even have the problem of pollution generated from making solar power cell, since these are just mirrors. Other than keeping it clean, the power production is super cheap, so who cares if we waste half of it to make another fuel for cars which is way cleaner to use than gas?
.
.
.
.
They have, they are the cool toy of the month... (or year)...
But the actual numbers are pretty small and will never get big until the price comes down by a whole bunch.
Actually, it goes about the same distance. When they say "5 times the range of an electric car", they are probably comparing with their own abysmal electric carts. According to Wikipedia, the Toyota FCV concept will actually have a range of 480 km (300 miles) which is pretty close to that of a Model S 85 (426 km according to the same Wikipedia article, assuming it uses the same method of range measurement).
And you can't fill it up in your own home, and a refill will cost more, etc...
Nope, I'm not getting one.
Only just: a model S 60 is $69,900. And I imagine refilling with hydrogen at a gas station will cost a fair bit more than plugging in at home, making the Tesla cheaper and much easier to operate.
The S 60 has 2/3 the range of that concept FCV (208 miles vs. 300 according to Wikipedia), certainly way more than a fifth as stated in the article, and for $10,000 more you get an S 85 with a 265 mile range.
It will be 800 km in "extended cruise mode", meaning constant low speed, the way car manufacturers used to measure range before better standards were invented. In other words, they're cheating. Actual real world range will be about the same as a Tesla S 85.
There are hundrets if fuel cell types that don't run on hydrogen.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It was C4.
You also may not have heard of DME, which can be created over a catalyst from cellulosic derived syngas.
I don't understand why Toyota would pursue this technology when we have batteries that are competitive with it currently and they get better every day... and battery technology is just manifestly better in that we already have electricity distributed to every location on earth... Why build a completely new, energy inefficient, liquid transportation industry just to add a middle-man to electricity distribution and make life less convenient for the the drivers?
It just seems to me like an attempt to keep hydrocarbon fuels relevant... or perhaps to see hydrogen deployed so that Toyota can keep their ICE engines relevant... It just doesn't make sense otherwise.
Yes, I'm sure there are special applications one could point to where hydrogen may make sense in some niche under some circumstances... but... for general automobile usage? I just don't get it...
We just pump out something cheap and easy to store, then make it.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/0...
What's happened to the price of houses since 2008?
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.