Japan To Offer $20,000 Subsidy For Fuel-Cell Cars

An anonymous reader writes "Toyota is on track to launch the first consumer fuel-cell car in Japan next year, and the country's Prime Minister says the government wants to assist the new alternative to gas-driven vehicles. Shinzo Abe announced that Japan will offer subsidies of almost $20,000 for fuel cell cars, which will decrease the Toyota model's cost by about 28%. He said, "This is the car of a new era because it doesn't emit any carbon dioxide and it's environmentally friendly. The government needs to support this. Honda is also planning to release a fuel-cell car next year, but experts expect widespread adoption to take decades, since hydrogen fuel station infrastructure is still in its infancy."

Comments

Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[kheldan]

You want people to adopt electric cars and hybrids in greater numbers sooner? You want to wean the general populace off of fossil fuels? This is how you do it! Of all the complete wastes of money the U.S. government commits, this comparatively speaking would be a drop in the bucket and of great long-term benefit to the entire country. While we're at it how about they sink some money into electric vehicle support infrastructure like rapid charging stations, too?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[rubycodez]

no, this is not how you do it, wasting my tax dollars on 28 percent overpriced uneconomical $70k luxury vehicle that has payback period in over a decade...

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[jbmartin6]

Why not? Because if you hand out $20,000 to buy a car, you just increase the price of every car by $20,000. It is basic economics. We can see the same effect in housing prices, health care, and college tuition.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want people to adopt electric cars and hybrids in greater numbers sooner?

Speak for yourself brother. Just because 'you' think everyone in America should drive an electric car, doesn't mean everyone thinks the same way. I can think of about a thousand better ways for the gov't to spend our tax money than subsidizing these toys. Let's keep this ridiculous idea in Japan.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[tomhath]

The US is already doing this. There are plenty of tax credits and other subsidies for hybrid vehicles, ethanol, etc.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

what the PM really meant to say is listen guys we import 100% of our oil and our country has a ton of people in a small area

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ShanghaiBill]

This is how you do it!

No, this is NOT how you do it. It makes sense for the government to promote and subsidize scientific research and technological development. But it does NOT make sense for governments to subsidize manufacturing. If something cannot be sold at a fair market price, then the answer is not taxpayer funded subsidies, but more R&D to develop something that actually makes sense. These subsidies usually get twisted in corporate welfare entitlements, and then can often be used to stifle progress rather then promoting it. Examples: Ethanol subsidies, and solar subsidies that have morphed into protective tariffs that raise the cost of alternative energy in order to protect inefficient producers with political connections.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[sillybilly]

This is how you do it except the car does not have to be 60 grand in cost, and most importantly hydrogen as fuel, liquid or compressed, is bullshit, you need something to carry it on a molecular scale, as a hydride compound. The simplest of these that is carbon free, i.e. nonhydrocarbon, is ammonia, or nitrogen trihydride, but there is also toxic hydrazine, or dinitrogen tetrahydride, and even the magnesium-titanium metal hydrides might stand a chance, or borohydrides like lithium borohydride (which is above in energy density in volume and mass to gasoline, the top chemical material(everything else higher in mass energy density is lower in volume energy density, or vice versa, gasoline has that magic balance, plus all gaseous effluents, unlike borohydrides, that have solid or solution effluents, but recyclable.)) Liquid ammonia stores at room temperature under mild pressure, compared to liquid hydrogen requiring constant venting, or constant cryogenic refrigeration, which is very retarded and senseless to do. Or huge compression containers (or cryogenic refrigerator malfunction or boil off hole plugging accident) ready for a classic steam boiler explosion scenario. Hydrogen stored by itself is not safe nor economical. It has to be combined with something, and if you don't like carbon, there is nitrogen (awesome), metals (maybe), boron (big maybe, and then even silicon or aluminum instead of boron might be better.)

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boron hydrides are truly awful stuff to work with. They make hydrazine look like a toy. Ammonia's not bad, though.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Mr D from 63]

Exactly. Handouts at the consumer end are the best way to waste a bunch of money. Not only is it inherently unfair, as a large number of taxpayers are not in a position to take advantage of the handout, but it also completely distorts the consumer market, where products that otherwise have no chance are sold only as long as the handouts are in place. Then, when the inevitable cutbacks happen, the market is up-ended because it was never balanced based on actual consumer need.

Much of this can be avoided as you said by reinforcing the development end rather than the purchasing end. But, people love handouts, and there are plenty of politicians willing to hand out, after all, its only taxpayer money....who cares if it is used to buy something completely overvalued to the user?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, there already are incentives for buying EVs. Where have you been?
 
Aside from that, see how much Japan spends on their defense.... then look to see how much the US spends on Japan's defense. You'll start getting your answers in short order. The US has been footing the bill for a lot of defense of friendly nations for decades after the last threat the were under has been eliminated. We paid to rebuild Japan over 60 years ago and we've been paying to defend their shores ever since.
 
Oh, and look into how many UN actions are run with American dollars.
 
And how many people who have fallen off of unemployment compensation who are now collecting other benefits... but hey, at least they're not on the unemployment dole, right? That makes the numbers look good but less people are pulling the US economic cart and the burden of that cart increases daily.
 
The US is bleeding money into just about everything but their own infrastructure.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[PrimaryConsult]

But they're not doing it for all cars, just *specific* cars. When there's a $1 off coupon on Coke products available, does Pepsi suddenly cost $1 more? No, but Pepsi now has to try harder to match.

Similarly, all this does is knock $20k off the price of the fuel efficient car, making the $20k Gas Guzzlers and $45k alternate fuel cars closer in price.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[CaptnZilog]

If they really wanted to help things, they'd invest the money in more charging stations (here in the US) for EVs (and push for a standard, like Tesla releasing their patents for their advanced charging system). People aren't going to spend money (or not a lot of people) on vehicles they can't actually charge very many places. Until a more country-wide infrastructure is in place, *most* people are going to stick with vehicles they can actually "fuel up" anywhere.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

You mean like they did for SUVs/Trucks in 1997 with the $25,000 tax break for small businesses buying a vehicle over 6,000lbs? Which if that wasn't bad enough they extended to $100,000 in 2003?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Sqr(twg)]

I worked on fuel cell vehicles for seven years, but quit because I realized there will never be a future in it.

There are lots of reasons, but the main argument is this: It takes about four times as much electricity to power a fuel cell car as a battery-electric car. (Fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity at about 50 % efficiency, and making hydrogen from electrolysis has about 50 % efficency, not counting losses in compressing the hydrogen and when tranferring the compressed gas to the car. Batteries can have 95 % efficiency both in charging and discharging.)

You could make hydrogen from natural gas, of course, but the "no fossil fuels" argument goes away, and efficiency is still no advantage over a combustion engine that runs on natural gas directly.

The only advantage a fuel cell vehicle has over a battery-powered one is range, but range is less of an issue whith batteries, because chargers could be everywhere, unlike hydrogen tank stations that have lots of safety issues.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius, Japan pays a fuckton of money to the us for its military services, in addition to offering numerous bases for the US to use.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[tomhath]

Maybe, but I have to believe the real motivation is to capture world market share.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Mr D from 63]

This is how you do it except the car does not have to be 60 grand in cost,

Then you proceeded to list of bunch of undeveloped and presently high cost approaches.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[kheldan]

Fund R&D projects? Yes. But there will not BE cheap electric or hybrids until enough of them are sold every year to bring the manufacturing costs down enough to bring the price down enough that they are competitive, price-wise, with internal combustion vehicles. Also, face the reality: We don't have that much oil left, and we NEED to start weaning off it NOW, rather than later when it's a crisis situation. I'm not saying we should have permanent government incentives to consumers to buy electric vehicles, just long enough to kick-start the process of getting more people to buy them. Enough people buy them and have them, the more people will start thinking they need to buy them too, and so on, until it's the norm instead of just the exception. The more electric vehicles on the road, the more incentive there will be to build infrastructure to charge them, the easier it'll be to own one, the more incentive people will have to BUY one, and so on.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

citation needed. link or it didn't happen.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[angel'o'sphere]

This is not basic economics but a brain dead attitude!
Why should the price for my Mercedes change if the government is subsidizing a random car? The random car is not a competitor to my Mercedes, the BMW and the Porsche next corner are!

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[angel'o'sphere]

I wished /. had a feature to filter out comments of people you have marked as an enemy ...

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is doing things like that.

Check here:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

are you five? Have you ever even driven a car or owned one? You seem hot have no clue about weighing pros and cons or understanding the challenges new tech must overcome.

who can I tell? You lead with the main argument - EV cars are more efficient in terms of total energy per mile. You know what? nobody gives a crap! the three important things for hydrogen stations are cost per mile, fuel source, and GHGs. nobody cares about mathematical efficiencies.

you know what people do care about? range and convenience time. you know what's not convenient? recharging for four hours every 20 mins!

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[mysidia]

Why not? Because if you hand out $20,000 to buy a car, you just increase the price of every car by $20,000. It is basic economics.

OK... would it please you if they implement their subsidy by creating a $10,000 tax on the purchase or transfer of any vehicle; used or new? Then waive that tax for buyers of a new or used certified hydrogen-only vehicle and pay the manufacturer $10,000 directly, for each one sold.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[tomhath]

The question was whether an SUV should be treated as a truck or a car under Section 179, just a different way to calculate depreciation.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[davester666]

You mean market share in Japan, as it seems unlikely the gov't will give this subsidy to buyers outside of Japan.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Competition would prevent that and market collusion which leads to price fixing is illegal in the US.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Gavagai80]

If you actually want to reduce emissions, it'd be many times more effective to use that money to give everyone free bus passes. And that way you'd actually be helping the poor instead of the wealthy!

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ShanghaiBill]

I wished /. had a feature to filter out comments of people you have marked as an enemy ...

Just go to https://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm and add a negative score modifier to push your foes below your viewing threshold. But, according to my "friend/foe" page, you don't have me listed as an enemy, so you need to do that first.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The effect is the same. Subsidizing the manufacture/sale of these cars in Japan allows Toyota to dump them in foreign markets.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coke will sell their soda for +1, if they are smart. For a new product, it is not even noticeable.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

http://law.lclark.edu/live/fil... a detailed paper on the matter if you'd prefer. Note to those who think this might be a "democrat vs republican" thing - Clinton enacted the deduction, Bush extended it, something they could all agree on.

http://www.skeptically.org/oil... for another summary of it, though horribly biased in its language.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ganjadude]

why should I have to pay for you to buy a new car???? no this is NOT how you do things

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[knightghost]

More or less. What the environmental religion fails to understand is that regardless if you spend more for a "green" product, somewhere down the supply chain it's always going to end up fueling some truck that gets 4 MPG.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ganjadude]

no.

how it SHOULD work is simple

car company builds car

car buyer buys car

end of discussion, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, I was against the hybrid tax subsidies just as well its not fair to the rest of us who are stuck driving older cars to assist in your payment of your new toy

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[sillybilly]

Yeah, ammonia is not that bad. It's used in the liquid form and injected directly into the ground as fertilizer, by farmers from a tractor with a syringe. If they can stand the smell and not die from the toxic effects of releasing it directly into the soil, the general population should be able to handle leak tight cars with smoke alarm detectors, and even without detectors, the odor threshold of 5 ppm is safe, well under the 50 ppm 8-hr TWA OSHA PEL.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[mysidia]

end of discussion, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers

The problem is the government is already unfairly picking winners and already subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles by failing to require that manufacturers and operators of fossil fuel vehicles pay for the pollution they generate in order to internalize the externalities.

The fact is.... new development is always expensive. And, economics doesn't favor improvement of society, when the actors are not required to pay for the damage they are causing and the point of the new technology requiring major investments in development and infrastructure is to mitigate such damage.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[cerberusti]

The most important thing for hydrogen as a car fuel is that it is impractically dangerous. Sure you can bind it to something else to mitigate that... but then we are talking about something like gasoline anyway (or your hydrocarbon of choice, but substituting other atoms for carbon tends to make it toxic.)

The safety issues with liquefied dihydrogen are so insanely bad that anybody seriously proposing it knows this cannot possibly work, or has very little chemical and engineering knowledge. The basic properties of this substance make it entirely unsuitable as a common fuel.

The suggestion that hydrogen will be useful as a fuel source on a moving vehicle would be hilarious if it was not suggested in all sincerity by individuals with the power to make laws.

The reality is that we are going to simply burn the methane (natural gas) as that is where we would be sourcing the hydrogen anyway, and it is much safer to transport.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[sillybilly]

I see a definite correlation between low slashdot id number and smarts in you.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ganjadude]

japan was not allowed to have a military after WW2, im not sure what the status is now but that is the reason we protect them, or did in the past at least

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Sqr(twg)]

are you five?

As I wrote in the first sentence of the post you are replying to, I worked for seven years in research and development on fuel cell vehicles. You do the math.

Have you ever even driven a car or owned one?

I've driven a fair number of different vehicles, including prototype fuel cell cars.

You seem hot have no clue about weighing pros and cons or understanding the challenges new tech must overcome.

Unlike you?

You know what? nobody gives a crap! the three important things for hydrogen stations are cost per mile, fuel source, and GHGs. nobody cares about mathematical efficiencies.

Efficiency is the most important factor in determining cost per mile. A car that requires four times as much electricity will have approximately four times the cost per mile. It will also cause four times the green-house gas emissions, assuming that the source of the electricity is the same.

(Protip: If you want to be taken seriously in any kind of scientific argument - Don't say that "nobody cares about mathematical ..." Scientists do care about math.)

you know what people do care about? range and convenience time. you know what's not convenient? recharging for four hours every 20 mins!

Four hours charging for every 20 minutes of driving was over twenty years ago. Today, most electric cars have a range that exceeds what their owners drive on an average day. This means the owner spends 10 seconds per day (one minute per week, assuming that he has Sundays off) plugging in the car when he gets home. The average non-electric car owner spends much more time than that filling up his car. A fuel cell car owner would spend even more time, because hydrogen cannot be transferred as quickly from one tank to another as liquids can.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ganjadude]

just because they do something wrong means they should do more wrong?? no, just no

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[jbmartin6]

An excellent point. But what do you think the business will do when someone else is handing out money to buy their new product? At the very least, any incentive they have to control costs or reduce prices just went out the window. The Coke analogy isn't quite right since that price is long established by market competition, and coupons are typically backed by the manufacturer or the reseller, i.e. someone in the sales chain, as opposed to some third party whose only involvement is handing out money. In other words, the coupon is in business terms indistinguishable from a price cut. Whereas the $20k handout is simply more profit to be made from customers who would have bought it for $50k but can now 'afford' to pay $70k

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Jeremi]

end of discussion, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers

I think the government has a legitimate national security interest in developing a transportation system that does not completely grind to a halt the day someone sets off a few nukes in the major oil-producing areas of the world.

Hybrid and electric technology is what could make the difference between an event like that being a serious problem and it being a complete disaster.

There's also the small issue of global warming; I think the government also has a legitimate interest in keeping Miami above water and crops growing in California.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[jbmartin6]

Or if you like, Coke v. Pepsi is not a good analogy because those products are substitutes for each other. A hydrogen fuel cell car is not a substitute for a gas car, people will not simply switch from one to the other due to price concerns. There are a lot of other factors, such as availability of fueling stations, proximity to qualified service providers, and so on. So the people who will buy the fuel cell car are going to buy one regardless. all this handout will do is add the $20k to the price for the manufacturer to profit. Now if the supporting infrastructure for both types of cars were identical, the analogy might be more apt. But in that case there would be no supposed need for the handout would there? Perhaps the money might be better spent building out fuel stations instead of just effectively handing it out to a politically favored car manufacturer.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ColdWetDog]

We have plenty of oil left. What we don't have is very much cheap oil. That interesting point at least allows the concept of market driven forces. Once oil is too expensive, then there will be more of a reason to switch. To be completely fair (which will never happen) we do need to cut back on the subsidies we give the fossil fuel industry. Adding differing subsidies to the mix isn't such a bright idea, but it is politically expedient.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You're a fucking retard.
 
In a singular effort we're going to pay 8.6 billion to move troops from Japan as Japan ponies up 3.1 billion. Yeah, Japan is really paying its share.
 
Retarded fucking loon.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ganjadude]

as long as we are still using (insert power of choice) it doesnt matter, a few nukes on oil fields, a few nukes on the hydro dams, a few nukes in the coal plants, hell a few nukes on a nuke plant. Unless one has self sustaining power (off grid) transportation is still tied to the grid.

as for the cars and global warming thing, cars contribute somewhere between 1% and 5% of bad greenhouse gasses, planes big rigs, chem plants etc produce the other 95-99%, doing anything with regard to global warming in regards to passenger cars is like trying to stop the fukushima disaster from happening by using gum to block the damage in the reactor cover,its not even going to put a dent into the issue.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[mysidia]

just because they do something wrong means they should do more wrong?? no, just no

Except it's not something "more wrong"; it is just something you seem to disagree that they should do. A number of consumers might have already made an investment to purchase a fossil fuel vehicle, and therefore, have a conflict of interest in regards to this matter which disqualifies them from making a fair judgement about the cost to society as a whole and the public of allowing citizens to operate such equipment.

I am essentially neutral on the matter whether they attempt to correct the problem by subsidizing manufacturesr of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles OR make owners of fossil fuel vehicles and manufacturers start paying for the share of emissions release caused by their activities (manufacturer tax for emissions during manufacturing, operator tax for expected emissions based on emission estimation formulae taking into account number of power-on hours total miles driven, and average mileage, to attempt to calculate quantity of fuel burned).

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[haruchai]

If no one provides a link to a story about the Big Bang, does that mean the Universe doesn't exist?
In this universe, we have search engines. Perhaps you might have inadvertently used one but I see you've recovered nicely from that misstep.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[fulldecent]

The correct solution(1):

Recover costs from wars in the middle east this millennium from taxes added to gas consumption, domestic or foreign, until repaid.

This would be a ~80 per gallon if spread over 10 years.

This is assuming we fought the war "for oil", whatever the hell that means.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

Efficiency is the most important factor in determining cost per mile. A car that requires four times as much electricity will have approximately four times the cost per mile. It will also cause four times the green-house gas emissions, assuming that the source of the electricity is the same.

don't go full retard! what about the costs of the primary fuel, dumb ass??? if you're comparing electricity to other sources, then it matters. photovoltaics are pretty darn inefficient, but sunlight is free so it's a wash. get it?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

i don't see the difference in safety between a hydrogen car and a cng car. Elaborate?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ganjadude]

i just dont want the government taxing taxes from one group of people to pay for the toys of others. simple as that. that goes for these cars and anything else that gets subsided which is not needed for living.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[mysidia]

as for the cars and global warming thing, cars contribute somewhere between 1% and 5% of bad greenhouse gasses

Greenhouse gas release is not the only negative effect of vehicle emissions. They also release materials such as CO1 and Nitrogen-based compounds with negative health effects on the local environment and human populations, they cause smog and other issues.

Chemical plants are not mobile like Vehicles are. Emissions by chemical plants are at a fixed location and in the future can be regulated or mitigated much more effectively as a result.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Ol Olsoc]

citation needed. link or it didn't happen.

Ask ,and ye shall recieve citizen

http://www.selfemployedweb.com...

Questions?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

ty. a very interesting point, something I hadn't known about. The law review article has a relevant example. It gave the scenario of "Tom", a self-employed realtor who was choosing between a $50k Mercedes sedan and $50k mercedes ultra-suv. The loophole provided a $13k incentive for him to choose the SUV. However, your original quote of $25k is misleading, because Tom would also get a tax deduction (albeit a smaller one) for the mercedes sedan.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

thanks. i read one of the other links provided and it was very informative. have a good day.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Dr_Barnowl]

CNG can be stored easily in standard pressure tanks. The carbon atoms in the molecules grant these gases the property of having van der Waals forces which allow them to form liquids at relatively low pressures.

Hydrogen molecules are tiny. They slip into the crystal structure of metals and render them brittle. They slip through the gaps in seals. And making hydrogen into a liquid requires extreme pressures and temperatures.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[ShanghaiBill]

... bring the manufacturing costs down enough to bring the price down enough that they are competitive

Per unit subsidies are the WRONG way to do this. Much better is for the government to subsidize R&D into better manufacturing techniques. Look at windmills. They were subsidized for years. Now they are mostly cost competitive, so the subsidies worked, right? WRONG! The modern cost effective windmills are completely different (and much bigger) than the windmills that were subsidized, and are mostly made by different companies. So the subsidies were mostly wasted backing the wrong horse, and making it harder for the eventual winners to emerge.

I'm not saying we should have permanent government incentives to consumers to buy electric vehicles

Yes you are, whether that is your intention or not. Subsidies lead to uncompetitive companies, sheltered from the market, with inferior products. Once the subsidies start, they soon become entitlements, with blocks of voters and buckets of campaign donations to sustain them.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Dr_Barnowl]

The costs of the primary fuel are paramount - the cheapest way to get hydrogen is from steam reformation of natural gas, not from electrolysis. Therefore that is the source that will be used, because the economic cost determines what happens in the market.

Subsidies of fuel cell vehicles are likely the result of lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, since they have the most to gain. As the sibling poster says, battery electric vehicles right now are suitable for over 90% of journeys, and battery technology continues to improve, with faster charging and better capacity and longevity.

And as you yourself point out - fuel cell cars raise the cost of the primary fuel - whatever it is - by a factor of four. It's still the same dichotomy we have now with battery versus chemical fuel.

You can either have a vehicle that has a long range and a rapid refuel time at the cost of ALL the journeys you make being expensive regardless of their length.

Or you can have a vehicle that has very cheap journeys 90% of the time at the cost of additional refuelling time on some of the longer journeys. Given the state of the technology now, it's more like 20 minutes every four hours, than four hours every 20 minutes. And to be honest, I think I could benefit from a 20 minute break after four hours of driving.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

It's not misleading, my point wasn't that SUVs got a bigger tax break than cars, it was that the US government uses your tax dollars to subsidize auto purchases. There have been smaller ones for plugin vehicles and hybrids as well.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[AmiMoJo]

Japan understands that the future is with new types of engine - hybrid, electric, fuel cell, something else. If Japan is to stay the world leader it has to develop these technologies, get the patents, get the knowledge and expertise, get the market before anyone else even comes in to it. They already pretty much own the hybrid market, for example, and most the non-Japanese hybrid system are based on licensed Japanese technology anyway.

The American car industry is dying. Japanese manufacturers are already winning in the US market. It's because they invest in R&D, pump money into things that can take decades to pay off. Their government understands that and helps out, so that Japan has a strong domestic car industry. In the US you just bail out car companies when they fail, doing little to actually help them succeed. The exception was with EVs, and it paid of spectacularly with Tesla. You should be doing more of that.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[AmiMoJo]

So remind me, what are the most popular car brands in the US? Toyota and Honda, companies that are willing to invest vast amounts of money in new technology and get support from their government? Seems to be working pretty well for them.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

h2 is stored at 350 bar or 700 bar. a bit higher than cng at 260 bar (3600psi), but you just spec the tanks appropriately and inspect/replace them appropriately. Any small slow leaks go harmlessly into the air, jut need to watch where you park them. it seems fine to me, you just need precautions. like how you're not supposed to smoke at gas stations.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[rubycodez]

yes, Japanese and Korean internal combustion powered cars are HUGE in the US market. That has nothing to do with the miniscule amount of electric cars in the USA, of course.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[rubycodez]

that stinks too, should not have happened. your point?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

to be fair, the primary source of electricity is also fossil fuel, either nat gas or coal. so your high horse isn't as high as you think it is. yes, h2 has higher ghgs than electricity, but there's no economic cost to that and it's still lower than gasoline.

in terms of range, 80 mi is fine for most of my driving, but occasionally I need a car that can do a day trip from LA to San Diego (200 mi round trip), 90% of which is high speed highway, and I'm not going to sweat any range issues.

. There is one retort to the range claim of FCVs- FCV may have more range than an EV, but the car is also much more expensive. If you took an EV and added a tow box with enough battery packs to make the vehicles have comparable price, then the range comparison would be much different.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

That it happens all the time - it's just the way governments do business without actually changing the standard tax rate which is a lot more problematic politically.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[sillybilly]

Your tax money through bailouts and subsidies goes directly into 80 some year old pervert's country club membership to get his dick sucked by an 18 yr old teenage mother who needs money and does not like busting her ass getting dead tired on some 3rd shift factory production line for minimum wage.. that's life, that's the world we live in, just get over it. The gov't takes it from one guy and gives it to another, and not all another's are military people, but a whole lot of them are private business owners. We're living in the age of pork barrel politics and welfare for corporations, and it gets complicated, because it is often correct to bail out companies, and if you are not willing to do pork barrel politics, you don't exist as a politician cuz you would not have ended up in the post you're in in the first place.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[sillybilly]

Liquefied ammonia is not high cost, the platinum cost needed for low temp fuel cells is moderate. An issue is that liquid ammonia is only half the energy density of gasoline, so you need 2 gals of it to go as far as 1 gal on gasoline, but liquid hydrogen is like 1/8th the energy density by volume, so you need like 5 gals of liq H2 vs 1 gal of gasoline, even if that 5 gallon of liquid H2 is really light, like 2 milligrams total for the fuel (and 50 lbs of steel and insulation for the cryogenic containment), so it makes sense as a rocket fuel if it's light, but not as a car fuel, it if it takes up so much friggin room. Also fuel celling ammonia does not emit any carbon, just H2O, N2, and NOx. I said fuel celling not combusting, because it does not burn in air, it burns in pure oxygen, but not burning in air can be good too, for things like 9/11 airplanes smashing into buildings, the toxicity of getting drenched in liquid ammonia vapors kills all the people on the floor of airplane impact, but as it snuffs out all fires, it does not structurally weaken the steel and lead to a total building collapse, and keeps the other people downstairs alive. There are pluses and minuses to everything in the world, kinda like the Ways of Tao: Yin ~ Yang.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[angel'o'sphere]

Oh, I would rather have you listed as dump ass, or smart ass after pointing this option out. Not literally as an enemy.
But your post I responded to, caused me literally pain, please post more smart comments less stupid ones ...

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[mattwarden]

Um, we are not an island who has no local petroleum resources. It always amazes me to watch you people blindly supporting dumping money to distort markets. Meanwhile, you have Tesla showing how much force the high cost of production has to encourage innovation. Tesla knows very few people can buy a $150k, so they spent every day getting innovating to get that down to $60k. And then they spent every day getting that down to what reportedly will be around $30k. And no doubt they will then spend every day getting that down to $20k. That is, unless there's a $20k subsidy, in which case there is no market reason for them to continue to innovate with very expensive R&D.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Rei]

Even the $70k price for an average-performance car here is subsidized - Toyota has admitted that they're selling it at a loss. It's hard to make an electric car look cheap, but fuel cells do a great job at it. And they have shorter lives than batteries, are more complicated with more breakable parts, operate at 1/3rd the net system efficiency well to wheel, have a larger environmental footprint for manufacture, and FCVs still have to have a hybrid-size battery pack in order to average out consumption demands so you don't have to have a 3x larger fuel cell to meet peak demand. Just ignoring the issues with the fuel itself.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Rei]

That doesn't mean deciding that one particular alternative is the right one. If there are externalities not being taken into account, tax/fine for them.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong about incentives, they have a greater incentive to control costs and reduce prices, combined with what's REALLY important.

A market opportunity to do so.

Now in an ideal world, people would be able to assess that driving a more fuel-efficient car would pay off even with a higher cost, but let's face it, most people can't see that.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[AK Marc]

The US isn't doing this because the US makers don't have a qualifying vehicle. We only subsidize our own.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

Citation? Only thing about the cost of the FCV I can find is that it's reduced the cost of production of the power train + fuel cell by 95% from the first model.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[sumdumass]

It really is misleading because it doesn't give a bigger tax break, it allows the tax breaks to be realized sooner.

In other words, outside of expensing which is limited to 25k
(maintenance, fuel, and so on as a cost rather than a standard mileage), the depreciation differences are only in that you can depreciate a truck faster then a passenger car. This actually makes sense because if the SUV didn't exist and a 6000 lbs truck was being used for work, it would wear out faster than a passenger car and need replaced sooner. The only reason a loop hole exists is because automakers were making 3/4 and 1 ton SUVs to escape the cafe standards that would have sent them the way of the station wagon.

But the more important point is that when you depreciate something, you have to count anything over the depreciated value as a capitol gain when selling it. So you are only deducting the expected loss in value faster for one set than another but would have to keep them the same amount of time before ending up with another tax on top of it if the real value didn't match. People get caught in this all the time, they depreciate the most possible then when selling something, they find that they owe a capital gains tax because the real value was worth a lot more than the 80% depreciated value.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

*dumb ass

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Mr D from 63]

Its not the cost of the raw materials that matters. Its the cost of the entire solution in a form that meets consumer needs; This includes, but is not limited to, car, fuel and fuel storage; manufacturing, maintenance, fuel delivery, etc. If you have a low density fuel, you'll have the expenses elsewhere to account for it.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

You buy a $50k SUV, you pay $10,500 less in taxes in year 1 and in year 2 ~$3,500 less (using Rogers example). In year 3 it's depreciated value is $10k and you sell it for $35k paying 15% capital gains - your effective cost for those 3 years (excluding other factors) is $7,500. Doing that exact thing with a car the 3 year cost is $15,250 due to the difference in depreciation.

Usually though you're going to be buying another vehicle and you'll be able to depreciate again so that $10,500 will offset the $5,250 in capital gains nicely.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[buybuydandavis]

The problem is the government is already unfairly picking winners and already subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles
by failing to require that manufacturers and operators of fossil fuel vehicles pay for the pollution they generate in order to internalize the externalities.

Have they done any math to check this? Any thought?

A quick trip to La Wik:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel.[1][2] On average, as of April 2014, state and local taxes add 31.5 cents to gasoline and 31.0 cents to diesel, for a total US average fuel tax of 49.9 cents per gallon for gas and 55.4 cents per gallon for diesel.[3]

About a 15% tax on energy for gas powered vehicles. What's the energy tax on all those shiny electric plug ins?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[buybuydandavis]

I think the government has a legitimate national security interest in developing a transportation system that does not completely grind to a halt the day someone sets off a few nukes in the major oil-producing areas of the world.

Hybrid and electric technology is what could make the difference between an event like that being a serious problem and it being a complete disaster.

Powered by abundant local reserves of coal! Yay!

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[mysidia]

About a 15% tax on energy for gas powered vehicles. What's the energy tax on all those shiny electric plug ins?

They need to work on adding taxes that will cover electric plug ins, etc. The government is reluctant to do so; however, funding for transportation infrastructure has to come from somewhere ---- and it should come in proportionate amounts from those who use that infrastructure most heavily.

This is not an energy tax per se. This is a tax largely for road usage that goes to the united states highway trust fund; the tax certainly goes a ways to help cover the financing of the national highways, however: the tax is inadequate, even for that; the trust fund has become insolvent, largely due to congress' reluctance to increase the tax even to meet inflation, so it doesn't even cover what it is supposed to cover.

If you operate your gasoline vehicles exclusively on a farm, you can get all the fuel used on your farm free of the tax, or get a quarterly refund check for all the fuel taxes.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[buybuydandavis]

They need to work on adding taxes that will cover electric plug ins, etc.
The government is reluctant to do so; however, funding for transportation infrastructure has to come from somewhere ---- and it should come in proportionate amounts from those who use that infrastructure most heavily.

Which reverses your original comment. It's the electrics that are being relatively subsidized, when compared to gas/diesel powered cars.

(Note that electrics are also "fossil fueled", as approximately 70% of grid power comes from fossil fuels. )

You originally wrote:

The problem is the government is already unfairly picking winners and already subsidizing fossil fuel vehicles by failing to require that manufacturers and operators of fossil fuel vehicles pay for the pollution they generate in order to internalize the externalities.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[DrXym]

The point since it eludes you is that governments have overarching policy objectives and subsidies are one way they can steer individuals and the market to reach them. In the case of Japan, I expect they are highly desirous of lowering their dependency of foreign oil and so they're stimulating interest and demand in alternatives.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't established, at all, that the government does wrong when it subsidizes new tech. It's just an assertion that you and your ilk repeat loudly, thus effectively using the propaganda technique that "makes" it "true" in the public's mind. Upthread, someone pointed out how effectively subsidizing SUV's helped to make them extremely popular. This was used to demonstrate that government subsidy was always wrong because now we're all sick of SUV's. What it did show is how government subsidy is effective in promoting new products. If we do that to products we want to see more of, what's wrong with that?

Discaimer: there's nowhere here for me to put in a "handle" for myself.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

>because chargers could be everywhere
You can carry your charger, and electricity outlets are truly everywhere.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from being a belligerent dick, this is the second time in this thread that you've embarrassed yourself, the first being your earlier demand for citation of a well know tax break on SUVs, the demand implying the person who mentioned it was making it up.

I suggest you shut up and start removing your foot from your mouth before you choke on the damn thing.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[drinkypoo]

2 is stored at 350 bar or 700 bar. a bit higher than cng at 260 bar (3600psi), but you just spec the tanks appropriately and inspect/replace them appropriately.

it's funny you mention that, because the H2 storage tanks cost more and have to be replaced more often.

Any small slow leaks go harmlessly into the air, jut need to watch where you park them. it seems fine to me, you just need precautions. like how you're not supposed to smoke at gas stations.

I won't really shed any tears if people aren't allowed to smoke in parking lots, but I'm not sure that's going to fly.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[drinkypoo]

Citation? Only thing about the cost of the FCV I can find is that it's reduced the cost of production of the power train + fuel cell by 95% from the first model.

Heh heh. Did you see what they spent on the first model? You could put a car in orbit for that

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[mysidia]

Which reverses your original comment. It's the electrics that are being relatively subsidized, when compared to gas/diesel powered cars.

That's not true; the Net subsidy is: (Tax credits for operating vehicle) + (Uncharged Cost for Externalities). The gasoline tax is a charged cost for one specific externality: the impact on road infrastructure built using collective taxpayer funds.

In some areas such as London there is a congestion fee which helps charge for even more of the externalities produced by vehicles.

Although the gasoline tax does currently have a disparately positive impact on high fuel-mileage vehicles or vehicles which do not require gasoline to operate:

This does not mean there is a relative subsidy higher than gasoline vehicle subsidy for the electric, since the poor mileage gasoline vehicles generate other externalities which are not charged for, such as localized pollution, which would be extremely expensive or difficult to abate.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[rubycodez]

You are the one lacking mental faculties, Japan is paying 3/8 for U.S. Marines to move out and go to Hawaii. That is in fact a fuckton of money and one could argue well more than their fare share to rid itself of schoolgirl rape nuisances.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[rubycodez]

they started a national defense (National Police Reserve) in 1950 and that evolved to become the present day Japan Self-Defense Force.

In the last ten years many changes in philosophy have made the JSDF to be more like typical country's military, just this month they lifted ban on engaging Japanese troops abroad.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[kheldan]

to pay for the toys of others

Goddamnit all to fucking hell, THEY ARE NOT TOYS. You are not the only one who keeps using that word, but: Fossil fuels are not only limited, they are killing the planet now, and we need to get away from them. It's been made way, way too easy to default back to using them, especially here in the U.S., and the only way I see we're going to get people away from using them may, in fact, I'm real goddamn sorry to say, may have to include 'unfair' tactics from federal governments (not just the the U.S. government!) to influence people's choices in what vehicles they purchase! Face the facts, people: Left to their own devices, the general public, automakers, oil companies, and anyone else with a stake in fossil fuels will just keep using them and using them until the last drop is gone, waiting for it to become a crisis and and emergency before they really do anything about changing to something else. We need to get off our collective Human asses and change what we're doing now, not later. Is it going to be painful in one way or another, especially here in the U.S.? Hell yes it will, lots of people aren't going to like it, but it must be done, and once the U.S. is on the non-fossil-fuel bandwagon, the rest of the world will begin to follow suit. Say what you will about how the U.S. has conducted itself on the world stage for quite some time now poltically-speaking, but we do still tend to set trends because we're still (for the most part) a 1st world country.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[MarkH]

well informed comments like this is why I keep reading Slashdot comments. thanks

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Dr_Barnowl]

The horse is still high enough. Twice as high as the pony that fuel cells rode in on, at the least.

Making electricity from a power plant with a traditional thermal conversion cycle (40% efficiency, at best) and making hydrogen by electrolysis (50% efficiency) and using it to power your fuel cell car (again, about 50%) yields

0.4 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.1 or 10% efficiency for the fuel that went in. That's half the efficiency of a traditional internal combustion engine.

Efficiency of an ICE averages about 20%. And I'm being generous with that because that does not take into account the losses from refining raw fuels (like coal, which can be burned unrefined).

Not sure what the efficiency of making hydrogen with steam reformation is, but logically you're throwing away a lot of the chemical energy in the original compound, because in a combustion cycle you'd be burning the carbon as well as the oxygen, and if you want the "green" benefits you also have to spend resources sequestering the carbon byproducts so produced. If it's above 80% efficient (which would seem on inspection to be impossible because of the lost carbon), then you have a vehicle that is clean at the tailpipe but just barely more full-cycle efficient than an ICE based vehicle, all other things being equal. Which they aren't because of the expensive platinum catalyst, heavy cryogenic high pressure tanks, etc, etc, etc.

Battery cycle is about 95% efficient. So even if you burn fossil fuels (40% efficiency) and suffer transmission losses (in the US, 94% efficiency), you still get a car that is more efficient than both ICEs and fuel cells.

0.4 * 0.94 * 0.95 = 35% efficiency

So at less than twice the efficiency of ICEs, electric cars are not the magical panacea that they are painted to be, but they are much better than ICEs and fuel cells. The major play available is in the first stage - the electricity generation. When you start replacing those coal fired power stations with other sources of electricity, they start to get much much greener. And they don't demand the construction of an entirely new fuel distribution infrastructure with difficult engineering challenges.

I remain certain in my position that hydrogen energy is primarily an investment of the fossil fuel industry, designed to help prolong the market for "vintage biomass" as long as possible, either by actually putting hydrogen cars on the road, or diverting investment away from battery technology.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

*so* *what*. Efficiency is meaningless. What means something is cost per mile. The cost of electricity and cost of hydrogen are completely decoupled from how they are made, so this "efficiency" calc has nothing to do with anything. please stop talking about it.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Well, efficiency informs us on cost. Let's couple those costs with efficiency and use the same fuel source.

Natural gas power stations vs hydrogen (from reformed natural gas)

Gas power station = 60% efficient [1]

So a battery vehicle powered by electricity generated from natural gas :

Gas turbine efficiency * transmission line efficiency * battery cycle efficiency

0.6 * 0.94 * 0.95 = 53%

Fuel cell vehicle powered by hydrogen reformed from natural gas

Natural gas is primarily methane. Methane releases 810kJ per mole [2] on burning, and contains 4 moles of hydrogen atoms which would form 2 moles of hydrogen gas. Assuming we remove the carbon from a mole of methane, we get 2 moles of hydrogen molecules. Energy of combusion of hydrogen gas is 286kJ/mol [3], so that's 572kJ/mol per mole of methane or just over 70% of the energy. I'm going to be very generous and assume that steam reformation costs no energy and that no hydrogen is lost in the process.

Methane reformation to hydrogen efficiency * fuel cell efficiency

0.7 * 0.5 = 35%

Therefore starting with the same fuel as an energy source, storage tank to wheels, the fuel cell car requires at least 50% more fuel. Therefore it costs more per mile, and that's before any of the other engineering considerations.

Please don't try to tell me that the cost of electricity produced from natural gas is completely decoupled from the cost of hydrogen produced from natural gas.

[1] Gas turbine plants
[2] https://www.wou.edu/las/physci...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[JMJimmy]

Yes, and the typical engine development costs about $5 billion - granted this is much cheaper now thanks to 3D printing.

If they can build the power train + fuel cell for under $50,000 they'll probably be selling them at cost but for a run of no more than 10,000 vehicles that's actually pretty good for this stage of development. I'd think they'll have a mass production + profitable model within the next 3-7 years. Don't know if they'll be worth it due to the cost of fuel and the fact that natural gas is the cheapest method of producing said fuel - that's going to be a bigger stumbling block than making the car profitable.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes about four times as much electricity to power a fuel cell car as a battery-electric car. (Fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity at about 50 % efficiency, and making hydrogen from electrolysis has about 50 % efficency, not counting losses in compressing the hydrogen and when tranferring the compressed gas to the car.

Which is completely irrelevant. That fact is battery powered cars will always be a failure because they take far to long to recharge. Hydrogen fuel cells don't have.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

Well, efficiency informs us on cost.

efficiency is connected with costs in a loose way. But if we're going to talk about costs then why don't we just talk about costs? I don't know too much about cars, but I know two recent bus projects, where the battery bus fuel cost is $0.30/mi and the fuel cell bus fuel cost is $1.20/mi.

there. was that so hard? facts. we have cut efficiency out because it is a canard.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Twinbee]

> nobody cares about mathematical efficiencies.

You're right there, but they will care about fuel cost - could be up to 5x cheaper to go with electricity for the same mileage.

> you know what people do care about? range and convenience time.

I agree. It's just as well then that Tesla's Model S can do 200-300 miles, and their cheaper $35,000 Model 3 (due out 2017) will do around 200 miles.

You want convenience? How about an MOT every 5 years instead of every year? EVs are incredibly simple, and have very few moving parts. They're as close to a solid state device as you're gonna get. Wouldn't surprise me to see the Teslas going for more than 50 years with very little servicing to speak of (apart from tyre changes, and window wipers).

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[lsatenstein]

You want people to adopt electric cars and hybrids in greater numbers sooner? You want to wean the general populace off of fossil fuels? This is how you do it! Of all the complete wastes of money the U.S. government commits, this comparatively speaking would be a drop in the bucket and of great long-term benefit to the entire country. While we're at it how about they sink some money into electric vehicle support infrastructure like rapid charging stations, too?

Whatever increases government net revenue would be the guide for the best solution. Please note, some of that money would come as party donations. Gas, Electric, Nuclear, wind, coal, water, they are all financing one or other political party.

Why think that the governments (fed and state) are going th be in favour of hybrid car subsidies?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

You want convenience? How about an MOT every 5 years instead of every year? EVs are incredibly simple, and have very few moving parts. They're as close to a solid state device as you're gonna get. Wouldn't surprise me to see the Teslas going for more than 50 years with very little servicing to speak of (apart from tyre changes, and window wipers).

I don't know what MOT means, but I do know that your $70k tesla will need $40k in new batteries in 5 years or else the range goes to shit. but yes, other than that, I imagine they could run for quite a long time.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Twinbee]

I think the battery is more like $20k to 30k. I also think the battery will last a LOT longer than 5 years.

Here's a couple of ideas how long:
0.5% battery loss after >30K miles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

93% after 75K miles:
http://www.reddit.com/r/teslam...

I'd be happy going down to say 50% (assuming 200 mile range). I do around 10,000 miles each year, so doing the math, it'll take me over 500 years before I replace the battery. Okay, the sheer lifetime degrades the battery too, but I doubt it will kill it before say, 50 years.

An MOT is just something in the UK we need to have yearly so that a car is legal to drive on the road.

I hope you will now consider that batteries really have improved greatly, and can only better.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[Noah Haders]

My favorite quote from the reddit link you posted: "my tesla range dropped 1% in 10 months, assuming linear battery degradation I'll still be at 90% in ten years!" lol lol lol lol lol. I had a scrambled egg for breakfast 2 hrs ago, so by linear extension I'll eat 730 eggs this year!

also, there needs to be a new meme on slashdot, something similar to [citation needed], when somebody cites youtube and reddit in their post.

Re:Why isn't the U.S. doing things like this?

[dublin]

But these handouts are such a magnificently efficient means for graft through corrupt cronies that support your "environmental" policies!

This certainly appears to be the *only* thing our governments excel at anymore...

weird choice

[Trepidity]

My impression is that, 10 or 15 years ago, electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles were perhaps equally good candidates for "future non-petroleum car technology", but that electric vehicles have been developing much faster, while fuel-cell vehicles have been going nowhere. Why now place a large bet on fuel cells?

Re:weird choice

[Nemyst]

I'm guessing because A) Japanese manufacturers have been focusing on fuel cells and B) electricity in Japan is quite expensive, reducing incentive to use it. Japan's power grid is also fairly strange and I'm not sure it'd be able to bear heavy electric car usage.

Re:weird choice

[will_die]

Because the other technologies are in existence and suck. So go with something future based and hope that works instead.

Re:weird choice

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've understood, fuel-cell technology has mainly been held back by the expensive platinum catalyst that's been required, but this may be changing. Once the technology can be proven to be practical we can then focus on designing the necessary infrastructure.

Besides, most of the advances in electric vehicles can also be applied to fuel-cell vehicles, so there's nothing wrong with keeping the technology alive.

Re:weird choice

[Anonymous Coward]

My impression is that, 10 or 15 years ago, electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles were perhaps equally good candidates for "future non-petroleum car technology", but that electric vehicles have been developing much faster, while fuel-cell vehicles have been going nowhere. Why now place a large bet on fuel cells?

It isn't a "bet". The goal isn't to find sure fire winners and then... what, give an incentive to do what everyone's already doing anyway? They're trying to incentivise development of alternatives, whatever they're supporting pretty much has to be a current under-dog for it to make sense for them to do that.

Re:weird choice

[Trepidity]

Ah good point on (B). Also, since the Japanese public has gotten very skeptical of nuclear power post-Fukushima, that's likely to just put more upward pressure on electricity prices.

Re:weird choice

[Anonymous Coward]

All the first wave of patents for fuel cells have or will soon expire? Just a guess...

Re:weird choice

[patniemeyer]

The only reason that I can come up with for this focus on fuel cells is that Toyota and the other existing car manufacturers want to see a hydrogen distribution system put in place so that they can continue producing internal combustion engines using hydrogen instead of the fuel cells themselves. I think these car companies see their long term intellectual property investment as being in the internal combustion engines and drive train technology. My guess is that they fear the drive trains becoming commodity parts (how many ways are there to make an A/C electric motor) and then they are left simply styling auto bodies and being fashion statements...

I think that fear is unwarranted, as Tesla has shown just how differentiated an electric car can be and how much innovation there can be in the car cabin and features themselves... But history has shown that old companies cannot always change even when they recognize that a disruption is coming. And oh boy is one coming...

Tesla = iPhone
Gas cars = Blackberry at best

Re:weird choice

[Anonymous Coward]

> electricity in Japan is quite expensive, reducing incentive to use it

Is this because their nuclear power plants were (temporarily) shut down in the months that followed the Fukushima accident?

How much did electricity cost *before* the accident?

> Japan's power grid is also fairly strange and I'm not sure it'd be able to bear heavy electric car usage

Do you mean that the western half runs at 60Hz while the eastern part runs at 50Hz?
www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/07/19/reference/japans-incompatible-power-grids/

Re:weird choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Just connect them together and run them both at 55 Hz.

You're welcome, Japan.

Re:weird choice

[oobayly]

Don't be ridiculous - 660Hz is what they need to use if they connect them.

Re:weird choice

[Sqr(twg)]

Battery-electric cars, in theory, actually stabilize a power grid, if the chargers are controlled to charge when electricity is the cheapest on the spot market, i.e. when there is a surplus of electricity.

Carbon impact is misleading

[Chalnoth]

The issue is that the dominant technology for producing hydrogen is steam reforming, which emits carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide as byproducts. This means that hydrogen fuel cells are most definitely not "carbon free" in any reasonable sense.

Perhaps at some point in the future it will become more common to generate hydrogen through some other means that doesn't produce CO/CO2, but we're definitely not there yet. So I'm not really sure that this technology is any better than electric vehicles. (which face a similar problem, but effective technologies to produce the electricity are already cost-competitive and on the rise as a result).

Re:Carbon impact is misleading

[blackraven14250]

If you generate CO2 in one location, you can sequester it quite easily for other uses - for example, for anything ranging from paintball tanks to soda to welding to fish tanks to greenhouses - if not just dump the stuff underground in old oil wells.

Re:Carbon impact is misleading

[tomhath]

It's a shame they don't have a few nuclear power plants to generate cheap and clean electricity.

Re:Carbon impact is misleading

[hunter44102]

I thought Electrolysis splits water into Hydrogen H2 and Oxygen O2. There would be no carbon involved

Re:Carbon impact is misleading

[brambus]

You forgot one ingredient of electrolysis (hint: it's in the name) and guess where that comes from.

Re:Carbon impact is misleading

[Chalnoth]

In principle, this is possible. In practice? I have no faith that it will actually be done.

Re:Carbon impact is misleading

[Chalnoth]

Electrolysis isn't economically feasible. It just takes too much energy.

Absolutely - it is filthy

[frovingslosh]

All commercial hydrogen production is filthy and wasteful. It would be far greener to just burn the natural gas in a car than turning a little of it into hydrogen while producing lots more carbon and wasting lots of energy. And it is still a fossil fuel. Fuel cells are for idiots who want to pretend that the hydrogen comes from someplace clean and green for free.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[c00rdb]

Why wouldn't it be feasible to just use electrolysis from a nuclear plant to split water? Carbon free, and transportable.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[mysidia]

Fuel cells are for idiots who want to pretend that the hydrogen comes from someplace clean and green for free.

The CO2 has a less harmful affect on human health and the environment than the smog which collects when other nitrogen compounds emitted when burning fossil fuels.

Furthermore, the Hydrogen can produced in centralized locations which means the method of production can be more easily changed in manners which minimize any release.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[cerberusti]

Even if we could produce it in a reasonable manner hydrogen is highly explosive, very easy to ignite, cryogenic when liquefied (as in 20 K cryogenic), and likes to leak out of most containers at an impressive rate (even very well sealed and cooled containers which you could not practically place in a moving vehicle).

Leaks can also cause spontaneous ignition due to the fact that unlike most gasses, hydrogen warms on expansion and requires a terrifyingly low amount of energy to ignite.

There is effectively no way to overcome the practical issues with using dihydrogen alone as a fuel source while being competitive with anything else. It must be bound to another atom, such as carbon (and if that counts as hydrogen powered we already have it with gasoline.)

In the US we will end up doing exactly what you mention: We will burn the natural gas directly for energy, because that is a sane thing to do. It is stable and easy to store compared to hydrogen, and the energy density is good enough.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[frovingslosh]

The simple answer is that electrolysis is no secret, but hydrogen production isn't being done this way. For whatever reason suits them, the major commercial producers are all using filthy wasteful processes to produce hydrogen from fossil fuel, venting CO, CO2, other harmful gasses and heat into the atmosphere in the process. This is already happening on a major industrial scale in California, you can't pretend that some alternate clean and efficient supply is just going to magically pop up to replace it because that would be sweet. This is just another of many examples where ignorant but well meaning environmental nuts make awful choices because they are incapable of looking at the entire system.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[Chalnoth]

Electrolysis is energetically very expensive. We don't have huge amounts of electrical power to spare for such wasteful pursuits. I doubt we ever will.

My naive expectation is that fifty years from now, we'll have transitioned most of our energy over to wind and solar power, with primarily algae-based biofuels making up for situations where we need to store energy (e.g. long-distance transportation). I'm a bit skeptical that nuclear will really take off. It'd be nice if the engineering challenges for breeder reactors were overcome, but I'm not sure they will be.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[AK Marc]

Hydrogen is the better option because once the energy problem is solved, electrolysis will be "free" and H2 will be much easier to get. H2 doesn't care about source. It's just that right now, we make H2 in a more energy efficient but carbon-involved process.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[blindseer]

Unless that power is from a nuclear reactor the carbon footprint reduction from just burning the fossil fuels in the first place is debatable. The carbon footprint from wind and solar is not great because of the aluminum, concrete, and other carbon intensive materials needed for their use. Nuclear power gets away with it because the concrete is poured once in a century to get a gigawatt of reliable power 24/7.

When it comes to smog you may have a case. Problem then becomes how fuel cell cars compare to battery electrics, hydrogen internal combustion powered cars, or whatever else that might come along.

We've been experimenting with all kinds of different power sources for automobiles for a century. I doubt anyone is going to come up with something that competes with gasoline powered cars on price, convenience, and performance any time soon. I suspect we are going to see synthetic hydrocarbons for fuels before anything else. It solves a lot of problems of infrastructure and carbon footprint. Just use whatever power source you were using to make the hydrogen and use it to synthesize octane. Doesn't solve the smog issues directly but with modern engines it seems to me that the air out of the tail pipe is cleaner than what goes in.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[Demonantis]

Not all fuel cells require hydrogen gas. There is a significant amount of R&D into natural gas based cells. Everything you said is why the non hydrogen fuel cells are probably going to become the mainstay technology. This would mean the technology will probably never become carbon neutral.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[drinkypoo]

I suspect we are going to see synthetic hydrocarbons for fuels before anything else.

What we have already seen is biofuels. Now we just need to see more of them, notably Butanol. It is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline, whose octane can be diddled with the other products of the process which produces it: acetone and ethanol. All of these are clean-burning fuels which can be produced from algae, which is a completely renewable feedstock.

Doesn't solve the smog issues directly but with modern engines it seems to me that the air out of the tail pipe is cleaner than what goes in.

That's only true if they are running in a highly polluted city, but we've no shortage of those just now.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[blindseer]

Bio-fuels are theory, nuclear power is fact. I was a big proponent of bio-fuels until I realized two things.

First, the resources required to create bio-fuels is enormous. Bio-fuels is a means to store solar power into chemical bonds, the biological processes are an intermediary. As an aside there are other means to store solar power in chemical bonds that does not involve biological processes but they suffer many of the same downfalls. Just the land required alone for bio-fuels is problematic. Sure, we can put the collectors on roofs and perhaps even in the roadways but that only adds to the complexity and cost. There are also limits on where these things can be placed, there must be enough sun and temperature extremes means more cost and complexity. Nuclear and fossil power on the other hand is relative compact, can be placed just about anywhere (even on ships at sea), and can tolerate all kinds of weather.

Second, bio-fuels will always compete with food for resources. Whatever it takes to grow algae, sugar beets, switch grasses, or whatever the favored bio-fuel of the day is takes the same land, water, fertilizers, etc. that food does. People need to eat and people need heat and light, bio-fuels will always have the potential to force people to choose between the two. I will admit that non-food plant life does not need to meet the same rigors of sanitation and such that plants for food does. The problem still remains that any area on this earth suitable for growing bio-fuels will also be suitable for growing food.

Wind and solar power share many of the same problems that bio-fuels do in land, sun, weather, and so on. Humans have only been able to rise above subsistence living once we've moved beyond wind, solar, and bio-fuels. I fear that even with the most advance technology we can dream up cannot over come some real limitations to wind, solar, and bio-fuels. With the promise that nuclear power holds I believe there really is no other choice, we cannot maintain our standard of living unless we move to nuclear power.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[drinkypoo]

Bio-fuels are theory,

That is a complete lie. Bio-fuels are here right now. We would be able to buy butanol right now if not for patents.

First, the resources required to create bio-fuels is enormous.

Yes, but most of them come from the sun, which provides the primary resource for free.

Second, bio-fuels will always compete with food for resources. Whatever it takes to grow algae, sugar beets, switch grasses, or whatever the favored bio-fuel of the day is takes the same land, water, fertilizers, etc. that food does.

No, that's a lot of shit. Algae does not compete with food crops for any of those things. You can grow it on dirty water or salt water and you can grow it in places not useful for food production, like deserts. You're ignorant.

Wind and solar power share many of the same problems that bio-fuels do in land, sun, weather, and so on.

No, in fact, they do not, and for the same reasons. You're ignorant.

Humans have only been able to rise above subsistence living once we've moved beyond wind, solar, and bio-fuels

We are not in fact employing any of these technologies to their fullest. What makes you think they cannot serve our needs? We have far more than enough land suitable for algae production in the USA completely unused for agriculture for us to replace one hundred percent of our transportation fuel needs with biodiesel-from-algae, using technology proven by the USDoE in the 1970s and 1980s which even includes carbon capture from fossil fuel plants. Granted, one hundred percent of our transportation fuel needs are not filled by diesel fuel, but Butanol is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline which you would be able to buy today if not for patents which should never have been granted on the basis of obviousness.

I fear that even with the most advance technology we can dream up cannot over come some real limitations to wind, solar, and bio-fuels.

That's because you're ignorant. We've discussed this.

With the promise that nuclear power holds I believe there really is no other choice, we cannot maintain our standard of living unless we move to nuclear power.

Again, that's because you're ignorant. We massively waste energy left and right. We do not mandate much insulation, nor other energy saving requirements. We permit companies to produce throwaway crap that cannot reasonably be serviced, at every level from pocket devices to major appliances. Simply eliminating a lot of waste related only to making it possible for already-wealthy people to get wealthier by enslaving poor people (typically by proxy) will save us vast amounts of energy. It's true that we must change our behavior, but we need not lower our standard of living. Only some people who add nothing to the system must do so, and they are a tiny minority of a tiny minority which have been taking advantage of the rest of us for literally millennia. There's no reason for the majority to care what happens to them. They're the class of people that go under the guillotine every few generations, and never soon enough.

If you're not ignorant, I apologize. I prefer to recognize shills. But a lot of the things you're saying are simply false on every level, and you should be ashamed at yourself for repeating these lies which benefit no one but those who are already very wealthy, and want for nothing save a conscience.

Re:Absolutely - it is filthy

[blindseer]

That is a complete lie. Bio-fuels are here right now. We would be able to buy butanol right now if not for patents.

First you say it's here then you say it is not. Well, I can take you to dozens of operating nuclear reactors in the USA, each one producing megawatts of power every day. Where can I find this megawatt butanol plant? I know the answer, there isn't one.

Nuclear power is now. It's working, making electricity and making money. Bio fuels like ethanol exist only because the government mandates it. It cannot make money because the power out from the power put in is too low to be worth it. The most energy we could get would involve burning the corn in a boiler. But burning our food is stupid, we can eat that.

Nuclear power is cheaper and more reliable energy and it does not involve burning our food. I read my history, civilizations ended by burning their food and I want no part of it.

What about methanol fuel cells?

[Lost Penguin]

Methanol fuel cells need some research love....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_methanol_fuel_cell

Re:What about methanol fuel cells?

[evilviper]

Methanol fuel cells need some research love....

No they don't... They're getting extensive use in forklifts, surpassing battery-electrics even at the currently crazy fuel-cell prices.

Now Unleaded Gasoline fuel cells... Those could use some money. Range booster for EVs or hybrids, an instant doubling of fuel efficiency over ICEs, practically no maintenance, and a future where fuel conversion efficiency isn't limited by Carnot.

Begging the question

[drinkypoo]

"This is the car of a new era because it doesn't emit any carbon dioxide and it's environmentally friendly.

Are fuel-cell vehicles in fact environmentally friendly? Not given current sources of hydrogen (assuming they're using hydrogen) they aren't.

Dumb idea.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Subsidies will not make the product viable.

Electric cars has many inherent advantages. Maximum torque at zero RPM for the electric motors is a big one, removes the transmission and all complexities associated with it. Electric motors are far more reliable than IC engines. There are instances of traction motors, whose coils were wound and sealed in 1920s hauling street cars till they died circa 1960s. No oil change, no tune ups, no timing belt replacements... Charging them overnight from the grid would be like buying gasoline at 2$ a gallon.

Still the initial cost of a 100 mile range battery is so high, it does not break even for a long time. That is the major hurdle. Not range anxiety. If the battery price drops people will buy them. Car rental companies will come up with competitively priced plans to access gasoline cars for the few times a year people need the longer range. Third parties will develop towable battery packs or gasoline range extenders. U-Haul franchises might start offering battery swap stations. Range is NOT what killing electric car. It is the price of battery.

If/when that price breakthrough comes, you would find all the gasoline car companies stand line at Washington DC, holding their hats asking for more government subsidies for gas cars.

Re:Dumb idea.

[phantomfive]

Still the initial cost of a 100 mile range battery is so high, it does not break even for a long time. That is the major hurdle.

That's what Elon Musk is betting on. We'll see if he is right.

What fuel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water, Hydrogen, Gas? And it would be cool if they ran on rice, then we could call them "rice burners"

Government picking winners and losers

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is the story of how they will waste money and get nowhere.

Policy decisions like this that pick specific technologies are almost always doomed to fail. If they wanted to wean themselves from carbon fuels, they would have provided a flat subsidy to all, like "$2k refundable credit for each your you drive a non-carbon fueled vehicle, for the next 10 years". Then electric or fuel cells or whatever - the most efficient tech would win. Now, well, why wouldn't they just give Toyota money for R&D instead?

Wierd Name... Shinzo Abe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, like we have Honest Abe, with the beard and stovepipe hat and all, but is this "Shinzo Abe", like some kinda anime "Ninja Abe" or something? I could dig seeing a tall guy in a black suit with a beard and stovepipe hat like flying thru the air, doing roundhouse kicks and stuff, and throwing sharp metal stars and swinging a sword around and yelling "Heeeeyah!" and stuff. That actually would be kinda cool.

Why subsidize cars at all?

[cowtz]

I frequently miss this important point green car discussions: Cars, no matter what engine, need a lot of space, are loud and dangerous when driven fast and expensive. Thus, in our urbanizing world they are an ultimately unsuited means of transportation, for most daily activities. Electric cars solve exactly one problem in urban spaces: pollution.

Re:Why subsidize cars at all?

[drinkypoo]

Because people love their cars, and you're not going to convince them overnight that they're being stupid and that their supposed freedom is largely illusory.

Centralizing pollution

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the important thing to note about electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles is that you're essentially centralizing the production of pollution.

Yes, the manufacture of lithium ion batteries produces pollution and greenhouse gases. Yes, the manufacture of hydrogen fuel cells produces pollution and greenhouse gases.

But the thing is, driving a hydrogen fuel cell car, or driving an electric car is clean. Instead of hundreds of millions of cars on the road in various stages of disrepair, each one polluting the atmosphere a little bit, with electric or fuel cell cars, the only point of pollution is at the source of manufacture. Instead of hundreds of millions of small points of pollution, you just have a few hundred, or even less.

By centralizing the production of the pollution--shifting it from hundreds of millions of vehicles to a handful of factories that produce fuel cells or batteries--it becomes easier to address the pollution. Instead of trying to come up with complicated car inspections, and hope people maintain their car well, we just improve the production process at a couple of manufacturing plants, or install some kind of carbon scrubbers.

Glad I live in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can enjoy having my taxes increased (again) on my already below par salary so a few people who can afford to buy expensive cars can get a break.

Japan is going to implode economically.

Japan knows what its doing!!

[avelyncharms]

This would really make things eco friendly