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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

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).

What about methanol fuel cells?

[Lost Penguin]

Methanol fuel cells need some research love....

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

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.

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.