Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Despite Tesla's success, Toyota hypes hydrogen cars
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/04/15/despite-teslas-success-toyota-hypes-hydrogen-cars/83053518/[font face=Serif][font size=5]Despite Tesla's success, Toyota hypes hydrogen cars[/font]
Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 7:02 a.m. EDT April 15, 2016
[font size=3] DETROIT -- Despite all the hoopla over Tesla's and General Motors' long-range electric cars, Toyota is still making the case for hydrogen as a better alternative.
…
"Toyota firmly believes the benefits of a hydrogen society are enormous for a healthy global environment," Uchiyamada said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks provided to the Free Press. "That is why we are playing a leading role in bringing together automakers, energy companies, government agencies and others to help build the required refueling infrastructure."
…
The Prius, introduced in Japan in 1997 and in the U.S. in 1999, quickly became the world's most popular hybrid vehicle and helped to cement Toyota's image as an innovative automaker that strives to develop environmentally friendly vehicles. But Uchiyamada said there were big problems with the early prototypes tested back in 1995.
"It did not run," Uchiyamada said. "We applied all the engineering brain power we had. After 49 days, the day before Christmas, it finally ran. But only for 500 meters. We did not give up. Two years later in 1997, we introduced a breakthrough hybrid-powered vehicle called the Prius."
…[/font][/font]
Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY 7:02 a.m. EDT April 15, 2016
[font size=3] DETROIT -- Despite all the hoopla over Tesla's and General Motors' long-range electric cars, Toyota is still making the case for hydrogen as a better alternative.
…
"Toyota firmly believes the benefits of a hydrogen society are enormous for a healthy global environment," Uchiyamada said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks provided to the Free Press. "That is why we are playing a leading role in bringing together automakers, energy companies, government agencies and others to help build the required refueling infrastructure."
…
The Prius, introduced in Japan in 1997 and in the U.S. in 1999, quickly became the world's most popular hybrid vehicle and helped to cement Toyota's image as an innovative automaker that strives to develop environmentally friendly vehicles. But Uchiyamada said there were big problems with the early prototypes tested back in 1995.
"It did not run," Uchiyamada said. "We applied all the engineering brain power we had. After 49 days, the day before Christmas, it finally ran. But only for 500 meters. We did not give up. Two years later in 1997, we introduced a breakthrough hybrid-powered vehicle called the Prius."
…[/font][/font]
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
This seems an odd basis for comparison, given that FCEVs have barely been introduced to the market.
At this point, consumer acceptance of BEVs is not that great.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/consumer_views_pev_benchmark.pdf
…
Overall, 20% of respondents stated they would purchase or consider purchasing EVs for their next vehicle purchases or leases. A sampling of respondent segments is shown in Figure 24. Select segments showed an increased likelihood to agree. New vehicle purchasers were more likely to consider purchasing EVs than used vehicle purchasers. Respondents who bought vehicles in the previous year or planned to buy vehicles in the next year were slightly more likely to consider EVs than respondents overall. Multivehicle households were about as likely to consider EVs as single-vehicle households. Respondents with a higher awareness of PEVs who could name one of the top nine best-selling PEVs or had seen PEVs in parking lots were more likely to consider EVs. Respondents who were able to plug vehicles in at home were slightly more likely to consider EVs; those who were aware of PEV charging stations were most likely to consider EVs.
…
Overall, 20% of respondents stated they would purchase or consider purchasing EVs for their next vehicle purchases or leases. A sampling of respondent segments is shown in Figure 24. Select segments showed an increased likelihood to agree. New vehicle purchasers were more likely to consider purchasing EVs than used vehicle purchasers. Respondents who bought vehicles in the previous year or planned to buy vehicles in the next year were slightly more likely to consider EVs than respondents overall. Multivehicle households were about as likely to consider EVs as single-vehicle households. Respondents with a higher awareness of PEVs who could name one of the top nine best-selling PEVs or had seen PEVs in parking lots were more likely to consider EVs. Respondents who were able to plug vehicles in at home were slightly more likely to consider EVs; those who were aware of PEV charging stations were most likely to consider EVs.
…
Where are those tremendous EV sales? They’ve been building, but…
http://insideevs.com/march-2016-plug-electric-vehicle-sales-report-card/
[center]
2016 Monthly Sales Chart For The Major Plug-In Automakers – *Estimated Tesla Sales Numbers – Reconciled on Quarterly Totals, ** Fiat Does Not Report Sales Directly, Estimate Based on State/Rebate Data[/center]
2016 Monthly Sales Chart For The Major Plug-In Automakers – *Estimated Tesla Sales Numbers – Reconciled on Quarterly Totals, ** Fiat Does Not Report Sales Directly, Estimate Based on State/Rebate Data[/center]
the only two FCEV's currently available for lease (only). After falling in 2015, BEV sales are picking back up
The top five sellers posted numbers at worst three times better last year than the Mirai is promising for this year. The fuel cell stacks are proving troublesome to make in volume, which is not true of Lion batteries. Tesla is ramping up production of its S and X models. Chevy has just launched it's 2017 Volt (an electric drive hybrid) to excellent sales, and is promising the 200 mile Bolt in the fall with an initial production run of 30,000. The Leaf is picking up again, despite only having a 100 mile range model for 2016.
FCEV is pretty much DOA. It's big selling point, it refuels as fast as an ICE, is undercut by the lack of fueling stations and ultimately the high price of its fuel ($8-$15 per kg depending on how it's made). A 300 mile range is useless to me if I can't find a station to refuel at. I cannot make hydrogen fuel and compress it to 10,000 psi in my garage, whereas I CAN produce electricity via wind or solar. Even if I have to use grid power, it is way cheaper than gasoline, or hydrogen, and again, the electricity is as close as the nearest outlet.
I manage quite well right now with a 2012 Leaf and 60-70 miles of range. It handles my daily commute and my regular errands without a hitch. I recharge it each night and leave with a "full tank" each morning. I have a 2011 Sentra for trips outside my electric range. When it comes time to replace it, I will probably go with either a Volt, or a Model 3, depending on how the Supercharger network is growing in my area.
So, that's the economic argument against FCEV. The physics argument is far simpler, and I stated it in the previous post. For the amount of energy (best case) it take to produce a kg of H2, about 45 kWh, I can travel 37-45 miles in an FCEV. The same amount of power in a BEV translates to 90+ miles of travel.
FCEV are harder to make
Not much harder than any battery only electric car. FCEV's ARE electric cars - with a fuel cell stack. Which means they are power producers as opposed to battery only EV's which are strictly power consumers, and this means most EV's are powered by coal.
You can plug your house into your Hydrogen car and power it for up to a week if the electrical grid goes out. A parking lot can become a power plant.
Toyota Mirai Can Serve As Emergency Power Supply Using CHAdeMO
http://insideevs.com/toyota-mirai-can-serves-emergency-power-supply-using-chademo/
more difficult to service
Nope. A fuel cell has no moving parts except a fan to blow hydrogen across the stack
expensive to fuel
When more hydrogen stations come on line the ~$8/Kg price will drop. And as renewable energy gets cheaper (by the day) the price of Solar and Wind hydrogen will drop further. One day soon, Honda will offer a home solar hydrogen station. Then you can fill up at home for free.
just don't make sense in energy usage. For the same expenditure of electricity, a BEV can travel at least twice as far as a FCEV, so WHY would anyone consider it?
If efficiency was all that mattered, no one would buy cars that get 20 MPG. But they do. And you better believe some people will gladly trade a bit of efficiency for a car that doesn't need to stop for at least 1/2 hour every 2-250 miles for recharging, when a FCEV can refuel in 3-5 minutes. In a battery only EV an 8 hour trip (within range of superchargers remember, because you only get ~5 Miles of range per hour at a standard outlet) becomes a 11 or 12 hour trip assuming there are no lines at the charging stations. That simply isn't acceptable to many people. It's just that simple. People trade efficiency for convenience every day.
Also, don't know about you, but I really have no desire to get into a car crash while carrying a 5kg tank of H2 at 10,000 psi.
Hydrogen cars are safer than every single gas car on the road today. Here's proof:
Hydrogen Car Fire Surprise
Video documents results of hydrogen and gasoline car fires.
On a dark Florida night in 2001 an unusual and revealing experiment took place. Dr. Michael Swain with the University of Miami at Coral Gables attempted to simulate two car fires, one created by a 1/16th inch puncture in a gasoline fuel line, the other by a leaking hydrogen connector. He video taped the experiment to document what would happen if the leaks ignited. As the photos below clearly demonstrate, consumer fears about hydrogen as a transportation fuel would seem to be pretty much unfounded...snip
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=482
Time 0 min, 3 seconds - Ignition of both fuels occur. Hydrogen flow rate 2100 SCFM. Gasoline flow rate 680 cc/min.
The future is Hydrogen Fuel Cells + Batteries. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and BMW are betting on it. And Toyota has a 100 year plan. They aren't going to be bothered if the Mirai doesn't become an overnight sensation.
And don't forget- Toyota makes ~10 million cars per year and has billions in the bank (unlike a battery start up that had to take deposits on a car that hasn't been built yet). They might have some idea of what they're doing.
The chicken & egg question of FCEV’s -vs- hydrogen filling stations is similar to BEV’s and charging stations.
Tesla has been building charging stations. Toyota has been building hydrogen filling stations in Japan. A hydrogen station is more expensive to build than a supercharger station. True, but, you will need many more charging stations, because it takes a lot longer to charge a Tesla than it takes to refill a Mirai.
https://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger[center]
[/center]
If there is a line of cars at the station, you could fill 10 Mirai in less time than it takes to fully charge a single Tesla.
http://www.hybridcars.com/tesla-owners-experience-two-hour-delays-at-tejon-ranch-supercharger/
[center]
[/center]
Do BEV’s run on coal? Do FCEV’s run on Natural Gas? Well, yes and no. BEV’s run on electricity stored in batteries, and FCEV’s run on electricity stored as hydrogen.
If you start out with a certain quantity of natural gas, and you have the option of:
- Burning it to generate electricity to charge a battery in a BEV.
- Reforming it to produce hydrogen to power a FCEV.
In theory, either one could use electricity from a solar panel. In that case, it’s more efficient to use the BEV.
However, it will be a significant amount of time before we have sufficient solar power on-line to power our transportation fleet. (Until then, this question is largely moot.)
Is a fuel cell more difficult to service than a battery electric? What parts on either car do you believe will require service most often? My guess is it will be things like tires, brakes, etc. Some day, the fuel cell stack may need to be replaced. The same may be true for the battery.
I don’t believe you will be servicing either.
Tesla has been building charging stations. Toyota has been building hydrogen filling stations in Japan. A hydrogen station is more expensive to build than a supercharger station. True, but, you will need many more charging stations, because it takes a lot longer to charge a Tesla than it takes to refill a Mirai.
Each station has 5.6 chargers, with 2,800 at the 500 stations.
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-passes-500-supercharger-stations-milestone-over-2800-individuals-superchargers.html
Meanwhile, the U.S. has 24 H2 stations
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html
I find lots of contradictory data about the number of fueling stations worldwide, for example this 2011 story says Japan plans on having 100 stations running by 2015.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/01/18/news/energy-firms-eye-building-100-hydrogen-stations-by-2015-for-fuel-cell-cars/
However, this story from 4/19 says that the JMoET&I "hopes Japan will have 160 hydrogen fueling stations by 2020, and 320 by 2025, up from the 80 stations currently in operation."
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/04/19/japan-hydrogen-goals-renault-twizy-canada/#slide-3864130
Somebody is missing there numbers, badly. So, again, without the infrastructure, hard to see a HFCEV being mass produced. 160 stations would mean doubling the current number just in Japan, at a cost of around $160 million, (which would build 3,200 Supercharger stations).
Meanwhile, according to this story, Toyota has sold 100 Mirais this year:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/04/15/despite-teslas-success-toyota-hypes-hydrogen-cars/83053518/
The same story from the 19th says the Japanese government "would like to see 40,000 fuel cell vehicles (FCV) on the roads by 2020, 200,000 FCVs by 2025, and 800,000 FCVs by 2030."
Don't how they are going to hit those numbers when Toyota currently is building three a day.
As of 8/15 Nissan, Tesla, Ford and Mitsubishi have sold around 400,000 cars in six years, about 66,600 cars a year. So, assuming a very modest 10% increase year over year, and assuming Toyota hits its numbers, there will be 847,000 BEVs on the road just from three car makers, compared to 40,000 HFCEVs from Toyota.
And actual sales growth in BEVs has been WAY higher than 10%. So, personally, I can see 2 million BEVs on the road by 2020, with a Supercharger network 2-3 times bigger than the current one.
I am sure that there won't be a much of a line at an H2 station, since there won't be that many cars using them. As for two hour lines to get recharged in a BEV, again, that assumes people are not charging at home and that the problem is not fixable as the SC network expands. From an economics standpoint, having too many cars on the road is preferable to having a handful of cars. Says something about the sales, doesn't it?
There are no SC stations in my immediate area, yet I do fine with my little Leaf and its modest 60-70 miles range. I drive to work, run my errands, visit friends, go out to the movies, etc, then recharge when I get home. It rarely takes more than 2-3 hours to recharge my car while I sleep. If I have a model 3, or a Bolt, it won't take any longer to charge since that is about my daily usage. On occasion when I have to go a long distance, then it will take longer to charge, but what do I care since I will be asleep while the car is recharging? If I have to be away from home, then that is what Superchargers are for, and stopping for 30 minutes every three hours of driving is not a big deal.
Do BEV’s run on coal? Do FCEV’s run on Natural Gas? Well, yes and no. BEV’s run on electricity stored in batteries, and FCEV’s run on electricity stored as hydrogen.
If you start out with a certain quantity of natural gas, and you have the option of:
Burning it to generate electricity to charge a battery in a BEV.
Reforming it to produce hydrogen to power a FCEV.
It is somewhat more efficient to go the hydrogen route.
Sorry, but no. Expending 40kwhs of electricity to produce a kg of H2 that will drive an HFCEV about 40 miles is not more efficient than using the same 40kWhs to drive a BEV at least 80 miles. (and by the way, the 40kWh number is the lowest number I have found for creating H2. The numbers range from 40-60, so the process gets less efficient as the the number goes up to whatever it actually is).
As to which fuel is greener, factoring in electricity sources, well, here is the "well-to-wheels" chart from the DoE.
Now, I will note that you are correct that an HFCEV is greener than a BEV when the BEV's power is comming from the grid, using the current mix of fuels in the U.S. grid, unless the H2 is made from NG. Use renewables or carbon sequestration and you beat a BEV, UNLESS, the BEV is using renewables as well, in which case BEVs for the win by a country mile.
For an HFCEV the well to wheels is either:
Fracking site-->storage terminal-->H2 station-->tank-->fuel stack-->wheels
or
Solar/Wind-->H2 fuel station-->tank-->fuel stack-->wheels
Versus a BEV well to wheels of either:
Mine/Well/Fracking site-->generator-->grid-->battery-->wheels
or
Solar/Wind-->battery-->wheels
No matter how you look at it, renewable to BEV is more efficient and greener than any H2 supply chain.
The Stanley Motor Carriage Company was an American manufacturer of steam-engine vehicles; it operated from 1902 to 1924. The cars made by the company were colloquially called Stanley Steamers, although several different models were produced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Motor_Carriage_Company