By on June 13, 2013

 

IMG_7867

AutomakerS around the world seem to have colluded to turn 2015 into the Hydrogen year. Yesterday in Nagoya (a trip into which TTAC invested 21,160 yen, and the price of a bento box, no freebie jaunts in Japan) , Toyota’s NA CEO Jim Lentz confirmed that the Hydrogen Year is still on the calendar.

Lentz promised that “the first fuel cell sedan coming to the U.S. in 2015.” Fuel cell technology is a high stakes bet, but it is not Toyota’s only one. Said Lentz:

“We will continue to promote more advanced technologies from plug-ins to EVs as well as fuel cells, and we will continue to make improvements to the internal combustion engine.”

This reiterates statements made by Toyota’s new energy maven Satoshi Ogiso two years ago. It is far from clear which alternative energy will succeed in the market, therefore, betting on just one would be, well, ill-advised. To bet on the right technology, said Ogiso, a large automaker must bet on all:

“We must go multi track. We must improve gasoline and diesel engines. We must increase the number of hybrid models. We must produce the plug-in hybrid. We must develop city commuter electric vehicles. We already started small production of fuel cell vehicles. We must do all these improvements at the same time.”

Of course, Toyota remains bullish on hybrid technology. 15 percent of Toyota’s cars sold worldwide are hybrid-powered, Lentz said. Full-size hybrid trucks and SUVs, powered by a hybrid drivetrain jointly developed with Ford, should become available “later in the decade,” Lentz promised.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

15 Comments on “Lentz: Hydrogen Sedans By 2015 From A Spread-Betting Toyota...”


  • avatar
    NMGOM

    Toyota: Don’t forget to try H2 ICE as well. BMW thought it was neat, and still preserved to the “vroom” factor!

    ———–

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    “Full-size hybrid trucks and SUVs, powered by a hybrid drivetrain jointly developed with Ford”

    There’s a juicy little morsel. Should be interesting to see what similarities and differences they come up with, versus the existing HSD and GM’s 2-mode.

  • avatar
    Cubista

    The segment Top Gear did a number of years ago on the Honda Clarity in SoCal is one of the best in the history of that show, which is saying a lot (having James May as the presenter certainly helped).

    I am not at all a believer in EV’s, but a hydrogen-powered vehicle with a network infrastructure of modified/converted filling stations in place? Sure, I’ll buy into that all day long.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      You have to be kidding.

      At the very least, EVs have some infrastructure, and it’s pretty inexpensive. The entire US is electrified. At a minimum, you can always plug in to 110 VAC.

      Tell me where the nearest H2 outlet is, and what it will cost for the infrastructure to handle the slickest gas in the universe.

      Toyota’s – and every other mfr’s – quest for H2 powered cars is foolhardy.

      • 0 avatar
        Cubista

        Not kidding at all. As a qualifier, I should point out that I didn’t say such an infrastructure was ALREADY in place. We’ve got a ways to go before that happens, obviously.

        The infrastructure for electricty, as you correctly point out, IS already in place. The problem is that the vehicles built to utilize it underperform quite badly in comparison to those which they are expected to replace. And I’m not talking about 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, either. Simply put, EV’s are only practical to use as everyday drivers if you never plan to leave the area in which you purchase the car. Or if you can budget an extra four hours a day to recharge once your range is met.

        Until an EV can be built that offers the range and the convenience of a car that uses an internal combustion engine (or even the hybrid variations thereof), they can’t be considered to be the wide-ranging solution for replacing vehicles that are powered by non-renewable resources.

        Hydrogen-powered cars CAN do that. But that is conducive to having the H filling stations in place. If auto manufacturers believe that this can be done to begin marketing fuel cell-powered cars within two years I’d love to see it, though it doesn’t seem manageable on the surface. The oil companies would have to be on board in a big way.

        As it is, my Cube runs pretty consistently at 450 miles between re-fuelings. A Leaf with a 75-mile range runs a 6th of that before it needs to be sidelined for a significant amount of time to recharge. What will be less expensive, do you suppose? The technology to increase the range six fold of a car that is already very expensive to produce now, or the technology needed to convert existing fuel stations to have H pumps added?

        • 0 avatar
          twonius

          Has the storage problem been solved? Can they achieve equivalent energy density to gasoline? Last I heard this required some impressive materials engineering.

          Also did you not get the memo, the USA doesn’t do infrastructure anymore (see Bridges). We’re currently awash in cheap natural gas but cant build fueling stations for that, and you’re telling me we’re going to build a whole network of high pressure storage for hydrogen?

          • 0 avatar
            Cubista

            I’m not telling you anything. Just that as a matter of principle, hydrogen is a better solution than electricity as a power source for cars in this country (USA) based on the way we use them.

            If a company like Toyota believes that there can be a viable market for these cars within two years (color me skeptical; I love the idea, I’m not certain how practical the implementation within that timeframe would be), they probably know something about the capabilities that we don’t. They bet pretty big on hybrids and that’s turned out well for them after a rocky first few years.

            But the oil compnies would need to be on board bigtime for this to work this soon. They would need to be the leaders in the research and development, because they’re not going to go the way of buggywhip manufacturers…they’d have to be sold that there is more profitability in H than there is in oil.

  • avatar
    makuribu

    It’s not just infrastructure.

    Nobody can produce hydrogen cheaply yet.
    You either steam-strip natural gas. You use up energy and emit carbon dioxide. So why not just burn the NG? The modification for an internal combustion engine to NG from gasoline is on the order of a couple hundred bucks.
    Or you electrolyse water, which has a 70% efficiency at best.

    Now you have hydrogen, the least dense gas on the planet. To give a subcompact FCV a 600km range, you have to compress the hydrogen to 10,000psi. That adds another 30% energy penalty to the process.

    Liquefaction is even more energy intensive and then you have liquid hydrogen at -250C. You have to insulate that, and it will boil off gradually anyway.

    Guess where those energy penalties come from? Mostly from electricity produced by coal burning power plants.

    Did I mention that the platinum catalyst in a PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane) fuel cell costs $2500? That’s just for the platinum, not the cost of producing an entire power plant. Volume production will not make the platinum cheaper. Increased demand will actually make it more expensive.

    To contrast, the entire engine in a production car costs a producer ~$2500, and unit costs will go down as production scales up.

    So until you get free liquified hydrogen at 99.9999% purity, and a fuel cell that uses copper or iron as its catalyst, fuel cells are not going to replace the internal combustion engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      There’s actually a cheaper way to get hydrogen from water, incorporating the process in a nuclear power plant where electrical energy is cheapest. The people in favor of hydrogen tend to oppose nuclear power, though.

      • 0 avatar
        CelticPete

        Yes. Nuclear power can produce massive amounts of Hydrogen and very inexpensively in theory. The key to cheap hydrodgen is super heated steam electrolysis. Nuclear power plants actually waste of a ton of efficency and produce a ton of extra hot water..

        Truth is there is absolutely NO ENERGY PROBLEM. If we reprocessed nuclear fuel and started using some of the newer better nuclear power plant designs we could be cranking out tons of hydrogen for a few centuries.

        However most people are extremely scared of Nuclear power..so its natural gas power for us. Anyway that’s the fuel to use for cars – Natural Gas. It has some infrastructure and it could work right now.

        • 0 avatar
          twonius

          Hydrogen production could also be a way of exporting hydropower, wave or orffshore wind which are now difficult to take advantage of due to remote locations without having to turn back the clock to 1980

          Also you can do this at much smaller scales with a lot less regulatory hurdles to jump.

  • avatar
    cdotson

    makuribu,

    While generally I agree that H2 fuel cells aren’t ready for prime time yet either, the bulk of your argument centers around already older technology. The PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) fuel cells are only really good for constant-demand heat/hot water/power units like an off-grid base load generator for a home or slightly larger building.

    Solid Oxide fuel cells require no expensive precious metals and don’t require pure reformed Hydrogen as fuel. They operate at a temperature high enough to efficiently self-reform hydrogen from natural gas which is an existing infrastructure. Battery storage would still be required to operate a vehicle while the SOFC is brought up to temp and may be required to smooth power demand as I don’t know how responsive to variable loads the stack would be, it’s a much more logical approach for a consumer product.

  • avatar
    joe_thousandaire

    Why not just take the hydrogen weigh it down with a little carbon (there’s plenty of CO2 floating around out there) and make methane(natural gas) Its a perfect fuel for ICE applications, older cars could even be retrofitted, and we have allot of infrastructure already. If we woke up tomorrow and found a cheap, abundant source of hydrogen, I think that would be the way to go.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Hydrogen, not being naturally available as a free gas on this planet can only be produced by doing something like stripping it from methane, electrolysis or whatever. It is thus not a PRIMARY fuel.

    Electricity is similar. It has to be produced from other PRIMARY fuel or energy sources like hydro, wind, solar.

    Thus hydrogen and electricity can be thought of as energy transporters, high quality refined energy. This is not a revelation, before the internet and the rise of uninformed opinion being thrust foremost and center into our faces, it was an accepted fact in technical circles. Using it frivolously to power vehicles is dumb public policy when we live in a world devoid of thorium fusion reactors, and where we waste PRIMARY energy to produce secondary energy to power bulk systems that should have used PRIMARY energy in the first place. It is a technically dumb thing to do.

    But pseudo technobabble has also given us vehicular ethanol, which outside of Brazil and their sugar cane distillations, has led to refining the stuff from corn of all things, where it takes 70% of the energy in a liter of ethanol to produce the damn stuff.

    We are living in a fantasy world, and it gets crazier by the day. It’s all made worse by people not being able to discern the difference between reality and their 8th grade understanding of science as taught them by Miss Smith with her English degree, and then assuming their opinion is worth listening to. It’s not a vote.

    Meanwhile, one assumes Toyota knows this, but as a commercial entity has to cover its ass by having vehicles powered by anything up to and including donkey piss, if some lobby comes forward elucidating us on its particular benefit and gains a cadre of politicians willing to suspend disbelief for baksheesh.

    Can’t be much fun when your future could well be dictated to by technical nitwits, so you have to be ready for anything, including the harvest and storage of rainbows in a gas tank sized object.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India