Toyota To Sell “Load Of Rubbish” Fuel Cell Vehicle In Japan, Europe And U.S. By Summer 2015

3 years ago by Eric Loveday 74

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Autocar doesn’t beat around the bush when it comes to offering a closing opinion on fuel cell vehicles.  Autocar conveniently quotes Tesla CEO Elon Musk in the last sentence of its article on Toyota’s fuel cell sedan:

“Tesla boss Elon Musk has already called fuel cells “a load of rubbish.”

While this particular Autocar article on Toyota’s fuel cell sedan largely focused on specs, pricing and launch dates, a more recent Autocar article focused almost solely on how Toyota’s fuel cell sedan is strictly a compliance vehicle:

A Toyota spokesperson confirmed to Autocar that an allocation “barely into the double digits” would be coming to this country (UK).

Toyota openly admits that infrastructure is the biggest hurdle when it comes to hydrogen cars:

“The FCV is a pioneering car. There’s the big talk about there being no need for an infrastructure until you’ve got some cars, and why would you have the car if there’s no infrastructure.”

“Introducing a small number of cars would help to support the development of that infrastructure.”

We’re doubtful that a robust infrastructure will ever appear for hydrogen.  Meanwhile, electric cars have billions of places to plug in right now today.

Source: Autocar

Tags: , ,

74 responses to "Toyota To Sell “Load Of Rubbish” Fuel Cell Vehicle In Japan, Europe And U.S. By Summer 2015"

  1. Alex says:

    I think and I hope this gets a mega flop :-)..Go Tesla and Nissan.
    I think battery cars are more ecological,
    Also new Volt, Outlander PHEV comes. When Toyota comes out, there will be around 700.000-1.000.000 BEV and PHEV.

    1. GeorgeS says:

      Hydrogen will be used as a battery to store electricity from wind farms.

      Germany already is doing it.

      We had an article here that described the whole thing. It’s not pie in the sky. It’s a reality:

      http://insideevs.com/using-hydrogen-battery/

      1. Ambulator says:

        That’s fine (well, nuclear is better), but when the wind stop blowing you just need to convert the hydrogen back to electricity. Burning the hydrogen in cars just seems stupid.

        1. Brian says:

          A fuel cell converts hydrogen to electricity in the FCV. The question then is, is it better to have a centralized fuel cell and batteries in every car, or to have a fuel cell in either car? I honestly cannot tell you offhand which option is cheaper/more efficient, but the former certainly helps the cars fuel up more quickly. The latter has a leg-up on install infrastructure though.

        2. CD says:

          I disagree on Nuclear. Nuclear is not better. Solar, Wind, and hydrogen have no waste products. Keep producing nuclear waste and even with a power outage this planet will glow in the dark. BEV is the way to go. Erect solar and wind farms around the planet, all linked together on one massive power grid to provide the world with constant electric power. And please don’t throw $$$ into the topic. If you were breathing your last gulp of clean air, do you really believe that you would be thinking of how much money it wold have cost to save the planet and mankind??? I’ll put the soapbox back on the shelf now.

        3. Lausbub says:

          What is good with nuclear???

      2. liberty says:

        george,
        That makes much more sense than using fuel cells in cars. It doesn’t require fueling infrastructure, it doesn’t require an inexpenive source of hydrogen, two hold ups for the load of rubbish toyota fcv. fc Fork lifts also make sense. Its the cars that are not economically viable today, even with huge government give aways.

      3. Scott Franco says:

        Germany has two gigawatts of PSH generation online:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

        Thats actually light for a country the size of Germany, but the point is it dwarfs any idea of pie in the sky hydrogen conversion, which is so much less efficient that it qualifies as a toy technology, sorry.

        1. The Brave Little Toaster says:

          Germany’s PSH is basically just a research project. And the results of that research are that its efficiency is terrible. Using the power to electrolyze water for use in a fuel cell, as inefficient as it is, is far more efficient that PSH.

          1. JakeY says:

            Pump-storage inefficient? From what I can tell, pump storage is the only economically viable large scale storage and has a round trip efficiency that can exceed 80%.

            Electrolysis efficiency alone might not exceed 80%, much less round trip for hydrogen.

            1. Brian says:

              The bigger issue is one of scale. Pumped Hydro can only scale so far – it highly depends on topography and availability of water. Hydrogen at least has the potential to truly scale to the level needed to power a nation.

    2. Lausbub says:

      If this Toyota should be able to move regularly it will have to be a hydrogen-plug-in-hybrid!

  2. Fool Cells says:

    “Toyota openly admits that infrastructure is the biggest hurdle when it comes to hydrogen cars”

    No. the biggest hurdle is simple physics. Hydrogen will never work in cars/trucks/trains/busses/etc… unless some major unforeseen breakthrough is made in hydrogen generation and storage.

    1. David Murray says:

      Nah – I think the biggest hurdle will be getting people to buy them when they can get a Tesla for the same price that performs much better in every way imaginable.

      1. Chris O says:

        That’s exactly the point. Once $30-40K BEVs become available that start out with 200 miles of cheaply homecharged miles every morning supplemented by the occasional (free) fastcharge it’s hard to imagine what anybody would buy a HFCV for, even if their prices would drop to similar levels someday.

        The perennial counter argument would of course be “but what about those streetparkers without charging access?”

        Fair point but I don’t think brand new cars that come at a substantial premium are really an option for a large portion of that particular demographic, so it remains a mystery to me who is going to buy those HFCVs. Well, not factoring in the effect of (massive) subsidies that is.

    2. JRMW says:

      I was once enthusiastic about Fuel Cell technology, but no longer.

      There seem to be several major problems

      1)
      Too much energy (40-60%) is wasted going from:
      source—>Hydrogen—>electricity
      we can simply bypass the energy intensive hydrogen creation/storage step and do this instead:
      source—>electricity

      I could be wrong, but this should mean that FCEV will ALWAYS be more inefficent than EV.

      2.
      Costs.
      It’s very difficult to get people to switch to EV and PHEVs, even when it saves them money.
      Now we’re trying to convince them to increase their initial outlay AND their ongoing fuel costs?

      3.
      Infrastructure. These stations cost millions of dollars PER STATION. Wow.
      Not only that, I’ve heard that only a handful of cars can fill up at each station per day (but I don’t know what that number of cars is).

      I think FCV technology possibly has a place for our future energy storage needs, especially in commercial applications like maybe trucks or planes or something. Something with more set routes and users with enough scale to handle the increased cost.

      But I just don’t see it markedly affecting the passenger vehicle market.

      The major issue I have with FCV is that it is taking resources away from BEV and PHEV technology. e.g. 3 carb credits per FCV car is what allowed Toyota to scrap the Rav4 EV and do this FCV instead.

      1. Fool Cells says:

        you are 100% correct. Hydrogen generation and storage will always require more energy than simply generating and storing electricity. It will always be more expensive. this is basic physics and chemistry.

      2. Scott Franco says:

        “Too much energy (40-60%) is wasted going from:
        source—>Hydrogen—>electricity”

        The real issue is that breaking down natural gas is going to be so much cheaper and more efficient than any other way to get hydrogen that eventually that will become the main way to get it, even if there are a few “showcase” installations that break down water at high cost.

        When that happens you are simply moving your emissions down the street. Its about the same as what a CNG car and infrastructure buys you, but for far, far greater cost.

  3. Taser54 says:

    Interesting, this site quotes Musk to disparage fuel-cell cars, but never leads with disparaging quotes about Tesla.

    The fuel-cell vehicle is an amazing technological accomplishment. Sure, it has challenges with infrastructure, but it is not deserving of the vitriol expressed here.

    Let’s tone it down a little.

    1. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      H2 fool cells are a joke. SOFCs that take hydrocarbons or ammonia directly, extract 16-20kWh out of a GGE, and cost $50/kW are not.

      1. kdawg says:

        I’m OK w/Fuel cells for homes or businesses (for now). Just not in cars. It’s not practical.

    2. Chris O says:

      In all fairness, this site is called insideEVs. The proper place for disparaging remarks about Tesla would be insideHFCVs;).

      Of course the hydrogen evangelists would argue that HFCVs are EVs too, but really not according to any relevant definition that takes into account that the green car discussion is about energy, not what particular mechanism drives the wheels.

    3. Bill Howland says:

      I really don’t see any evidence of people clamoring for ‘Hydrogen Highways’.

      The big turn off for John Q Public will be the high retail cost of Hydrogen. So why will people buy an expensive, probably service prone fuel cell vehicle (the perfect fuel cell that lasts forever hasn’t appeared in autos yet), when you tell them they get to pay MORE for fuel?

      As far as alternative energy sources go, the VERY Green Aware (according to themselves), prestigious “Clean Cities” group goes gaga over anything propane, LNG or CNG.

      CNG in the states is arriving in a big way, and will make a bigger impact in the passenger car market with GM’s release of the 2015 Chevy Impala. A cheap, reliable home-refueler is the final missing piece of the puzzle, but with predicted large sales of the Impala, more and more companies will work towards a solution.

      The local natural gas company here also will refuel your vehicle at about the cost of the gas itself (around $1.25 a gasoline equivalent gallon). Since CNG is a much cleaner fuel, once the lubricity problem of methane is met by hardening the valves (as is done on the 2015 Impala), the reliability of the rest of the engine should go way up, as it has in the Stationary Engine world.

      Many of the large fleet vehicles you see on the roads in the states today are either CNG or LNG, this quiet ‘under the radar’ conversion has been ongoing.

      I see no such enthusiam nor compelling economic case for fuel celled vehicles, and therefore I think only a few eccentrics will buy them.

  4. Phr3d says:

    Hydrogen isn’t ‘stupid’ it is utterly brilliant, and it is on Your map.
    FC drives an electric motor, yes? Hydrogen can at this minutes, replace 15% of NG without changing anything (if the powers allow it). Hydrogen can be created using excess solar/wind power at any time that production exceeds demand, then stored in caverns to be used -you guessed it- Like we currently consume NG, but at a higher energy density and no CO2.

    You can fuel a hydrogen FC vehicle on NG, it doesn’t care, but your miles available (per fill) will be lower, as NG does Not have the energy density.

    After a decade, NG appliances will run on H2 -instead- of NG, and, the infrastructure is Already There.

    a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be Expensive, as was a BEV, but ASSuming that you will need a system of ‘filling stations’ goes against what is best about H2. You’ll (sound familiar?) fill it up at home.

    DM, I’m sure that I got something(s) wrong, and it’s not like anyone will read this article, but corrections appreciated (and thanks for the education, I thought the H2 FC idea sounded stupid too, when I first read about it.. not to mention the shrill naysayers)

    1. Phr3d says:

      at the risk of sounding like a schoolkid, my ‘X’ might arrive Sep ’15 – All this shyt is just stunning to an old-timer like me – oil running out, CO2 gagging us, and damned if humans didn’t come up wif a couple ideas.. spending time bashing whether they’re the Right ideas seems counter-productive — ladies and gentlemen LOOK at the effort being expended on the re-invention of power delivery and consumption!
      Amazing times..

    2. Kalle says:

      I am very sceptical to the “filling up H at home”
      The cost of such a system will be substancial compaird to a simpel plugg of the BEV.
      I do beleve the fuling stations will popp up after a while, but it will still be expencive to refuel.
      And in energy efficensy is not grate with fuelcelks ither..

      I think that by the time they are mature, the bev will have taken over

      1. Phr3d says:

        If I wasn’t clear — solar/wind excesses will produce H2, it can be added to our NG lines (15%) as we speak with no differences to the existing infrastructure you now use.
        Filling up at home will improve over the coming decade as appliances are designed for hydrogen, i.e., you mileage from filling at home will improve as NG is slowly replaced by H2 (our personal solar and commercial wind produced) in the mix.
        Conceivably, our BEV/FC batteries will be available (when charging) to smooth minute-demand as well.

        1. Yes, we can power the production of H2 with wind and solar produced electricity. You still need methane (natural gas) or water to make H2.

          Using a fossil fuel is silly, as it still dumps carbon into the atmosphere. Using water takes a HUGE amount of electricity.

          Those issues are never going away.

          Or, you can just pump the solar and wind powered electricity into a far more efficient battery electric car. Cheaper, more efficient, widely available.

          Leave the H2 for grid stabilization.

          1. sven says:

            “Using a fossil fuel is silly, as it still dumps carbon into the atmosphere. Using water takes a HUGE amount of electricity.

            Those issues are never going away.”

            Never say never. Researchers are working on a low-cost water splitting solar cell. Why do most EV advocates turn into naysayers when discussing the future hydrogen breakthroughs?

            http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/09/20140926-epfl.html#more

            Charging an EV at night uses electricity generated by fossil-fuel base-load power plants, which also dump carbon into the atmosphere.

            1. RedLeafBlueLeaf says:

              If a breakthrough does happen making it cheap, using electricity, to convert water to hydrogen then everything changes with regard to fuel cell vehicles.

              But such breakthroughs are rare. For every major technological breakthrough I can show you hundreds of articles touting “near breakthroughs” that never happened. Back in the 1970s, for example, it was widely believed that Nuclear Fusion would be the cheap energy source of the near future. Never happened despite billions put into research. (Yes, billions – turns out those fusion reactors doubled as weapons research devices for the DoD.)

              So, basing a vehicle strategy solely on a technology that needs a breakthrough to become viable is at best silly and at worst catastrophic. But that’s what Honda and Toyota are doing now.

            2. Scott Franco says:

              And the “mr home fusion” thing for your car from back to the future is just around the corner.

              BEVs work now. And they make more sense than FCVs EVEN IF they were practical. Yes they do. Take all of that solar/wind/gerbil power, store it in PSH, power BEVS, you have a solution that works now, not 20 years from now.

    3. Craig says:

      No, it’s stupid.

      You can’t put NG in a hydrogen fuel cell, it no worky.

      1. Phr3d says:

        perhaps i misread, it wouldn’t be the first time – as I understood it, the only difference in the fuels is the quantity of energy.
        I will guess that the ZEV credits would get boned though..

    4. Brian says:

      I am also skeptical of filling up a FCV at home. Unless, of course, it is along the lines of a Plug-in Hybrid Fuel-Cell Vehicle. In other words, since 1) FCVs are fundamentally EVs and 2) FCVs have small batteries on board to buffer supply/demand, it is only natural that one might make that battery big enough for say 40 miles, and then use the car as an EV for local driving and FCV for long trips. Fueling at home is then identical to fueling your Chevy Volt at home – you get one of the two energy sources from the wall outlet.

      1. Brian says:

        Sorry for the run-on sentence. I am an engineer after all, not a writer 😉

      2. Bill Howland says:

        Agreed. CNG practice in the states is 3600 psi (as opposed to 3000 worldwide), and that difference is what is causing the reliability problem with the Phill units.

        A home Hydrogen refueler would be 10,000 psi, and THAT is a much, much tougher cookie to crack.

        I wonder what Toyota is thinking? They don’t normally come up with alot of Edsel ideas. If anyone knows their business plan, I’d love to hear about it since at this first blush it makes no sense at all to me.

    5. Mike says:

      We need ZERO Increase in natural gas usage, as it’s WORSE the coal when it releases methane into the atmosphere. And fracking sites release 3x more methane then previously projected.

      Going Hydrogen, is Committing Suicide.

      Either you go Electric, or you ride a bike.
      Otherwise, we won’t be here in 100 years.

      1. pete g says:

        I was ready to argue with you then I remembered the train I take to work everyday is electric.

  5. mrenergyczar says:

    You’ll get more miles per unit of energy from surplus solar being put in a battery than what you’d get from making, storing and compressing H2 in a car.

    1. Phr3d says:

      as long as that energy is produced when you want to charge your car, that will always be true.

    2. Mike says:

      True, and already battery storage is being used to soak up excess wind and solar energy, on a commercial scale. As they get better prices for mass purchases.

  6. David Murray says:

    I’m still waiting to hear what the advantage is to the consumer? What is the selling point? You aren’t going to convert any EV drivers over to this. So the goal must be to convert gasoline drivers. So tell me what the sales pitch is to a gasoline driver.

    Fuel is going to be same or more expensive than gasoline.

    Car will cost more than a gasoline car.

    Car will not really perform any better than a gasoline car.

    Car will still require going to a filling station every few days.

    Where is the advantage? All I see are disadvantages. And if they think they will sell the car based just on the fact that it is better for the environment, then I think they are putting way too much faith in humanity.

    BEV and PHEV have distinct advantages over gasoline cars. That is why most people buy them. Hydrogen Fuel Cell does not.

    1. Phr3d says:

      Your solar excess creates H2. H2 replaces NG and at some point fully delivered to your home in existing pipes. Advantage, fill FC at home at approximately current NG rates, possibly less than gasoline, but assume Not.

      Oblique advantage — No oil, No NG. Less need to support those that provide oil and NG.

      Cheaper? No.

      1. Josh says:

        In my house, I use NG for heating and cooking. Is H2 safe for those applications as well?

        Can it just replace the NG with H2 or do I need to get a new stove and home heating system? If I can just swap NG for H2, great, but I haven’t heard anyone talk about that in the past.

        1. Phr3d says:

          From all of the sites that I was directed to (mainly focusing upon creation and storage of H2 in caverns) 15% H2 blend with existing NG does not have any negative effect upon existing appliances. I was unable to read/determine what effect H2 in -excess- of 15% would have, and so I -personally concluded- that exceeding that amount would require modification to existing appliances or delivery.
          If solar/wind produce enough excess electricity to create the necessary H2 to drop NG use by 15% without changing Anything, that’s a decent improvement on demand and possibly cause to (monetarily) encourage families to buy solar arrays.

        2. Brian says:

          Actually, studies have shown that we can pretty much replace 10-15% of the NG in your pipelines with H2 and you wouldn’t know the difference. Your appliances and furnace wouldn’t know either.

          I think of it like the 15% ethanol that is in our gasoline today. Nominally it makes no difference, but in reality there are some issues. Cars get worse fuel economy on E15 than pure gasoline (lower energy density). The cost is actually a little higher if you consider all of the subsidies (and the resulting cost of our taxes which pay for them). In addition, small motors don’t really like E15. I had a small 4HP outboard motor on which the carburetor got destroyed by E15. The hoses got all gummed up as well.

          I would expect similar teething problems if we switched over to 10% H2 in our NG pipelines. Some people would end up having to replace some pipes and a furnace or appliance or two. But those things don’t last forever anyway. Eventually all new appliances would be built to handle increasing percentages of H2. The corollary again is the growth of “Flex Fuel” cars which can handle up to E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline).

          1. Phr3d says:

            but without the energy Loss of ethanol as replacement fuel (and I shudder to think of That entering the auto-comparison lexicon, ethanol is shite, lol, IMHO) – H2 delivers More energy.

            1. Brian says:

              That is correct, H2 is more energy dense – by weight – than NG. However, it is my understanding that it is less energy dense – by volume – than NG as it flows through the pipeline. I don’t think anybody knows all of the effects of changing the energy flow rate on all of the NG appliances in service. I would put money on some little issues along the way.

              The flip side is that a more energy dense fuel can cause damage as well. Consider your furnace – with a more energy dense fuel, will it run hotter? Will it be able to withstand the extra heat? What about your neighbor’s 20 year old furnace?

              For the record, I don’t want to come off too negative. I don’t think that these are reasons we shouldn’t consider 10-15% H2 in our pipelines. I’m just clarifying what I mean by “teething problems”.

        3. Josh says:

          Thanks for the responses Phr3d and Brian!

          I had not read anything about the NG/H2 blending. It sounds once blending the H2 makes economic sense, it will be a no brainer to convert everything.

          That still doesn’t solve getting the H2 into your car at home, does it? Is there a cheap device (EVSE cost) that could separate the H2 from NG for home fueling?

        4. The Brave Little Toaster says:

          Uh, not really.

          I mean, sure, you *could* use hydrogen in your stove, but the problem is that the flame always burns clear, so that’s a *bad* idea in general.

          There’s no problem using it for home heating as far as I know though. Most furnaces do a good job preventing people from touching the flame anyway.

          Mind you, servicing them might be somewhat more hazardous. 🙂

          1. Brian says:

            We are talking about a mix, not pure hydrogen. With 85% natural gas, I’m pretty sure you will be able to see the flame.

      2. Mint says:

        Being cheaper matters. A lot.

        The only reason EVs have a chance against ICE is that electricity is a far cheaper type energy than gasoline/diesel.

        Theoretically, H2 can be 100% clean, but it fundamentally fuel cost will never be as cheap as 100% clean EVs due to round trip conversion efficiency.

        As for up front cost, I’m gonna be skeptical there until it makes big inroads in the stationary power market, where it would be highly competitive at $300/kW. Then we can start talking about cars, where it needs to be $50/kW to compete with ICE.

        1. pjwood says:

          “$300/kw” Not understanding you. You mean a generation capacity cost, or unit of power, for H2?

          Not a lot of virtue in NG created H2. But ZEV mandates are blind to this. They’re less blind to the “flu-stack” pollution numbers behind regional electricity.

  7. Blind Guy says:

    I would rather use those same billions of $$$ to improve our electrical grid (make it more reliable, efficient, renewable, secure and versatile). I wouldn’t mind seeing some funds go to retraining Coal workers for better jobs so that they aren’t resistant to change as well.

    1. The Brave Little Toaster says:

      People don’t like learning new things (especially when they’re forced to, or if they’re older than about 35), so no, I don’t think you will see any change in resistance from coal miners.

  8. MDEV says:

    Why Toyota choose H2 for compliance, they were doing well with the Prius Plugin and RAV4 for way less money and less shame.

    1. The Brave Little Toaster says:

      The either don’t want to fund the battery research, or they don’t like the refuelling time of batteries.

      That’s basically the only possible excuses for that one.

  9. pete g says:

    My favorite way to store energy is by building a huge hydroelectric dam. let the water build up behind it and only running the generators when electricity demand is highest.
    I know it sounds expensive. Unless you find a dam that already exists, surrounding it with solar panels and change the hours the dam operates.

  10. Benji888578 says:

    This is most definitely only for compliance for zero-tailpipe emissions, however, hydrogen, no matter how it’s presented, doesn’t make sense for future cars, but, people need to take note that the oil companies are the ones producing hydrogen and purporting the infrastructure.

    Also, what happens in a wreck? That hydrogen fuel cell tank is HIGHLY pressurized, unlike gas tanks…anyone know your history? (hydrogen blimp)

    But, really, hydrogen, as Musk said, is good for rockets, but all motor vehicles can be powered by electricity.

    The only good thing that might come out of this is the electric drivetrain, at least they are making these, and can change to battery (& super capacitor) in future (once Tesla’s Model 3 is in production).

    This seems to be Japan’s push for hydrogen, not sure why, but, the government is offering very large incentives.

  11. Lou says:

    As David Murray says above, where is the advantage of FCV’s over BEV’s? I concede and understand that there are quite a few people who are apartment dwellers and do not have easy and consistent access to an electric outlet? But I have to believe that with enough incentives people can be prodded into almost anything(such as apartment building owners adding in charging facilities). Not saying that this will happen or even should happen, but for the life of me I don’t understand pushing a new technology that seesm to be more expensive, and less efficient than BEV’s and at best as cumbersome as ICE technology. Just seeing the comments of GM’s “200 mile EV” emphasizes that we are already experiencing a breakthrough of sorts in battery technology. If a 200 mile battery car is about to happen, then that car’s owner can easily just QC it once a week(if they don’t have easy access to at home charging). Plus, workplace charging could fill the gap. Something tells me that we won’t see workplace FCV charging any time soon, that’s for sure. I do want to see alternate propulsion methods developed, or at least investigated. After all, there have been inventions developed that, at first or second glance didn’t seem likely or even possible, so I don’t think we stiffle research and innovation. But everything has a cost and FCV’s seem way out of the realm of cost effective and BEV’s are already cost effective, and getting cheaper.

    Lou

  12. pete g says:

    Yesterday, I said in a post we should support all green cars. Because their share of the market is so small they are all just fighting to stay alive.So I spent a long time thinking of something positive to say about this car. I got nothing. Good luck! Godspeed!

    1. basementman says:

      How about “it’s a lovely shade of blue…”?

      1. pete g says:

        I was stuck on ” oh! isn’t that cute, the anime dog is trying to eat a truck tire.”

  13. Phr3d says:

    Utopian:
    Solar is subsidized to an extent that all new housing and some large percentage of existing goes ahead and puts 12k of panels on their roof. All developed countries.

    As solar/wind power is limitless, we now have Too Much electricity when the sun is out and the wind is blowing.

    Turn that electricity into H2 and store it – yes at Huge efficiency loss to create from Water (No Fossil) – but arguably better than researching, drilling (et al), transporting, refining, storing, transporting and pumping fossil which has reached the limit of efficiencies over 100 years.

    Efficiencies over the next couple decades and — Holee crap, Now we got too much H2, and we can use it just like fossil for bothersome things like heavy transport.
    Car will be H2 & BEV, use whichever is cheapest..

    again.. Utopian, but Countries seem to think it is a good idea.

    Short term, it is hard to argue with the naysayers here regarding cost and support, but long term, BEV is not the end all, no matter how you slice it.

    and as stated previously (and better, no doubt) it wasn’t very long ago that a guy said he was gonna stuff over 15000 AA batteries in a Lotus and try and convince people that it was a car. At least Some of you remember well the derision that followed.

    1. Spec9 says:

      I have 6KW of solar PV on my roof and it generates more than I need for both my house and my electric car. I designed it so that I could easily add another 2KW of panels but I see no need for them right now.

  14. Spec9 says:

    LOL. “Load of rubbish” is a bit harsh but he is a partisan with a dog in the fight. But it is not an uneducated position . . . Elon Musk did spend a lot of time researching and analyzing FCVs before deciding against them.

  15. pjwood says:

    Right, we’re closing on 1mm plug-ins with L1, L2 and L3 infrastructure beginning to take off, and hydrogen stations, @10x price, are going to show up with the introduction of ~100 cars?

  16. azar Hadi says:

    Toyota and Lexus are defective, they will kill and injure you, it is call Sudden Unintended Acceleration.. Boycott Toyota

    1. pete g says:

      So far only the Corolla is about to get recalled for that.

  17. Lou says:

    Phr3d: Where do you see “all new housing” coming with solar panels? I happen to pass by several new housing developments on my commute. These are what could be termed “McMansions”, so if solar is being installed on all new construction, I’d certainly expect to see it on those. Nope! Have not seen a single new home construction with Solar PV. I do see a few(and very far and wide) homes with PV roofs, but that’s it. Maybe in California or the sunny Southwest US, but not around here. My brother installed PV on his roof last year, but that was a 20 year old home that he built himself. No, as popular as PV installation is becoming, it ain’t nowhere near as common as it could be.
    Lou

    1. Brian says:

      I put solar panels on my 50-year-old home a few years ago. The most expensive/time consuming part was structural. The roof was not built to handle the extra weight. Holes has to be cut so wires could be run from the panels. Those holes had to be properly sealed so rain/ice/snow don’t get in.

      Building a new house to be “PV ready” would be a lot cheaper that retrofitting existing houses. I’m of the opinion that, if anything, new building codes should require all houses be “PV and EV ready”. This involves proper support of the roof, electric access through the attic, and a 40A service to the garage (if it has one) for a future EVSE. Then later these things can be added much cheaper.

  18. Jouni Valkonen says:

    Fuel Cell cars have three independent unsolved problelms that all makes them utterly impossible.

    (1) The high cost of fuel cell is unsolved question and probably impossible to solve in foreseeable future.

    (2) The high cost of refueling infrastructure is impossible problem and it would require vast government projects that are not going to happen, because we live in democracy and majority hates hydrogen cars.

    (3) Even if fuel cells would some how work out, they are still inferior to ICE cars.

    (4) The high cost of hydrogen is unsolved problem. Even if we somehow manage to produce cheap hydrogen, then it is just cheaper to put that hydrogen to Fischer-Tropsch -process and synthetize Diesel or Kerosene from that hydrogen than to use hydrogen as transportation fuel.

    Each of these four problems would alone make hydrogen fuel cell car a no-go and all of these problems are IMPOSSIBLE to solve. Not just difficult and waiting for technological breakthrough, but IMPOSSIBLE.

    And I did not even mention that battery electric cars are better than ICE cars and they are mostly waiting that the battery cost gets down about 50 % and energy density is slightly improved.

  19. Trace says:

    After a couple of months looking at it, I may rethink… Nah! It’s still Butt Fugly!

  20. pete g says:

    Was just reading an article in automotive news Europe. Basically said Toyota hasn’t done any market research on this car. Just taking a build it and they will come attitude.