2014 Paris Motor Show: Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

3 years ago by Mark Kane 97

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota brought EVs for the role of small urban haulers at the 2014 Paris Motor Show, spreading the vision that for the mid-distance, hybrids will be the leader and for long distance, fuel cells are the only way to go.

The Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan will come to the Europe in about a year.

In the beginning, in the summer of 2015, sales will start only in Germany, UK and Denmark.

From there, Toyota will gradually expand into other markets.  However, pricing will be 55,000, at least.

“The Fuel Cell Sedan will go on sale in Japan before April 2015 and preparations are under way for launches in the USA and European markets in the summer.”

“In Japan the Fuel Cell Sedan will be sold at Toyota and Toyopet dealerships, priced at approximately seven million yen (about £43,450). Initially sales will be limited to those parts of the country where a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is under development. Prices for Europe and the USA have not yet been decided. Detailed information such as final prices, specifications and sales expectations will also be announced later.”

Here are a few photos and press conference video (worth checking out from 5:00 on).

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan for long distance

Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan for long distance

Tags: ,

97 responses to "2014 Paris Motor Show: Toyota Fuel Cell Sedan"

  1. Jouni Valkonen says:

    i wonder if even Toyota believes into this nonsense. Even if fuel cells were free, people would still choose rather electric car or ICE car than hydrogen car.

    hydrogen cars are logical impossibility, because if we had a source of cheap hydrogen, it would be cheaper to synthesize from that hydrogen synthetic Diesel rather than to try to distribute hydrogen.

    1. Jeri Cowan says:

      It’s fascinating to see how many people think they’re smarter than the top engineers at Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes, all introducing H2 cars over the next 2 years.

      We DO have a cheap source of Hydrogen. Solar Hydrogen. How much does a Kilo of H2 cost if it’s made from solar or wind power?

      1. Jouni Valkonen says:

        Jeri, the point is that engineers at Toyota are smarter than you think and they endeed know how to milk government subsidies.

        Do you happen to know how much it costs to make from that “cheap hydrogen” synthetic Diesel fuel or synthetic Jet fuel?

        1. Assaf says:

          J & J,

          I wouldn’t doubt the Toyota/Honda engineers’ integrity or skills. But they’re not the one running the show, rather they (generally) follow orders from the business suits.

          If and when they are asked to build a line-up of Toyota EVs, they’ll do it very well.

          I do not doubt Toyota’s and Honda’s leaders believe in the FCEV.

          But I don’t take their EV-dissing antics at face value either. Toyota after all is heavily involved in Tesla.

          For them it’s a win-win. If FCEVs pan out, great. If they don’t, they think they have the R&D and production muscle to quickly hop on the EV bandwagon, after Nissan et al. have put in the blood sweat and tears to bring it to maturity.

          Meanwhile, they’ll do all they can to make Nissan’s challenge harder.

          1. DaveMart says:

            The head ‘suit’ at Toyota is the guy who was in charge of the Prius project.

            Japanese and Korean CEOs tend to have engineering qualifications, not just business.

            1. Assaf says:

              Moot point. So are Carlos Ghosn, Elon Musk and Mary Barra. Neither side is “stupid” per se, they are just playing different game strategies.

              The considerations from the top are business-strategy considerations, not pure tech. It’s good to be able to dig the tech, but it’s the business calculus that rules.

              There’s no question that BEV tech is already viable. The decision by some major automakers to temporarily not put any eggs into this particular basket, and to even piss on this basket as loudly and rudely as they can – is a pure business/marketing decision, not a tech-motivated one.

              1. liberty says:

                Its rather silly, my **** is bigger strategy by toyota to bring up, our engineers are better. If they really are better and the technology is better, why is it less viable than other technologies like plug in today.

                We have only toyota and honda pushing fcv over plug-in. GM, Mercedes, and Hyundai/kia all have fcv on the road, but look like they will sell a great deal more plug-ins. Nissan and Tesla and VW group all seem to be betting big on plug-ins and consider FCV simply for government compliance. They will watch, but so far fuel cells have failed every sales goal, so much so that toyota refueses to even give us a sales goal or european or american price. I don’t think the failure will be about the engineers it will be about toyota’s management trying to delay plug-in adoption by playing pretend this distant promise is better.

                1. Jeri Cowan says:

                  Liberty writes:”so far fuel cells have failed every sales goal”

                  This is fascinating because no fuel cell cars have been for sale in the US.

                  The Hyundai Hydrogen Electric is for lease now. Next year Toyota and Honda will offer the first “for sale” fuel cell cars.

                  By the way, the Hyundai comes with free hydrogen for the life of the lease. This renewable hydrogen is made from a sewage plant, one of the few things still in abundance in the US.

                  1. liberty says:

                    Not facinating at all. You have to remember the $2.8B in federal money was suppoed to have tens of thousands of fcv on the road instead of the dozens we have. The current carb goal is for 53,000 by 2017, and we know today that this is likely off by a major amount. The promises today are just give us more money.

                  2. Mark H says:

                    This I embrace with open arms. But you know hydrogen will be produced for YEARS to come from cheap fracked gas thus missing the point. The oil companies are already seeing this as their future.

                    I don’t mind people going after coal fired electricity, but they at the same time need to be aware that nearly 1-in-3 EV drivers offset this by providing clean solar energy back to the grid. Not sure how owners will offset fracked-hydrogen.

                    1. GeorgeS says:

                      The thing that confuses me is why are the California taxpayers getting hit with the bill for the H2 stations in Ca.??

                      You would think that the oil companies should be funding them.

                  3. pjwood says:

                    Anaerobic digesters produce electricity. Ok, nothing new there, but we’re back to how efficient it is to use those watts, and make H2 instead of feeding them straight back to the grid??

                    Deer Island, in Boston, is one of the biggest, and they’re only pushing about 4MW. Commercial coal/NG/nuke all push close to 1,000MW. It “sounds” nice, but I’m afraid it is all in our imagination, as a long term fix.

      2. GeorgeS says:

        Agreed Jeri,

        Hydrogen will be used as a battery for Wind and Solar.

        It is a good thing. We had a good article here on it:


        1. Jeri Cowan says:

          Excellent article, GeorgeS. Thanks for linking. It’s great that this site has an open mind towards Hydrogen, as opposed to many that don’t even know what they are talking about. I’ve bookmarked and plan to return often. Thanks Again!

        2. pjwood says:

          Natural gas sourced hydrogen will never make it, and there aren’t enough stationary “springs” of renewable energy to make easy sense out of its conversion to H2. Thermal and pumped storage are two examples that are already commercially on the ground, above 100MW. They are far cheaper, less $10/watt capacity.

          Hydrogen, just like carbon capture and sequestration, belongs deep in a closet, away from the wallets of consumers. Polluting today, while hoping for tomorrow, is a mode we no longer have to be in.

          1. Mint says:

            The automakers’ goal with H2 is $50 per KILOwatt. Even if they fail (as expected) and only get down to $300/kW, that is fantastic for stationary storage.

            Cheap hydro storage has very limited resources (aside from NZ and Norway), and batteries will never be as cheap as H2 in a tank or cavern. Batteries are for short term storage only (e.g. taking care of the evening peak for a few hours).

            There is a solid niche for H2 in stationary power.

      3. Mike says:

        The New EDSEL!
        Ugly and Stupid CARBON non-solution to global warming. And you thought CEO’s were smart.

        Because the only place hydrogen is going to come from is fracked-natural gas, a source of carbon-methane output we’re finding out, that’s worse then coal.

      4. pete g says:

        The CEO of Mercedes spoke out against FCV at the Paris Auto Show.

        I may not be an engineer, but I can do grade school math.
        120,000 gas stations in the U.S.
        $2 million to convert 1 gas station to hydrogen
        $240 billion Total
        or 48 Gigafactories

    2. Just_Chris says:

      That is pretty much what we do already, we take Canadian tar sand and react it with hydrogen extracted from American shale gas. Hey-presto a tar powered car? We can do the same with coal too. Maybe even for the next 50 years or so – not options that I am personally overly keen on.

      In my opinion pure EV’s will not be able to meet 100% of the markets needs – even the 200 mile BEV for less than $40k (yes, this is a critically important technology but is IMO only part of the solution). PHEV are a really good option but I am unsure if you could get a car with 2 drive trains down to the sub $20k segment of the market, maybe you could just have really efficient little run abouts for this segment but they would still need to be run on something. Bio-fuels, provided they are done sensibly, could be part of the solution. With all of these technologies together what % of the market is covered? How much regular diesel and petrol do we need to run the transport network? even if things go really well you’ll still need 20-30% of what we use today and by the time we get there that % will most likely come from “unconventional” sources. Why not see if we can take that down to 10% or less? Fuel cells, super capacitors, flow batteries, algae bio-fuels, compressed natural gas, car sharing, flywheels, compressed air, mass transport, the humble bi-cycle, I believe it is time to get on with it, which it appears the auto industry is doing despite large sections of the press and public suggesting they are crazy for trying anything even vaguely different to a lazy V8.

      If fuel cell vehicles are to become greater than 0.5% of the market the hydrogen distribution issues will need to be solved as will other cost issues. I am fairly certain that one of the largest and most successful car companies in the world knows that and has a plan. Will they be successful I don’t know but 1 solution fits all is unlikely to work and is a pretty high risk strategy.

      As for logic, the most logical thing to do is live close to work and walk or cycle. It requires no subsidy and will save you thousands of dollars a year, yet the majority of people buy the car they like the look of and the house they “fell in love with”. I married the thing I fell in love with, rent a comfortable house and my transport to work costs me less than $500 a year yet their are plenty of people who tell me I should buy a house out of town and get a 2nd car.

      1. Mike says:

        The Chevy VOLT, has already filled this market niche, with a cleaner greener solution.

        No need to convert any gas station to hydrogen, just buy a Volt.

      2. liberty says:

        I think the way toyota is planning to get the fcv down to $20,000 is for the government to pay $40,000 subsidy for each one. The tanks alone probably cost $5K. If someone gets the prices down you know with some technological advancements great, but these things cost much more than phevs today, and battery prices are dropping quickly. Why would a fcv get cheap fast?

        1. Just_Chris says:

          That’s probably quite right, $5k sounds a lot but if it were a 100l tank at 700 bar it would hold 70,000 liters of H2. Taking into account the efficiency losses in a fuel cell that would be around 126 kWh total storage, 125.6 kWh usable (assuming you need 2 bar minimum to operated the system). That works out to be around $40 / kWh. The Toyota FCEV probably doesn’t have a 100l tank but it probably costs about $5k (I suspect the tank manufacturing process is the expense not the material so a 50l tank probably cost around the same as a 100l tank). The equivalent battery pack would be over $30k. The other thing to consider is that the battery would weigh around 650 kg with the H2 tank weighing around 125 kg.

          The expensive part of a FCEV is the fuel cell not the tank. That’s really the only reason FCEV’s make sense. If you wanted a car with a 1000 mile range then the fuel cell would be a clear winner in terms of performance and cost because you would only need a bigger tank not a bigger fuel cell, if you want a car with a 50 mile range then the battery wins hands down because the fuel cell for that car would be the same as the 1000 mile version but there would be no major cost saving on the fuel tank.

          Here’s the interesting thing, IMO, which is better for the 200 mile car?

          IMO, at the moment its batteries but batteries have had billions and billions of dollars spend on their development, example – Apple sells 20 million i-phones a year all with a lithium battery in them. That’s a pretty mature technology, how many fuel cells are sold a year, across the whole world all markets around 0.25 million units that’s pretty green by comparison. Yes the batteries in the i-phone are not the same as in a car but the 0.25 million fuel cell units are not the same as that in a car either.

          There will be massive improvements in both technologies over the next few years and there will need to be if we are going to break out of the 1-10% of the market range. IMO and my opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s we need to be looking at more technologies not less. The amount of money spent on batteries and fuel cells is only a small fraction of that spent on petrol and diesel cars so I don’t think if Toyota were to scrap their FCEV program there would be a significant increase in EV effort, I suspect they’d just spend the money on yet another ICE SUV.

      3. Priusmaniac says:

        For where people want to live and work it is up to them to decide, but if the BMW i3 with rex can be derived into different boddy sizes, it is indeed a close to a one fit all solution. Especially if the rex can be flex fuel.

      4. pjwood says:

        I guess I disagree, more than agree. 20k for a decent EREV/PHEV is within easy reach. You say two drive-trains as though they are expensive, but just as lawn mowers can be bought for $100, it isn’t hard to think of simple REx motors being a tiny fraction of what completes the trip. I know, it violates the purity of “BEV”, but the Volt has already proven on just how few miles of range, the benefits of electric storage can win.

        The other side of this argument is the over-weight of engineers focused upon what is possible, instead of what is feasible. Any measure to which things like FCEV slow PHEV/BEV, is calculated in harm to both economics and the environment.

  2. Brian says:

    What is Toyota’s reasoning putting Hybrids as “mid distance” vehicles, and FCVs as “long distance”? It seems like it should be the other way around – FCVs typically only go 200-300 miles on a tank whereas a hybrid can easily be made to go 600 or even 1000 miles. It’s far easier to make a gasoline tank larger than a H2 tank.

    1. Josh says:

      That was exactly my first thought also.

      For sustainability, long distance would be a bigger CO2 contributor. Maybe this is why they took this stance. If that was really the case, they should be launching a FCEV semi truck, not mid-sedan.

      1. Assaf says:

        Also, slotting EVs strictly into “short range” with a pic of some NEV toy, is hardly believable when it comes from a company invested in Tesla 🙂

        1. Mike says:

          And, third, there’s already the Chevy Volt, GM’s most reliable car, and now coming in version 2.0.

          This hydrogen Edsel is dead.

    2. See Through says:

      I think, plug-in hybrid is what Toyota meant. So, in mid-range commutes, mpge is pretty good.
      Also, hybrids do well in city driving. That’s another reason, imho.

      1. pjwood says:

        We’re just entering the cold season where Toyota’s hybrid synergy drive drops efficiency quite substantially, unless trips go beyond a gallon’s worth of miles.

  3. kdawg says:

    “The Fuel Cell Sedan will go on sale in Japan before April 2015 and preparations are under way for launches in the USA and European markets in the summer.”
    Did they ever get that safety issue taken care of, that was preventing them from selling in the US?

    1. Jeri Cowan says:

      Yes kdawg, they did
      Toyota Hydrogen Tanks Production Gains Approval

      Hydrogen is much safer than petrol, as this study by Dr. Michael Swain shows (With Pictures) (PDF)

      1. Jesse Gurr says:

        That’s not the safety issue kdawg was talking about. I think it was getting an exception from the nhtsa for a power cutoff requirement after a crash.

    2. Big Solar says:

      Not sure how safe Hydrogen is when its burning during daylight hours. At least you can see gas burning in the daytime.

  4. Stimpacker says:

    I heard on this very forum the flawed argument that FCV’s are essentially EV’s having an extra H2 tank and Fuel Cell.

    To a lay person like me, it is obviously flawed when it was Toyota themselves that claim a 5kW solar pv array will (through an expensive machine) create enough H2 a day for about 30 miles of travel.

    My 5kW solar pv array presently generates MORE than enough electricity to fully recharge my Leaf from 0% to 100% and that gives me 80 miles of range.

    So yea, it’s an EV with more parts that suddenly strips it of any green credence it may have.

    1. Chris O says:

      It’s attractive for the HFCV lobby to pass HFCVs off as EVs because of their sympathetic image.

      But the alt car discussion is about energy not about what specific device eventually ends up driving the wheels. Therefore a proper defenition of EVs would be something like:

      Vehicles are EVs to the extend they are powered by electrons from an external source.

      Also solves the are PHEVs/EREVs really EVs discussion. Sure they are, but only to the extend that they are powered by those electrons that enter through their plugs.

    2. Bill Howland says:

      So you are really saying the Fuel celled vehicles , if they are making the hydrogen with electricity, use 3 times the electricity that a Battery-Electric vehicle would?

      That is very interesting. Or is it even worse? If a Leaf needs 1/4 kwh per mile, does a Toyota FCV totally electrically powered home refueler need 3/4 kwh per mile, or is it more like 1 to 1 1/2 kwh per mile?

      Now lets compare that with a standard petrol car, or a volt while running on its engine.

      It can get 40 mpg, or, at $4/u.s. gal petrol, 10 cents per mile.

      Now, lets assume our neighbor doesn’t have solar panels and has to purchase electricity at 13 cents/kwh. If the home refueler uses 1 to 1 1/2 kwh per mile, we are up to around 18 cents per mile with home refueling. We are getting almost to the point where, with all this expensive equipment in the house, the ultimate fuel cost is almost double that of petrol in the states.

      Europe may want FCV’s, (if there is anyone who truly WANTS one of these vehicles), since petrol is $8 to $11 per US gallon, depending on the country. But then the electricity is generally pricier also, so, the vast majority of people will probably get their hydrogen from either methane, or else American Coal imported from the states, since the Ukraine situtation is stifling the methane for Europe for the next few years.

      So the pricing may work for Europe. But currently at least, it makes no sense at all for American car buyers.

  5. DaveMart says:

    Many here will be pleased to know that the contracts are in place to provide fuelling for travel in fuel cell vehicles throughout California:

    ‘FirstElement’s hydrogen network will initially be focused in California’s San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles regions with a few access points located at connectors and destinations to enable driving throughout the state.’


    1. kdawg says:

      That actually upsets me. 🙁

      1. DaveMart says:

        At least it is good to know that Toyota are going to some lengths for the compliance vehicle that they do not really believe in, according to some, as they are assisting in the creation of infrastructure in three continents for it, which is something of a triumph for parochial Californian legislation.

        1. Mike says:

          No. Rather it points out that CEO’s can be senile, and possibly should retire early.

          1. Bill Howland says:

            Actually, Joel Ewanick (the new head honcho here) had already been fired as vicepresident of GM prior to taking this new job.

            Maybe Gm did the smart thing?

            1. liberty says:

              He was fired for fake accounting on his advertising budget. He cooked the books to make the Manchester United deal look less expensive that it was, so he would not need approval. When a whistle blower brought this to the CEOs attention, he lied about the cooked books, which were pretty obvious. The CEO might have approved the real deal, but not the dishonesty in getting it. The other guy is a UCI professor that had all the CARB internal information on the bids. I think CARB and toyota like these two because they likely will cook the books to make hydrogen look better than it is. They certainly don’t have any experience in settling up fueling stations.

          2. liberty says:

            You have the players wrong. The guy pushing fuel cells is the 69 year old chairman of the board, Uchiyamada. The CEO is Akido Toyoda who cut the deal with tesla, that have been extremely profitable for the corporation.

            I think of it as a government lobbying play. The chairman has been working on fuel cells for 20 years, and wants all the governments to pay for them.

        2. Priusmaniac says:

          For your information, they have just dismantled an hydrogen fuel station south of Brussels. In the same time Tesla has installed a supercharger a few miles down the same road…

    2. Assaf says:

      Gee, unfiltered promotional material with no real timeline and no detailing of how much $$ Toyota is really putting up vs. how much is from taxpayers.

      Very helpful.

      1. DaveMart says:

        Glad you enjoyed it in your unbiased way.
        At least it makes a change from all the articles and comments here which are so deeply critical of Tesla, and enjoy giving tax rebates to buyers of $80k cars.

        1. Chris O says:

          Ah, the old hydrogen good, Tesla bad mantra gain.

          Broken record.

          1. DaveMart says:


            I know how unpleasant it is to you for people to continue to disagree with you, after you have told them what they should think.

            It is not as though there is any articles or comment on here favourable to Tesla, is it?

            1. Djoni says:

              25.5 million subsidies for 19 stations!
              That’s 1.34 million each without, if any, contribution from car maker.
              Ouuch, it’s a really bad investment.
              That would built about, what, 250 Supercharger or 1 thousand Quick DC charger.
              Yes 1 000 QCDC for that price.
              What a rip off.

              1. Mike says:

                And the CEO didn’t pull the plug.
                Kind of makes you wonder is there direct under the table payoffs going on. How to keep Exxon in control of your fuel supply.

              2. Jesse Gurr says:

                That amount is actually just for “equipment”. Does not include the actual construction or anything else.

            2. Chris O says:

              Sure, lots of pro Tesla talk here and I can see how that would upset you hydrogen advocates. After all hydrogen is not going to happen if Tesla keeps happening so keep grasping at any straws suggesting Tesla’s imminent demise.

      2. liberty says:

        Toyota is putting up $7.5 million in a loan to a company they hope would win the conctract, they hope to be repaid with government money. Its a loan not equity or a grant.

        Califonia tax payers are on the hook for $220M + $5000/fcv sold or leased.

    3. wraithnot says:

      They appear to have an unusual definition driving throughout the state of California. Based on their planned station locations and assuming you want to return home, you won’t be able to go to many parts of the state including Mt. Shasta, Mammoth lakes, and Yosemite. And while Las Vegas isn’t in California, it’s a very popular driving destination for people living in southern California and will be inaccessible for a fuel cell vehicle if it doesn’t ride back on a tow truck. Based on the planned station locations, fuel cell vehicle manufacturers appear to be targeting these vehicles more for urban commuting than road trips. Since urban commuting is one of the best applications for battery electric vehicles, I’m puzzled by this strategy.

  6. GeorgeS says:

    70 Mpa=10,000 psi hydrogen tank

    1. Kosh says:


        1. QCO says:

          “You won’t believe how good Toyota’s PR is”….

        2. Mike says:

          It’s a Super Pinto.

        3. Bill Howland says:

          Hydrogen may be very safe, but how expensive is a 10,100 pound per square inch certified safe tank? Plus how expensive is it? My local gas company had trouble with CNG vehicles with all the leaks they had at 3600 psi.

          Now Toyota is saying they will have absolutely tight-as-a-drum connections at 10,100 psi?

          Since a low cost home refueler is having trouble at 3600 psi, are they saying that ALL the hydrogen manufacturing methods are going to release 10,100 psi hydrogen with no compression, and no leaks anywhere from generation to the car?

          10,100 psi is an order of magnitude more difficult to contain than 3600, which is giving CNG operators headaches. I don’t understand how everything automatically becomes ‘just perfect’ with hydrogen, in an early test/developmental stage.

          1. Jeri Cowan says:

            Actually, Mr. Howland, if you watch the video included on this page Toyota claims the tank is good up to 20,000 psi

            No rhetoric can stop Fuel Cells now, and Toyota and Honda (soon Mercedes) haven’t even begun to advertise. The Hydrogen Revolution has begun. Enjoy!

            1. Bill Howland says:

              The fact that a tank may have a safety factor of 2.0 (or 1.98 or whatever it actually is) is necessary for the tank to be certified, which it certainly would have to be to be used on American roads at any rate.

              I’m sorry if I keep harping on this but I just don’t see how this “Hydrogen Revolution” is going to be sold on the American Public. Other posts I’ve written detail the high expense of hydrogen.

              At a minimum, its going to take a GREAT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN.

              I admit that if people will pay $2 for a bottled water, then those people will probably also pay more for hydrogen.

              The problem with trendy advertising is, people can spend a ridiculous price for water since the amount of bottles they buy per year is much less than the fuel cost for their car. Such higher expense tends to ‘concentrate the mind’, and slick advertising campaigns won’t result in sales since the consumer at that point will become surprisingly level-headed about what they can afford… and what they cannot.

            2. pjwood says:

              I love when it becomes clear someone is in the hydrogen tank. The only thing left to debate is whether they are genuinely into the engineering, or involved in distribution enough to enjoy the smoke.

      1. DaveMart says:

        No problem if they have already been killed by the equally well documented battery electric vehicle fires,

        1. Chris O says:

          Nobody ever died in a car battery fire because they are rare and these are really slow starting fires.

          The fact that talk nonsense like this these days is telling of what you have become.

          1. Chris O says:

            …by contrast the Hindenburg…that burned down to a crisp in seconds!

            There will be HFCV fires and they are not going to be as forgiving as battery fires.

  7. MDEV says:

    We can’t denied that the Toyota H2 car us one of the ugliest designed. Go Toyota now you are following the steps of GM in 1970.

  8. jmac says:

    It’s cheaper to use solar to recharge a battery than to make H2 for fuel cells that are less efficient than batteries.

    And yes, the Chevy Volt supposedly had an advertised range of about 600 miles, far further than H2 cars.

    Hydrogen is basically nonesense and smoke and mirrors.

    It will be as at least as expensive as gas today wit fewer stations, built mostly at taxpayer expense.

    Finally of course, the H2 will be made from steam reformed natural gas, because that’s the cheapest way to make hydrogen at present.

    The Oil Companies and Nat gas companies love it.

    Just one thing……

    “ORNL study finds best current use of natural gas for cars is efficient production of electricity for EVs’


    1. Mike says:

      Toyota should simply BUY the GM patents already and put this Edsel to bed.

    2. Ambulator says:

      “And yes, the Chevy Volt supposedly had an advertised range of about 600 miles, far further than H2 cars.”

      No, the Volt has a little over a 300 mile range, not that it matters much.

  9. David Murray says:

    Who’s the target customer?

    1. DaveMart says:

      Here you go:

      This is for the UK rather than the US, but many will be glad to learn that the early adopter problem has been thoroughly analysed, and seems to work just fine.

      1. Chris O says:

        Maybe they should do that research again, but now not by suggesting a hypothetical scenario in which HFCV cost approaches the cost of owning a diesel vehicle some day, but compared to long range EVs that offer low cost homecharging supplemented by the occasional (free) fast charge for long distances.

        Typical what you put in on one end will come out at the other end research.

        1. DaveMart says:

          I wonder if the UK Government actually had access to any information to indicate that fuel cell costs would drop to the levels they use?

          Of course, only research showing battery costs as dropping hugely and energy density costs increasing drastically can possibly be valid!

          It is just a shame that in fact far quicker progress is being made in reducing fuel cell costs, as your idea sounds so nice.

          1. Chris O says:

            Of course the UK government has access to information to indicate that fuel cell costs would drop to very competitive levels, the hydrogen lobby is more than happy to provide that sort of info.

            But even the hydrogen lobby doesn’t suggest cost will converge with diesel before 2030 and meanwhile Tesla will have its Model 3 ready and no doubt very cost competitive with the equivalent BMW 3 series diesel more than a decade before that. That’s an actual projected car, not some shady figures in some questionable research.

  10. Alex says:

    6.000 miles with Leaf = 1.700 kWh
    6.000 miles with FCV = 11.000 kWh !!!!

    In other words, FCV is more inefficiency like gasoline cars.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      if those prices are right, than with electric rates of $0.13 / kwh where I am, that works out to 357 1/2 US gallons of primium for 6000 miles. Or roughly the same cost ($1430) as a prius getting 16 3/4 miles per gallon.

      That is beyond horrible mileage, and with Americans’ EXTREME sensitivity to fuel prices, you’d have to GIVE the car away if these things are to be home refuelled.

  11. Priusmaniac says:

    Some more hydrogen sniffers again. Apparently it should be ranked among the hard drugs.

  12. shawn marshall says:

    Good grief. The market will decide if FCV are viable. No need for expert opinions “prohibiting” hydrogen. Many self anointed experts at gm-volt.com said BEVs were useless. Let us watch the technologies develop and compete. Subsidies are inappropriate beyond comparatively modest contributions to R&D.

    1. JRMW says:

      “No need for expert opinions “prohibiting” hydrogen”

      For the most part I agree to let the market decide.

      HOWEVER: The thing I dislike about FCV is the horrendous cost of these refilling stations. the Insane amounts of money going to build just a handful of Hydrogen stations in the LA/SF metro area could build hundreds and perhaps thousands of battery recharging stations across the state of California.

      so my problem is that the money spent on FCV is holding EV technology and EV cars back.

      I also dislike the fact that an EV gets 1 CARB credit and FCV gets 3.

      but, yes, I think the market can decide this. And there is no compelling market reason to buy an FCV for a PASSENGER vehicle. (it could be competitive in major public transit or transport applications).

      1. Mark H says:

        “The thing I dislike about FCV is the horrendous cost of these refilling stations. ”

        I don’t like that either JRMW, but I will give in if it is for the greater good. I am just not convinced that it is. I really have no problem at all with the design of the FCV, it is the production and distribution of the fuel that still gets me. Make it green and I am OK.

        I followed the Honda Clarity for years with fondness particularly since they promised a home fueling station that was part solar, part gas. Now with the independence of solar powered electricity combined with a coming energy storage device, I see a much simpler approach to real energy independence.

        What I really would like to see is an FCV EREV. That would require a FRACTION of the need for infrastructure and could be off and running in a much broader region. Most 40 mile AER Volt owners go weeks and months without refueling, yet have the means to do so when they want to go the distance. The problem is that the market would then see that it really is an FCEV and would migrate faster to a BEV. I drive an EREV as it is the best solution for our family now, though I clearly see a not so distant future where a BEV will suffice. That is why their will be no FCEV EREVs.

        1. Mark H says:

          edit button =(

          1. GeorgeS says:

            I don’t know about that Mark H.

            I think EREVS and plug ins will be a viable option for some time to come.

            I’ll give a look at GM’s new 200 mile BEV but I still think the most compelling product in the pipeline is the Gen 2 Volt. JMO

            The only comment I have on this FCV that Toyota has coming is that:

            It’s really boring.

            1. Mark H says:

              I don’t disagree with you George. I am a huge EREV fan and don’t care what the extender is be it gas, CNG, hydrogen, or another battery chemistry. Just sayin that a hydrogen extender would make much more sense especially without an infrastructure. Especially in an FCEV where you already have all the pieces (extender, electric motor, battery). You already drive all the time off of the electric motor like an EREV not a PHEV, and you already have a smallish battery. You simply expand the battery to a mid-size battery. But of course you sponsors (read big oil) would not go for a solution that does not use their product.

              1. Rick Danger says:

                Mark, George, EREVs are indeed a perfect interim solution until batteries and chargers are prolific and cheap enough to handle even long range driving. If everyone drove a Volt, how many millions of gallons of gas would be saved? The gas savings are proven, so is the Volt’s reliability, and the gas infrastructure is already here.
                Batteries and charging infrastructure are improving at a swift pace. They will be here and available a lot sooner than hydrogen cars and stations, so WHY BOTHER? And more importantly, why throw billions more at a solution that is way more expensive to implement, way more inefficient in energy usage, and will be obsolete by the time it’s rolled out?

      2. Priusmaniac says:

        Is there any explaination why an EV gets 1 CARB credit and a FCV gets 3?

        1. Rick Danger says:

          Yes. Politics.

        2. Bill Howland says:

          “FCV gets 3” carb credits.. I wonder what the mix of world wide hydrogen generation (if this really gets off the ground) is going to be made by what sources? Of course, many Canadians will be happy that their “oil sands” will now be used to manufacture H2.

          I have the sneaking suspicion that, world wide, with the high price of methane in most places, that much of this H2 will actually come from coal or coke. So much for this carbon credit game.

          Obviously I’m bothered by the tax issue, but other people may be bothered for the more obvious reason.

        3. pjwood says:

          CARB makes no bones about what it is trying to incent. To them, it is not about keeping $$ fair with other tech, that largely avoids the same pollution. It is about seeding what can take off, and answering the call of everyone from the automotive, fuel and environmental side, who has an interest in fuel cell. If the consumer isn’t at the table, policy will not be designed for them (read $$). AB8, in CA, allowed the funds for H2 stations, and I think this was a prime example. You can find environmentalists who defend hydrdogen subsidy, as if public support were limitless. You can also tell them, directly, it’s not. That’s the message I think will eventually chip down H2’s support. The Union of Concerned Scientists is still on board, for example.

      3. Mint says:

        FCVs get 9 credits.

        Yeah, that’s wack…

  13. ffbj says:

    I just thought of a funny cartoon.

    So all the elements are standing around at a cocktail party sipping their drinks, and Hydrogen is the middle of the room lifting up a big foam finger up. meanwhile Neon quips to Krypton: “I am really getting tired of that”, as Hydrogen shouts: “I’m number ONE!”

  14. jessy says:

    what a horrible disgusting design……..i am proud that in france we doesn’t built such ugly trash cans.

  15. Bill Howland says:

    There is a key difference here that has only been tangentially touched on.

    Will the consumer actually want to buy one of these things?

    Maybe in electrically short Japan, (the vehicle has japanese-esque styling after all), or maybe in europe where petrol is expensive, but otherwise I just don’t see it.

    In the states, no one forces you to by a BEV. If there is no law forcing H2 sales, I don’t see anyone but eccentrics buying it.