Toyota Exec Touts Its Coming “Game Changer” Solid-State Battery


This battery should break through in early 2020’s.

If press release prose is to be believed (and probably it isn’t), then the solid-state battery is ready to revolutionize transportation. Almost ready, at least. The much ballyhooed tech has yet to be seen in cars. Nor have performance figures from a commercialized product been published. Still, we are encouraged that several companies are industriously working away at it.

Video (above):  Electrification talk starts at the 7:03 mark. Solid state from 9:00

Slide touting Toyota’s solid-state battery efforts.

Toyota is perhaps at the forefront of that effort — we’ve been tracking its work in this area for some time, and recently gave you a first look at one of its solid-state battery patents.  It’s worth noting that during the company’s presentation by Executive Vice President Didier Leroy at the Tokyo Motor Show, he highlighted the technology while discussing the brand’s electrification efforts. After affirming Toyota’s belief that “EVs will also be one of the key solutions in the near future,” he went on to say to the gathered crowd,

We believe our solid-state battery technology can be a game changer, with the potential  to drastically improve driving range. We are the leader in the field, in terms of intellectual property, and currently, we have more than 200 engineers working hard to be able to commercialize this technology sometime in the early 2020’s

This target date coincides with recent reports that said we could see the tech by 2022, which is still farther away than we like and prevents us from putting too many eggs in this solid-state basket of hope. With so many engineers involved with the project, and its highlighting of the technology by an upper-level executive, though, it’s hard to accuse the company of dragging its heels in this area, while mainly focusing on fuel cell powered EVs. Leroy made it clear that the company is pursuing both technologies. After discussing the solid-state battery effort he went on to say, “That doesn’t mean we are moving away from fuel cells.”

When it does arrive, reports tell us to expect it to pack double the energy density of today’s cells and have the ability to be recharged much more quickly. While this, of course, sounds awesome, we would note that there is a wide range of energy densities among the various lithium-ion batteries available today, and that without knowing which formulation they are benchmarking, double could mean 300 Wh/kg, or a truly revolutionary 600 Wh/kg. If it’s 400 Wh/kg, with 10-15 minutes charging for a 60 kWh vehicle, then we would be pretty happy with that.

Source:  Toyota via YouTube, Excite News Japan

Keep the conversation going in our new InsideEVs forum. Start a new thread about this article and make your point heard; or just browse what is new and of interest with electric vehicles!

Category: Toyota

Tags: ,

101 responses to "Toyota Exec Touts Its Coming “Game Changer” Solid-State Battery"
  1. unlucky says:

    Double density in the early 2020s likely will not even be perceived as a breakthrough.

    That’s a long time from now and batteries will continue to become more energy dense through other means in that time.

    1. L'amata says:

      I think They are “F O S”….Nothing will come from this..Just Blowing smoke up our Assets …lol…

      1. Mint says:

        I doubt them for the same reason I doubted Sakti3: If you have a revolutionary double density battery, EVs are the worst market for them.

        A super battery is worth $1000-2000/kWh for smartphones. EV batteries around 2022 will have cost less than $100/kWh, or they’ll have niche markets.

    2. Dav8or says:

      I have no idea what you base your optimism on, but historically this has not been the case. Li-Ion is pretty much tapped out. The only real hope here is for cheaper, safer and maybe a tiny incremental energy density improvement in Li-Ion batteries.

      Historically, significant improvements in battery energy density have always come from brand new chemistries. So maybe this solid state idea, or something else, but if we are to see a “game changer” in 2022, it is almost certainly going to be a new chemistry.

      1. unlucky says:

        Li-Ion is pretty much tapped out and yet here we have the Bolt with a much higher density than a car made a few years before it.

        No, doesn’t seem tapped out.

        Solid state isn’t brand new, I worked on a product that was supposed to have a solid state battery in 2010. It didn’t happen and I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t happen either.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Seeing a commercial solid state battery would certainly be something brand new.

          Just because such things have already been seen in lab demonstrations doesn’t mean they aren’t “brand new” as far as the mass market goes. You might want to consider the literal meaning of the words “brand new”.

          1. unlucky says:

            What would the literal meaning of “brand new” convey to me that you think I haven’t already considered? What is this literal meaning anyway?

            My point is they aren’t a new thing. If the theory is that advances come from new chemistries then I have bad news: solid state batteries aren’t new. They were created to compete with Li-Ions of 10 years ago. And Li-Ions have gotten better since. If you think a new chemistry is probably going to turn the day then you probably should be looking at something other than solid-state, or at least something more specific than solid-state.

            1. Martin Winlow says:

              I think PMPU was referring to the literal meaning of ‘brand’ (or one of them at least), as in ‘the Toyota brand’, and ‘new’. So, such a battery would be ‘new to the Toyota brand’. I might be completely wrong.

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:


          If we are talking top density Li Ion cells here, look at Tesla. They had Model S 85 some 5 year ago with pack consisting of 7,104 cells. ~81.5 kWh total capacity, ~77.5 kWh usable.

          Now they have Model S/X 90 because of silicon addition to anode, that hopefully will not reduce longevity. ~85.8 kWh total capacity, 81.8 kWh usable.

          100 pack version is just more of the same cells crammed in – 8,256 cells. 2170 is just different cell form factor, it doesn’t make chemistry significantly more or less dense by itself.

          You may point to NMC improvements, but NMC never was top density Li Ion chemistry. NCA was. NMC just catched up recently, and that is all. Model S NCA density improved 5-6% over 5 years.

          Predicting further improvements is like driving on highway looking at straight empty road in rear view mirror only. Rear view mirror doesn’t tell anything about road in front. It may happen or you may run into obstacle. Certainly not immediately after lab announcement about a single research aspect, over-hyped by media and wishful thinking into some “revolution”.

          1. unlucky says:

            If you want to talk about top density, why would we talk about Tesla? I know Musk wants to brag a lot but their pack has more casing and interstitial in it than a lot of other packs.

            A LEAF used to have 28kWh and now has 40kWh in the same space. After only a few years.

            1. Dav8or says:

              They put in a bigger battery. Why is this proof of anything other than Li-Ion batteries are now cheaper to produce? On this point I agree. This the biggest improvement we can expect from Li-Ion going forward.

              1. unlucky says:

                The LEAF 40kWh battery is in the same space as the old 28kWh battery. The 32 was the same way.

                I have no idea how the 60kWh works. I presume it has to be larger.

                1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                  Battery pack is not the same as battery cells. You can pack cells in different ways into a car, more or less dense, choose one chemistry cells over another. But it doesn’t mean that top density limit at cell level increased much.

            2. bogdan says:

              Don’t forget it will house 60 kWh in the same space by next year!

              1. Doggydogworld says:

                …. because they’re switching chemistries. This has no bearing on the improvement rate of the highest density chemistry, which is glacial.

                1. unlucky says:

                  As long as the chemistry is termed “Lithium-Ion” it goes to my point. The other poster said Lithium-Ion is stagnant now. Any particular chemistry of Lithium-Ion may be but Lithium-Ion battery chemistries are improving both in terms of energy density (vs volume) and longevity. And that’s why it’ll be hard for a solid state battery to be a revolution. If it’s twice as good as something we have now when it comes out it won’t enjoy nearly the same advantage.

              2. WARREN says:

                Didn’t the BMW i3 go from 60ah to 94ah in the same space? And 120ah is projected within the year? 22kwh-33kwh-40kwh within a few years is a good capacity % progression vs time.

                1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                  Yes they did. It may be easy to go up when you lay on the ground :/
                  Samsung SDI94Ah:
                  Gravimetric Energy Density: 173,9 Wh/kg
                  Volumetric Energy Density: 357,4 Wh/L

                  Panasonic NCR18650B:
                  Gravimetric Energy Density: 243 Wh/kg
                  Volumetric Energy Density: 676 Wh/L
                  The ones used by Tesla may be marginally better, can’t find spec now.

                  We will check 120Ah SDI version when it will be released, but obviously its density is not going to exceed top NCA offers, even if SDI has other advantages.

                  1. DangerHV says:

                    Thanks for the links. The Panasonic datasheet is dated 2012. There have been no improvement in G.density in 5+ years!

        3. Jake Brake says:

          Liion isnt tapped out yet. 2-3% improvement per year through 2022.

          1. Dav8or says:

            It’s neat that you have such a finely calibrated crystal ball. What does it tell after 2022, or does it just go fuzzy then?

          2. Dav8or says:

            Oh yeah, what’s 2-3% improved in this time? Energy density? Weight reduction? Cost of manufacture? Life span? Safety and reliability?

            1. unlucky says:

              Energy density per unit volume. Not weight so much.

        4. JimGord says:

          Li-ion is not tapped out. Major breakthroughs would be the solution of the dendrite formation problem and/or the expansion problem when silicon is added.
          A solid state architecture would eliminate the dendrite problem leading to a major increase in density

  2. mhpr262 says:

    I hope they won’t have to be heated to 180° Fahrenheit to actually work as required like today solid state batteries …

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Ionic Materials’ solid state “plastic battery” works at room temperature… and below.

      It’s only in the prototype stage, though. The inventor hopes to commercialize it.

    2. Gasper Gartner says:

      In 2016 Toyota had an article in Nature about Solid state battery with Sulfide superionic conductors, I see the later patent also uses sulfide solid electrilite.

      Here is quote form that article:
      “The all-solid-state cells exhibited superior performance compared with the lithium-ion cells between −30 and 100◦C”

      The cells were capable of 60C discharge rate at 25°C and a whooping 1500C discharge at 100°C, yes you read that right these cells work even better at high temperatures, this means no active cooling required and you can smash the cells as you like and they won’t burst into flames.

      Source: Nature ARTICLE NUMBER: 16030

      1. arne-nl says:

        “no active cooling required”

        Now that’s a game-changer. You lose a lot of complexity with pumps and hoses and fluids and radiators + the associated weight of all that.

  3. James P Heartney says:

    If I had a kilowatt-hour for every “battery breakthrough” I’ve seen touted, I could probably circle the globe in a Model X.

    Just to recap, EV batteries need:

    • Enough energy density to give decent range without taking up all the spare room in a car.

    • Enough duty cycles to work for at least 8-10 years before losing too much range.

    • To be robust enough to sit in a moving, jostling vehicle that experiences plenty of heat and cold, and not to cause a hazard in a collision.

    • To take a charge quickly enough to facilitate long-distance travel.

    • To be cheap enough that you can build a long-range vehicle that isn’t hugely more expensive than a similar ICE counterpart.

    So far, the best tech for meeting all these requirements is L-ion, in various formulations. For Toyota’s new sold-state batteries to be competitive, they’ll need to have all the above qualities. If they do, they’ll be the first actual “breakthrough” in battery tech I’ve ever seen.

  4. Viking79 says:

    Solid state batteries are coming, and soon. Here is one from a main Korean paper about Samsung SDI and LG, and they should have them for phones before 2020 and for cars around 2025. They confirm that Toyota is by far the furthest along.

    “Currently, Japanese automaker Toyota is known to be the most advanced in solid-state battery technology in the world. It has around 200 engineers developing solid-state batteries at its Higashi Fuji Technical Center with the aim of commercializing it around 2020. “

    1. stimpy says:

      Funny how this and the Toyota spokesperson list the number of engineers as if that is “proof” of anything.

      1. James P Heartney says:

        It would tell us that Toyota takes this tech seriously enough to throw plenty of resources at it.

        1. Domenick Yoney says:


          200 engineers and a facility with materials to work with ain’t cheap!

          1. stimpacker says:


            I was in there during the 2001 Silicon Valley bust.

            Every startup was in a race to 200 employees and show initial revenue (often by sending “free” eval units to big names).

            Did most of them have real value?
            Having 200 engineers or 200 patents by itself as a figure is meaningless.

            1. Nick says:

              Perhaps not, but it wasn’t cheap for the startups either. 😀

            2. unlucky says:

              It’s happening right now too. There are plenty of companies around that size in SF (SF especially) which have nothing to their name. They pretend they capture a market but don’t even do that because the only reason they have their customers is they haven’t tried to monetize them or they are unmonetizable. Often the latter, because if whatever they were doing was of much value Amazon, Google or Facebook would have jumped in and offered it too.

              A bunch of these companies “come out okay” because someone big wants to acqui-hire their engineers (sometimes foolishly). The founders get some money back and play it as if the company was bought when really the buying company blows up the entire company business completely and just writes down the price as engineer recruiting costs.

              There’s a bunch of stupid stuff going on in tech right now. But stupid stuff is so common in the tech culture that it’s hard to tell if this rash of stupid stuff is significant enough to cause industry-wide problems or just a small increase from the normal levels of idiocy that will go uneventfully.

    2. Someone out there says:

      Why would it take 5 years to put a cell phone battery in a car though? All you need to do is to make more of them. Tesla showed that you can take regular laptop batteries and make a car with them, it shouldn’t be any different from a cell phone.

      1. SJC says:

        The load profile for an EV versus a cellphone is dramatically different. Cellphones are milliwatts, EVs are kilowatts.

      2. Mr. M says:

        Because of testing, …

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Why would it take 5 years to put a cell phone battery in a car though?”

        Because EVs are, or should be, designed around their battery packs. It takes about five years to develop a completely new model of car and get it ready for production. It’s possible to rush that along to some extent, but as we’ve seen with Tesla, rushing development often leads to serious delays at the beginning of production.

        I think Nix had a comment on a similar article just a week ago or less. He pointed out that if someone does develop a commercial solid state battery, we won’t see it appear first in an EV. We’ll see it first in something with a far shorter development time; something like a cell phone or laptop.

        There is a growing “buzz” about solid state batteries, and I think it’s reasonable to assume that we will see a commercial solid state battery within a few years. But in the meantime, let’s remember that breathless announcements about breakthru battery tech almost never lead to commercial products. Like, more than 99% of the time they don’t.

        All announcements of breakthru battery tech should be met with a high degree of skepticism, even when they come from a company with a solid reputation like Toyota.

        “The storage battery is, in my opinion, a catchpenny, a sensation, a mechanism for swindling the public by stock companies. The storage battery is one of those peculiar things which appeals to the imagination, and no more perfect thing could be desired by stock swindlers than that very selfsame thing. … Just as soon as a man gets working on the secondary battery it brings out his latent capacity for lying.” — Thomas Edison, 1883

        “My top advice really for anyone who says they’ve got some breakthrough battery technologies, please send us a sample cell, okay, don’t send us PowerPoint. Just send us one cell that works with all appropriate caveats; that would be great. That… sorts out the nonsense and the claims that aren’t actually true. Talk is super cheap; the battery industry has to have more B.S. in it than any industry I’ve ever encountered. It’s insane.” –Elon Musk, Nov. 5, 2014

        1. James says:

          Excellent choice of quotes, Pushmi!

          Wow! Nothing new under the sun…

        2. Moché says:

          “Because EVs are, or should be, designed around their battery packs. It takes about five years to develop a completely new model of car and get it ready for production.”

          Yeah but assuming a car is already electric, like a Nissan Leaf. It can’t take that many years to just replace the battery and recalibrate the battery management systems.

          1. SJC says:

            Solid state cellphone batteries to not even need to be 0.1C discharge, an EV has to be 5C or more for acceleration. BIG difference in the core design.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Moché said:

            “…assuming a car is already electric, like a Nissan Leaf. It can’t take that many years to just replace the battery and recalibrate the battery management systems.”

            Yeah, but then you wind up with a Leaf; a car that nobody wants to actually buy, but only lease, because the battery life is so iffy.

            Let’s take the best-case scenario: LG Chem and the Chevy Bolt EV. LG publicly announced its so-called “200 mile battery” in July, 2014. LG Chem / LG Electronics worked with GM to produce the Bolt EV; LG was entirely responsible for the battery pack. They started selling the car in December 2016, so that’s a 2-1/2 year development time, assuming that GM didn’t know about the development in advance… which I think is highly unlikely. LG Chem was already providing GM with batteries for the Volt, so I think it’s likely that they had been working with GM on developing the Bolt EV for some time before LG started taking advance orders for the new batteries.

            And that was just for an improved type of li-ion battery. With solid state batteries, they are likely going to need a new shape and size for the battery pack, a different internal structure to support the cells, and quite possibly an entirely new cooling system to deal with (plastic?) solid-state cells instead of pouch cells containing liquid electrolyte.

            Just reprogramming the BMS? No, the change to solid state cells is almost certainly going to result in completely different engineering for the battery pack.

            1. unlucky says:

              LG was not entirely responsible for the pack. As has been mentioned to you several times (with links) it uses a GM proprietary chemistry. It’s probably not so different from other chemistries that no one could make a pack that performs similarly but it wouldn’t be a GM proprietary chemistry if it was not created with GM’s involvement and on GM’s dime.

        3. jimjfox says:

          “Because EVs are, or should be, designed around their battery packs”
          SHOULD BE? regressive thinking if ever I saw it.
          Battery packs should be modular by now, allowing variations of weight, storage capacity and costs to suit the application. That a vehicle must be designed around its battery is very poor engineering.

        4. Nix says:

          That was me posting about new batteries getting put into faster cycle products first, a few years before being released in a new BEV.

          But I have to admit I was just paraphrasing another actual authority who knows what they were talking about, and I simply can’t remember the original source.

          Basically the idea is that you can redesign something fairly disposable (like modern cell phones) to use a new battery fairly quickly. It doesn’t have to be perfect or last forever, because people don’t keep cell phones for 20+ years.

          But at this point with an EV, you have to have the battery cells nailed and tested to last hundreds of thousands of miles before you even build the inverters and chargers and packs. Then once you have those parts tested in mules, then you can finish the design of the rest of the car and start the process from there. For reference, Tesla just changed format while keeping the same chemistry for the 2170 cells, and yet they started cell testing years ago, finished their inverters in early 2016, and pushed the rest of the process at warp speed and are only now getting to market in late 2017.

          If they are talking about commercialization of the first cells by early 2020’s, then use in cars would likely be mid 2020’s. Maybe up to a decade from now.

          But I’ve got my fingers crossed that they can beat that.

          Meanwhile, hopefully the price per kWh for lithium cells will keep improving at 14% per year, like it has been for the last decade, and low prices will make up for worse densities until we can get better densities.

      4. unlucky says:

        I don’t know why anyone is mentioning cell phones. Cars and cell phones have different needs. They don’t use the same chemistries.

        And Teslas haven’t used literal laptop batteries in a long time. Tesla never used commodity cells and their cells for the Model S, X and 3 are their own specific chemistry.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I don’t know exactly what qualifies as “commodity” batteries and what does not, but certainly some were calling the cells Tesla used for the Roadster, “commodity” cells.

          Now, you are quite right to point out that for the Model S and subsequent models, Tesla had Panasonic build non-standard cells to Tesla’s exact specifications.

          1. unlucky says:

            I was careful not to call what Tesla used in the Roadster not commodity cells and I didn’t even say they weren’t laptop batteries.

            Tesla was even more broke back then and with the tiny level of sales they could guarantee (virtually none, even compared to the total eventual cumulative sales of the Roadster which were tiny) I expect they probably did choose from a “menu” of chemistries Panasonic had. But note that this is just an educated guess, I can’t be sure.

            But personally, even if Tesla bought Panasonic cells off a menu of existing options I wouldn’t call them commodity cells because they could not be treated as a commodity. Even off a menu they would have specs they added to the specification (physical, longevity, capacity matching) that would mean they couldn’t just buy up surplus cells from laptop makers to put in packs. But again, that’s just me. Someone else would point out how similar they are to everyone else’s cells and say that makes them commodity. That could be close enough for them, just not for me.

            At one time Musk played it off like they would buy from multiple manufacturers. And while I don’t blame them for saying that because it can help your negotiations with your supplier, the costs to them to do this would have been problematic in their financial position at the time. Qualifying one supplier is expensive but you can’t avoid it. Qualifying a second is a luxury they couldn’t afford at the time. Now they could afford it but honestly their plan to operate closely with Panasonic is probably wiser than second sourcing at their current volumes and maybe even at full Model 3 production rates.

            So, short version: I feel the Roadster cells were probably specified, contracted “laptop cells”. But nothing else since really has been. The number of cells they were able to guarantee to buy for the Model S was so large that there would be no price difference to them whether they used the same cell as anyone else in the world or not. So at that point why compromise? Just tell your supplier exactly what would be best for you and then field their suggestions for what would cut the price. But no need to try to use a “commodity” cell anymore.

            1. Nix says:

              Yes, they tweaked the cells and the case to their needs, but what makes them “Commodity” cells is that they continue to benefit from the same research that is constantly improving laptop cells.

              Tesla has been able to piggy-back their tweaks on top of commodity laptop cells each time the commodity laptop cells were improved. So they don’t have to spend all their own dollars on improving cells that only they use. Instead they leverage money invested by the entire laptop battery industry to improve laptop batteries as the basis of putting their tweaks into a constantly improving stream of commodity batteries.

              Basically Tesla got all that laptop battery improvement done by other companies for free (Tesla didn’t have to sink their own dollars into it). All Tesla had to do was ride the wave and slap their tweaks onto each new generation of better commodity cells.

              It might be more accurate to say “commodity based cells”, but they didn’t. And now the phrase has stuck.

      5. Doggydogworld says:

        “Why would it take 5 years to put a cell phone battery in a car though?”


        Cell phone battery is 0.01 kWh. If you have a miracle battery that’s lighter, thinner and charges in five minutes you can sell your initial production runs at $2000/kWh.

        $20 per battery is nothing for a $799 phone. But $100k++ for a lighter, faster charging Bolt or a Model 3 battery?

        Five years is actually pretty quick to scale from small scale production to cost-reduced giga-production.

        1. arne-nl says:

          That’s the right answer imo.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      If newspaper articles breathlessly touting a breakthrough battery were “proof” that they would be seen on the market within a couple of years, then the secondary (rechargeable) battery would have become a mature tech in the time of Thomas Edison!

      Don’t hold your breath.

  5. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    “sometime in the early 2020’s” is their “aspirational” goal from many years ago. Nothing new really and not worth holding your breath.

  6. LOL says:

    True game changer lies not within battery breakthrough, but rather in high output wireless charging system. Tesla is a fast learner and will use everything the competition applies and advance it even further. Model Y is in the works, even more affordable EV is nearby, people want hogh quality and that’s exactly what Tesla is giving them. In 2019-2020 Toyota and all other gas-guzzler producers will get a better insight and understand that they have one shot only to stay in the game and that is wireless chargers. If they fail to notice that, then their downfall is imminent. People simply want to drive Teslas and that’s not about to change that easily, no matter what announcements are being made by gas engine producers. Even more affordable EV is in the offing …

    1. Mr. M says:

      Maybe tesla produces hogh quality, since they don’t produce high quality products at the momemt. Average quality might fit them more in my eyes.

      I see them more as the company that is doing big cars, with large batteries and good aerodynamics. But with normal quality.

  7. F150 Brian says:

    Would be really nice to have a very small number of standard cell/module formats agreed upon so that we have a hope of performing a cell/module upgrade on a used vehicle as new tech comes available.

    Then we can all just buy what we like now and know that it isn’t totally obsolete long before the rolling chassis is end of life

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      EV makers are not going to standardize their battery packs any more than gasmobile makers standardized their gas motors. That’s the area where the various makers are going to compete most fiercely. EV motors are as alike as peas in a pod, and inverters may soon be equally indistinguishable. But battery packs will remain an area of innovation and competition.

      EV makers are also not going to want you to be able to easily upgrade your battery pack. They will want to sell you a new car, not just a new pack. That’s another reason packs won’t be standardized.

      Hopefully it’s obvious this entire comment is prediction and opinion, not fact.

  8. KenZ says:

    If they’re so confident in this battery, why are they still going ahead with their fuel cell program? Right. And there’s your answer.

    1. Roy_H says:

      The oil industry has the biggest lobby groups in governments around the world. They have convinced most first world governments that fuel cells are the future and these governments are paying auto companies to do fuel cell R&D. Toyota, Honda, M-B and others are not about to turn this free money down, especially if they want to hedge their bets.

      Oil companies do not sell electricity but will be glad to sell H2 at their gas stations.

    2. Mr. M says:

      Fuel Cell for up to 2000km range.
      Battery for up to 600km range.

      To each their own.

      1. James P Heartney says:

        The main reason to have lots of range is for long trips. Of course, it’s impossible to take a long trip in a FCEV here in the U.S. because the only places with fueling stations are California and bits of the east coast. You’d get as far as Nevada and then have to tow your FCEV the rest of the way.

        You can start crowing about fuel cells’ range when there’s a credible H2 network anywhere outside California. (And even there they’re mostly clustered around LA and SF.)

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Any network can built if mass deployment makes sense. Look at Japan, they have network both of DC chargers every few miles and more or less enough hydrogen stations for initial deployment. You still need technology matching ICE cars. Li Ion batteries can do it in some cases but not all.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Mr. M said:

        “Fuel Cell for up to 2000km range.
        “Battery for up to 600km range.

        “To each their own.”

        Hydrogen fuel for a “fool cell” car at 19-25¢ per mile… at the few places you can buy it (see link below). But hey, that may eventually come down to 15¢ or so.

        Electricity for a BEV at 2-5¢ per mile, available almost everywhere people live.

        To each his own.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          “Electricity for a BEV at 2-5¢ per mile, available almost everywhere people live.”

          Usual BS from Pu-pu. It is more like 8 US cnt per mile in Japan at 30 yen/kWh, and NOT available in multi-store buildings where most people live, both because of limited power plans (aka demand charges) and/or no connection at parking space.

          And you conveniently “forgot” that you will need to pay some 100 US cents/per mile just in lease payments for half usable 200+ mile range battery car. Paying 100 to save 8, how smart :/

          Hydrogen is 1000 yen/kg at pump in Japan. Mirai is 67 mpg, so you have 14 cnt/mile. Now look at Toyota’s Fine Comfort Ride at current Tokyo show. 6 kg tank gives you 1000 km in huge car (JP08) using new generation FC. Mirai makes 650 km (JP08) on 5 kg, or 67 mpge EPA. So you have 67 mpge *1000/650*5/6 = 86 mpg in much bigger car. Expect new generation production FC car with 80+ mpg and no big difference in fuel costs from electricity at TEPCO rates, plus full functionality of regular gas car without taking care about charging places.

          1. James P Heartney says:

            “And you conveniently “forgot” that you will need to pay some 100 US cents/per mile just in lease payments for half usable 200+ mile range battery car. Paying 100 to save 8, how smart :/”

            So how much do unsubsidized FCEVs cost? (Hint: way more than BEVs.) Aside from the high cost of the fuel cell stacks, you also have to have nice thick high pressure tanks for your 700 bar H2, which, unlike batteries, can’t be stowed flat in the floor. Of course you still need a big battery to assist with acceleration, and to pick up regen (assuming you don’t want to piss away your H2 supply).

            “Hydrogen is 1000 yen/kg at pump in Japan. Mirai is 67 mpg, so you have 14 cnt/mile.”

            Is this an unsubsidized price? And isn’t this H2 created by steam reforming of natural gas (hello greenhouse gases!) H2 made from electrolysis will be much more expensive, thanks to the inevitable inefficiency of the process, compared to just charging a battery.

            And who is going to pay for the millions of H2 stations (at $2 million or more each) to fuel all the FCEVs? Bear in mind you have to build way more H2 stations than BEVs need superchargers, because with H2 there’s no home refueling.

            About a year ago we had 32 hydrogen stations in the entire U.S. Now we are up to a whopping 40! At that explosive growth rate we should have the whole country covered sometime in the next few centuries.

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              “So how much do unsubsidized FCEVs cost? (Hint: way more than BEVs.) ”

              The same as regular hybrid by 2025 according to Toyota:
              And it isn’t some hype powered stock pumping startup but big, experienced and profitable company that knows perfectly well how to scale production, how much it will cost to the penny, and how to introduce new technology into market.

              Obviously at 3000/year scale and with huge R&D costs it would cost a lot more now. But not at really mass production. It is exactly the same as with BEVs. They all now sell just because of government mandates, incentives, ZEV credits, direct and indirect subsidies, gas tax avoidance and so on, and still have hard time going above 1% in world sales. In both cases it doesn’t mean that costs can’t be reduced at higher scale. There are extensive DOE studies on costs, available to read for free if you are really interested.

              1. Bill Howland says:

                zzzzzzzzzzzzzz I know you’re a big Fuel Cell Fan, and besides Toyota you’ve aparently converted no less than a VP of GM, Mark Reuss.

                I and many like me, happen to favor BEV’s and PHEV’s – so huge numbers of H2 vehicles I don’t greet with your enthusiasm.

                Toyota expects GREAT THINGS from their Mirai, but I predict poor sales in the USA, since:

                1). Electricity is relatively cheap in most parts of the states.

                2). If you love hydrocarbons, or hydrocarbon sourced fuel, which H2 is substantially (from either Coal or Methane), gasoline is an excellent existing substitute with a distribution efficiency nearing perfection.

                H2 has to compete with THAT.

                As far as “Explosive Potential” goes, I think the fact that KOBE steel corporation just admitted fraud in the strength of their Copper, Aluminum, and Steel products, the fact that they are also making TURN-KEY H2 distribution stations (presumably with their own substandard piping), that phrase may become the operative word when seeing if their dispensing stations can withstand day-in, day-out 10,000 PSI Hydrogen.

                Of course, the first good B A N G ! ! !
                will have people scurrying around saying, “We had NO IDEA this could happen!”.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  zzzzzzzzzzzz do you have any current information on the marginal cost of typical Hydrogen dispensory stations?

                  Things like Leasing, Maintenance, Utility cost per GasolineGallonEquivalent (GGE)?

                  I was under the impression that the compressors and refrigeration equipment were all electrically driven, and if that is purchased from commercial utilities during the daytime, it just has to be a major expense.

                  I’m having difficulty finding out the ‘scale’ of the equipment at your typical H2 ‘gas’ station. For instance, what size is the compressor motor, and what size is the refrigeration motor? How much H2 in GGE terms is made per Horsepower-Hour of dispensory overhead?

                  Thanks in adavance.

                  1. Bill Howland says:

                    I did some of my own checking and found that the typical dispensory has 563 Horsepower of compression – for 125 kg/hour of hydrogen.

                    Whether 750, or 900 bar was not specified.
                    It looks as though in the future, 500 and 950 bar ‘cascade’ systems will be used to put some of the gas in at low pressure, thereby limiting the amount of high pressure gas to be compressed and stored.

                    Assuming a fill up is 6 kg, this means such a station running flat out could fill 21 cars/hour or about 1 every 3 minutes – to my mind this is a SMALL station. Refrigeration costs were not mentioned.

                    One discouraging quote for
                    the fuel cell supporters:

                    “…Actual compressor operating costs from early demonstration stations are much higher than the projections in the model…”.

                    All I can say is that ELECTRIC utilities will just absolutely *LOVE* these H2 gas stations.

                  2. Bill Howland says:

                    Humm, INside Evs erased my comment…. DOn’t think I had anything proprietary in it.

                    I was going to say, that zzzzzzzzzz I looked up some info on my own. – namely the typical station will produce 122 kg/hour, using 563 horsepower worth of motors to run the compressors (Refrigeration horsepower wasn’t mentioned).

                    Assuming each car is 5 kg (capacity of Mirai’s 2 tanks), that means 25 cars per hour. This impresses me as a Small station.

                    The article that I read stated “Compression costs have been much higher than we were led to believe based on the Model”.

                    Since they figured $1.50/kg for CSD (Compression-Storage-Dispensing), I’d gather the actual real world figure was actually much higher. They said they are using oil-less compression since it is proving exceedingly difficult to filter out the oil blow-by once it gets in the hydrogen.

                    One thing for sure – will power levels like this required at the corner H2 ‘gas’ station just for the Compression function – ELECTRIC utilities will just LOVE every one constructed.

                    1. Bill Howland says:

                      Saw $3.30/kg for the compression cost of one of the trial stations (again, refrigeration cost was not included).

                    2. Jay Cole says:

                      Sorry Bill,

                      What happened was you posted this:

                      Bill Howland
                      October 29, 2017 at 12:16 am (Edit)
                      er- Horsepower-Hour.

                      …which we thought was a sign to edit your above post for you. But what happened was at the same time is that you ‘replied’ to the comment we were in the process of deleting – so the “nestled” under comment got removed as well because it no longer had a ‘tie’ to the thread.

                      /just weird timing…no censor, (=

                      Here is what the thread used to look like in its entirety if we reverse time stamp it:

                    3. Bill Howland says:

                      Thanks Jay for restoring it.

                      From what you’ve said previously, you are as unenthused about hydrogen vehicles as I am.

                      I don’t get where Mark Reuss is coming from at GM. IF all his new, large EV’s are ‘100% electric hydrogen things’, where other than California and the extreme east coast are they going to sell them?

                      By me, there will HAVE TO be nothing for the longest time since I’m sure no company would want to bother with a dispensory by me.

                      That said, I think H2 vehicles are barely doable for California, and thats with alot of goosing behind it besides that. No one will bother by me.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            zzzzzzzzzzz said:

            “Hydrogen is 1000 yen/kg at pump in Japan.”

            WOW! Shall we re-name you “Mr. Hypocrisy”? You take me to task (and properly so) for making an overly broad claim for electricity prices being low everywhere, then turn around and cite a highly subsidized price for compressed hydrogen fuel, as if that’s an average or even meaningful price!

            Well hey, Tesla gives you electricity for FREE at its Superchargers, so that beats your absurdly overpriced 1000 yen/kg!

            And what’s up with trying to change the subject to the purchase price of the car? WTF does that have to do with the discussion? Nothing; you’re just trolling. Besides, as James P Heartney already pointed out, the price for the Mirai is highly subsidized. Now, if you want to compare prices for any truly mass produced BEV to what the price of the Mirai or any other fool cell car would be if it was not subsidized… that is an argument that you’d lose very swiftly, Mr. Hypocrisy!

            1. zzzzzzzzzz says:


              And as usual, you are unable to say anything meaningful, so just resort to random rants and name calling. Should you go back to kindergarten again?

    3. jimjfox says:

      Eggs? Baskets?

  9. ffbj says:

    1,2,3, a million. Just counting my chickens before they hatch.

  10. Gazz says:

    Five years. Just in time for a 59 year old Toyota executive to retire.

  11. Mr. M says:

    Wadya mean by “with 10-15 charging for a 60 kWh vehicle, then we would be pretty happy with that.”

    I would be happy if the battery lasted between 1000-2000 cycles. Not 10-15.
    Or do you mean 10-15 c-rate?
    Or do you mean 10-15 charging time for a 80% charge?

    1. unlucky says:

      I think it means 10-15 minutes to 80%.

    2. Domenick Yoney says:

      That should read 10-15 minutes. Apologies for that.

      1. jimjfox says:

        Don’t apologise- it was obvious to me and most others I suspect…

  12. Daniel Studer says:

    I drive an EV – EVs don’t need to be better in any way, they are good enough, very good already today. They just need to become cheaper, and everyone will love them. So who needs a better battery…

    1. Mr. M says:

      Right as you can see in norway. As sonn as EVs get cheapter than the according ICE you easily get to 40% market share…

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “I drive an EV – EVs don’t need to be better in any way, they are good enough, very good already today.”

      Yeah, they are good enough to capture up to a 2% market share, unless extreme government incentives are involved to put a finger on the scales. Most of us EV advocates are not at all satisfied with such a small market share, and most countries are not going to tax gasmobiles at 100% like Norway does. Heck, even in Norway, gasmobiles still outsell PEVs.

      “They just need to become cheaper, and everyone will love them. So who needs a better battery…”

      Everyone who would like to see gasmobiles become obsolete, is who. We need a battery which can be recharged in 10 minutes or less. Current batteries are too limited for BEVs to fully compete with gasmobiles.

      It’s great that so many EV drivers are willing to put up with waiting for 20-45 minutes when they need an en-route recharge, but… Reality check time: The average first-world driver simply isn’t going to put up with that.

      1. EVShopper says:

        When I talk to friends and family about EVs, the thing they balk most at is the up front cost.

        Get a 200+ mile range EV for $20k (without incentives) and you’ll see huge adoption.

      2. darth says:

        Disagree for several reasons:

        First, EVs are charged at home overnight 90% of the time or more.

        Long range EVs with 300+ mile range will need even less charging than todays. 4 hours of driving at 70mph is 280 miles. Since most people need to eat and perform other functions at least this often, I don’t see a lot of resistance for 30 minute charge time.

        Also the EV gets 2/3 of the charge in the first 15 minutes anyway, and in many cases except for very long road trips that will be enough.

        Finally, the next generation of drivers who grow up charging EVs will not be resistant at all, because charging will be normal for them.

  13. James says:

    I hate to state ti obvious, but it hasn’t been said so far ( 3:05PM PST ) .

    If Toyota has the lead on the solid state battery yet claims it has not given up on Fuel Cells – it seems they aren’t very far along in perfecting the SS battery at all.

    Perhaps hedging their bets, but once the SS battery is market-ready, why the hell would anybody want to pursue Fool Cells?

    Inherent roadblocks to mass efficacy are legion with fool cells. Seems obvious SS is the faster and better path in so many ways.


    “With so many engineers involved with the project, and its highlighting of the technology by an upper-level executive, though, it’s hard to accuse the company of dragging its heels in this area, while mainly focusing on fuel cell powered EVs. Leroy made it clear that the company is pursuing both technologies. After discussing the solid-state battery effort he went on to say, “That doesn’t mean we are moving away from fuel cells.”-“

    1. EVShopper says:

      They’ve invested too much in FCEV tech to back out now and save face.

  14. leafowner says:

    Battery innovation will come. I’ll be surprised if it comes from Toyota as this is not a core strength of theirs…..Look for LG, Panasonic or one of the Chinese makers to make the next leap.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Toyota is the leader in new generation battery research. Don’t confuse it with battery production.

  15. Bill Howland says:

    I agree that while Toyota is an impressive company with real accomplishments, they seem to be ‘ME TOO’ as far as ev’s are concerned, and pushing the envelope as to large battery value is not amoungst their prime concerns.

    The spokesman (with an extremely heavy accent making him difficult to understand), repeated the chart that all LARGE MAINSTREAM VEHICLES will be hydrogen, and pure EV’s/Phev’s will be relegated to the puddle jumpers.

    Knock GM all you want but at least the BOLT (pure) ev has decent interior room, and some people classify the vehicle as a ‘MID-SIZE’.

    But I’m skeptical of GM because of comments VP Mike Reuss has said that ‘to make a cheaper battery, all you have to do is make it smaller’, and, that GM’s LARGE ELECTRIFIED vehicles to be released in the next several years will be 100% electric and fueled 100% by a 10,000 PSI Hydrogen Hose.

    So GM apparently is following Toyota’s lead in that regard, seeing as Toyota had recently stated that the ‘ELECTRIC’ MIRAI was MORE IMPORTANT than the PRIUS.

    From sales figures, and obvious trouble building dispenseries in California, I suspect that HYDROGEN vehicles will be far, far less popular than either TOYOTA, or GM expect.

    BUT automakers always non-sensically copy each others’ horrendous ideas. And they only have to pay 50-100 ‘Consultants’ to tell them to do it!

    I just hope GM doesn’t release vehicles that no one wants, (like the CT6 PHEV – in my opinion GM’s biggest JOKE ev yet), in places where most of the country cannot buy them (the nearest CT6 phev dealer to me is 280 miles away in michigan – supposedly starting sales in 2 months), and then proclaim “YOU SEE!!! NOBODY WANTS EV’S since we make them but no one is buying them!”

    1. Gasper Gartner says:

      Is this really so hard to grasp?

      Toyota was developing battery tech for years for their hybrids, now that they came so far and batteries are looking more and more promising, they are considering for using them in EVs.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        “Is it so difficult to grasp?”

        Its harder than you think – since this is one speech added on to all the other Toyota Speeches I’ve seen. And then anticipating companies such as GM’s reaction.

  16. Mitz says:

    Every 2 weeks this is in news that it will be released in 5 years, Baaaaah!

  17. john Doe says:

    All the largest battery producers are working on solid state batteries.
    They will be smaller due to no electrolyte and so on.
    You can buy test cells of solid state batteries now. The main problem is how to package, and how to automate that process.
    The cells we can buy at the university is singe layer cells. That is of no use in the real world.
    Thermal properties and charging speed will also change when cells are stacked.
    Some solid state batteries are made to be cheap while others are made to be able to store as much energy as possible (not cheap). Others are just focusing on safety for military and aircraft use.
    The number of engineers are usualla a measurement on how much focus they have on the development. Basic science cost a lot.
    The number of hardware patents is a measure of how well the research is going (in general).
    Companies like IBM does a lot of research, and have a number of hardware patents. Just like Canon, Ricoh, Samsung, HP (used to), AT&T (used to), Nokia (a lot of the technology used in all phones comes from them). While some companies just patent design, software and so on.
    When Toyota, LG, Samsung and others work on solid state batteries, it may pay off later.
    Some for battery sales, and some in royalties when others license their technology.
    Most of the solid state batteries are expected to come earliest 2019, but most likely 2020-2025.
    Price is another matter. Depends on who comes first, and what technology they focus on.
    In the near future, I guess customers can choose which battery they like, just like in an ICE car where they can choose between engines.

  18. Nix says:

    I am very hopeful about this, and I sure want it to come true. But I can’t silence the little voice in the back of my head that keeps reminding me that this is exactly how they used fuel cells to justify delaying EV mandates.

    It is the same “Just wait, we’ll have this great tech much better than current EV’s 5-10 years from now” that they said about fuel cells.

    I really hope this isn’t just a delay tactic. Because Toyota (through their industry lobbyists) are currently fighting against EV mandates, CAFE fleet regulations, and the Mass. mandate that the EPA regulate greenhouse gasses.

    I want to trust them. I’m just having a hard time with it. Somebody talk me down? Just avoid bringing up their ugly slow short range PHEV, that’s not gonna help even if it is selling well.

  19. SJC says:

    Solid state lithium ion are safer and may not require as much active thermal management, but they have to be cost effective and source the large current required for EVs.

Leave a Reply