Toyota plans production hydrogen car by 2015
Click above for a gallery of the Toyota FCHV
Toyota's biggest contribution thur far to the eco-friendly car world would undoubtedly be its hybrid technology, which graces over a million driveways all around the world in cars such as the Prius, the Camry Hybrid and the Highlander Hybrid. Automakers like Nissan even license the technology from Toyota, making the Hybrid Synergy Drive's impact on the marketplace extremely far reaching. But it's not the only gas-saving technology that the Japanese automaker has been working on. Just a few months ago, we slid behind the wheel of a Toyota SUV that was powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, and the automaker is now saying that it plans to have a hydrogen-powered vehicle in production by 2015.
Don't expect Toyota to give up on hybrids altogether. Masatami Takimoto, an executive VP at Toyota, suggests that the automaker is dividing its resources into three categories: fully electric city cars, plug-ins and hybrids, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Gallery: First Drive: Toyota FCHV
[Source: NY Times via World Car Fans]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
jharlan 12:12PM (1/15/2009)
Lack of infrastructure is going to be a real problem for all but the most urban areas. A hydrogen hybrid electric could make some sense if h2 was only used for range extension and the majority of the time the car could run on battery( or EEstor).
Reply
Chris M 5:49PM (1/15/2009)
That is an approach considered by GM, Ford, and Toyota, as "electric fuel" costs a lot less than H2 fuel. Do all the local driving on cheap electricity, save the expensive fuel for those rare long trips.
The problems with using H2 fuel cells as a range extender include the extravagantly high cost of fuel cells, the high cost and the space taken up by H2 storage tanks, and the annoying tendency of tiny H2 molecules to leak out of any storage tank. It wouldn't do as a range extender if it cost a half million dollars and the tank winds up empty after a month, right when you need it.
Tim 11:00AM (1/15/2009)
Quick, let me see if I can get H2 out of my wall socket...
NOPE!
Well, I guess I’ll buy an electric car which is 4X MORE efficient.
However, H2 MAY make sense as a "battery" in load leveling AT the point of generation IF we can improve electrolysis efficiency and IF EEStor doesn't work and IF it makes more sence than ANY other form of electron storage.
I repeat... MAY make sense.
Reply
DasBoese 12:26PM (1/15/2009)
Sorry to disappoint you.
The most efficient form of electric storage we have right now is -believe it or not- hydroelectric pump storage. A well-designed pumped storage plant can be up to 85% efficient, something that electrolysis/fuel cell processes can't ever hope to reach.
Furthermore, right now the oldest pumped storage plants in my country are pushing 50 years of continuous service, and they'll probably last another 50 with only basic maintenance.
Even the most durable fuel cells won't last half that long without serious performance degradation. Not to mention generator-turbines are a lot cheaper than fuel cells.
The best use for hyrogen is as rocket fuel, and for nuclear fusion.
Chris M 5:41PM (1/15/2009)
Hmm, the combination of charger and battery is about 85% efficient, also. But the combination of electrolysis and PEM fuel cell is at best 30% efficient - if you don't need to waste energy compressing or liquifying that H2 for storage.
So, yes, plug-ins are a lot more efficient than any H2 car. Cost less, too.
paulwesterberg 5:41PM (1/15/2009)
DasBoese is correct that hydrogen is a horribly inefficient energy storage mechanism. And Hydro pumping is probably one of the most efficient ways of storing a large amount of energy.
But there are a number of energy storage mechanisms that exceed 85% efficiency:
90-95% chemical batteries
97-98% ultra capacitors
90% flywheel
What we use for transportation in the future depends upon energy/weight ratio, energy/volume ratio, efficiency, cost, refueling time, lifespan, and distribution infrastructure + efficiency.
Hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism when coupled with a carbon fiber tank might have a good energy/weight ratio and long lifespan(tank), but it has very poor efficiency, high cost(fuel cell) and average energy/volume, fast refueling. It has zero existing infrastructure and small molecules tend to leak out of containers so there will be some waste during distribution. Cost per kg is relatively high.
Electricity can be stored by chemical batteries at high energy density and high efficiency, but lifespan, cost are still somewhat of an issue. Efficient distribution already exists and unit cost is very reasonable - even for wind based power.
Use of Ultra capacitors for some or all of a battery pack may improve lifespan.
Carney 12:32PM (1/15/2009)
Hydrogen is NEVER going to be a practical, viable vehicle fuel, whether for fuel cells or internal combustion engines.
The only people who say otherwise are:
1.) Those who now or in the future take money from oil, especially the OPEC cartel, such as former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, now a registered agent of the Saudi government;
2.) Those whose rice bowl depends on hydrogen research;
3.) Those who have been fooled by those in 1 or 2.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Reply
noz 12:38PM (1/15/2009)
That's the dumbest thing I've heard.
Oil companies considering hydrogen. Seems like you've been duped by either Exxonmobil or Shell for thinking otherwise...as if OPEC works in a vacuum from the rest of the oil firms. How gullible can you be?
Carney 4:46PM (1/15/2009)
As is often the case, noz, your point is unclear.
My point was, since hydrogen is no actual threat to oil, being permanently economically and physically impractical, it's a useful mirage to delay and distract reformers who want to get us all off oil. It's a fake, a non-solution, and the clearest sign of that is that its prime proponent is now revealed as a Saudi stooge.
I guarantee you that nobody who pushes for a flex fuel mandate and a transition to an alcohol economy is going to get a cushy sinecure with the Saudis or any other petro-tyranny, unless he publicly renounces his former support for alcohol.
noz 5:16PM (1/15/2009)
CARNEY:
You seem to be living in this world of no-change. It's a very strange world where everything stays the same.
Calling people fake reformers for trying to get us off the poison we are on precisely shows where your allegiance is.
Let's hope people can see beyond your eyeglasses and move on. We were permanently planted on planet earth too once. I wonder...do you gaze at the stars and still think the earth is flat?
It's too bad you don't have a real grasp of appreciation for the technologies that allowed us to leave the "permanent" obstacles...of which you now enjoy everyday.
Carney 10:34AM (1/16/2009)
Far from "no change", as you allege, noz, I favor getting us off oil, which harms our economy, our environment, and our national security. Switching to an alcohol economy would represent an ENORMOUS change, and one for the better.
Hundreds of billions a year would be diverted away from the Iranian nuclear program, Saudi-funded madrassas brainwashing boys into becoming hate-filled terror supporters, Hugo Chavez and his narco-Marxist puppets and clones in Latin America, and Russian neo-Soviet oppression and international mischief, not to mention a list of terrorist groups as long as your arm. That money would flow instead to peaceful farmers around the world, especially in Africa, Latin America, and South and Southeast Asia who desperately need it. The petro-tyrannies, no longer able to buy off and stifle their peoples' aspirations with petro-dollars, will have to open up their economic and political systems as the Soviet Union did in the late 80s when the price of oil was low (as it would be when competing worldwide with cheap alcohol). The world will be a much better place.
The economic and environmental benefits would also be enormous.
I'm not calling people fake reformers for trying to get us off oil. I'm calling a fake reform a fake reform if it's fake - that is, impossible and pushed by oil cartel shills like Spencer Abraham. What I support are real reform and real change.
As for gazing at the stars, I'm a huge supporter of manned space exploration and want humanity to colonize, settle, and terraform Mars.
noz 1:22PM (1/16/2009)
CARNEY:
You speak of terraforming on Mars but can't believe hydrogen is possible.
I work on the MSL project (Mars Science Lab). I know what issues we have on it and why it has been delayed for 2 years now.
You mentality is warped beyond belief. It seems as though you're one of those people who believe in God but don't believe in UFOs.
Your above comment on terraforming shot you in the foot. If you think hydrogen use is fantasy, let me just say that having had the chance to work on the NASA probes and knowing what I know about what it takes to get them up there and how difficult it is, terraforming is a bigger fantasy.
Since you can't distinguish between fantasies and have your bearings all screwed up, there is no point in debating the points of hydrogen with because of your disorientation.
And finally, you blame the oil cartels, the foreigners. Look to your own country and your own lifestyle and way of life for screwing up the world...not them. You're as much if not more of a part of it as anyone else. Don't be so delusional and pompous to think otherwise.
Carney 3:04PM (1/16/2009)
noz, because I refused to be fooled by the Hydrogen Hoax, you constantly accused me of being a naysayer who refuses to think big and embrace change and challenge.
When I sought to prove otherwise by responding with the biggest, most long term, most profound challenge and change I could think of that I support, you then jeer at it as impossible. Your bait and switch is tiresome.
Terraforming is most likely a project, given its size and scope, for a future generation, but nothing about the prospect is impossible or violates the laws of physics and chemistry.
By contrast, you can't make hydrogen NOT leak through steel, NOT be the most inefficient substance in the universe to liquify, NOT be the most difficult gas to contain and compress. You can't make hydrogen be anything other than a carrier rather than a source of energy, since it's not available in free molecular form on Earth or any terrestrial-style planet. These are facts that will never ever go away, no matter how long you wait or how much good taxpayer money you throw after bad.
If indeed you have do indeed work on technical matters for NASA and have been snookered by the hydrogen charlatans, I greatly fear for the future of the space program.
Have you actually READ any of the articles I have been urging you to check out, like a proper, curious scientist eager to find out if his thesis is flawed, or have you stubbornly resisted like a religious zealot or intellectually lazy fanboy?
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
noz 12:36PM (1/15/2009)
The biggest problem to hydrogen isn't lack of infrastructure, or efficiency...it's lack of vision.
Hydrogen and electricity are going to be the future. There is no other fuel that can do what fossil fuels can do other than hydrogen...and perhaps ammonia.
When it comes to big transport, that is the only future choice frankly. And because it is renewable over and over again, there is no fuel better suited. And it can be manufactured from any energy source...not just fossil fuels.
This concept is too much into its infancy to be appreciated right now. And it'll be hit with alot of skeptics and naysayers just like everything else that changed the way we live today.
The problem is that when no one wants to think outside the box or compares a new technology to a current one...particularly one with an infrastructure. peoples' minds clam up and can't see beyond the pump.
Reply
DasBoese 1:33PM (1/15/2009)
Sorry, no.
Lack of vision was never the problem that hydrogen had. The problem that it has are the laws of physics and the laws of economics.
There are a LOT of renewable fuels that can do what fossil fuels do, ALL of them FAR cheaper and more practical than hydrogen could ever hope to be. Nobody knows what the change to hydrogen will look like, who'll pay for it and when it's going t happen. The change to sustainable, renewable biofuels is happening RIGHT NOW.
The concept of a hydrogen economy isn't "in its infancy", it has been studied for decades, and all we found out is that it's no damn good!
The issue isn't comparing a future technology with a current one, it's comparing it with other future technology.
In that regard hydrogen is rock bottom on the list of viable technologies capable of replacing fossil fuels.
You're a good example of how "hydrogen economy" has ceased being science and become a religious belief.
noz 1:47PM (1/15/2009)
Sorry yes.
Name a few renewable fuels that are sustainable harvest-wise, renewable with the better environmental gentility than Hydrogen?
Which other fuel can you name that can be processed regardless of the energy source?
Hydrogen being at the rock bottom is utter nonsense. It has three times the energy out of fossil fuels. It is the most renewable, and also offers the cleanest solution.
If I'm an example of science becoming religion, you're an example going of moving forward to back to the stone age.
You're very naive if you think scientists and engineers who work in developing hydrogen technology are fanatics and religious in their belief. It's crap mentality like that which has prevented us from moving forward in many areas...not just hydrogen. The scientists I work with at least know full well of the barriers and hurdles we need to cross.
Let me ask you..how many other barriers and hurdles of technology that weren't in their "infancy" as you say and where "studied for decades, and all we found out is that it's no damn good!" happen to be used today?
Closed-mindedness is extremely painful to listen to and watch. Indeed...lack of vision is the biggest hurdle.
Carney 3:12PM (1/15/2009)
You do realize that a "everybody dismisses us visionaries" meme helps cranks and nutcases ignore all objections to their mad schemes too, right? The guy with the hand drawn perpetual motion machine talks the same way.
I appreciate that idealism actually and in a way I share it because I want to transform the world economic base from being on petroleum to being on alcohol.
The crushing advantage I have is that my preferred solution is ready now, affordable, and practical.
DasBoese 3:12PM (1/15/2009)
That's so incoherent I don't even know what...
Sorry but I'm not going to debate with with you, your "questions" are phrased in such vague and general terms that you can redefine them everytime to support your viewpoint. You're not even interested in a serious discussion, or in learning anything new. You want to "win".
Congratulations. In fact, you've already "won" because I refused to play by your rules.
The Creationists would be proud of you.
Now go ahead and call me things.
noz 4:24PM (1/15/2009)
You're free to believe what you believe...unfortunately.
Don't make excuses regarding debating. If you can't, say you can't. No one has won. This isn't a competition you egotist.
noz 4:26PM (1/15/2009)
@CARNEY:
Crushing advantages of current products is always the case. If it wasn't for those "visionaries" you mock so much and people who took a chance, you would, for example, still have a cell phone the size of your head stuck to you ear."
Thank God for those "stupid visionaries" huh?