Meh... their cell phones don't really do anything worth "releasing." The difference between their cell service and ours is that they can change their network infastructure much faster than we can in the US because the coverage area is tiny and there is much less capitol invested in the network. If our population density was as high as theirs infastructure changes would be much faster, but the fact is we are spread out.

This correlates very well to the hydrogen vehicle argument because the limiting factor is range. In order to drive a hydrogen vehicle in a given area you need x number of hydrogen stations per square kilometer. Consider that the United States has nearly 10 Million square kilometers of land and Japan has 378 thousand, or roughly 3%. Taking population into account, Japan has 337 people per square kilometer, and the US only has 32 in the same area. Space is great, but it is not conducive to change. When infastructure is based on a cost per area, it costs Americans roughly 10x as much to change. When you consider that electricity is already distributed to every home in the US it seems kindof silly to dismiss plug-in vehicles in favor of something that represents a radical change to the consumer.

Hydrogen may be better, it may be worse. I think we should continue to pursue all options in search of the best solutions, but I think Toyota is being a little unrealistic if they think plug-ins don't have a place in the market.

↓↑report

The "connection" is that those proprietary cell phones aren't selling outside of Japan, as they don't work there, and they aren't even selling that well in Japan, as travellers can't use them outside of Japan! Now, if the rest of the world were updated to those proprietary standards, it would help the Japanese cell phone companies, but the rest of the world isn't interested in an expensive upgrade to replace the "works well enough" system they now have, or paying royalties to those Japanese companies.

Similarly, H2FC cars, even if they could be made affordable, wouldn't sell outside of a few areas where H2 is available, and wouldn't even sell very well where H2 was available, as the drivers couldn't take them out of range of the nearest H2 station! On the other hand, electricity is available everywhere, and fuel for "range extender" engines is also widely available.

So, if Toyota doesn't compete in the plug-in market, they could find themselves stuck in a very limited market - just like those Japanese cell phone makers.

↓↑report

Thanks, Matt and Chris. I can see the point now. Even if hydrogen is better - and we don't know that it is - there would be no real incentive to create an expensive hydrogen fuel infrastructure which may only be available in certain areas, when the electrical distribution infrastructure is already available just about everywhere and can work reasonably well for electric cars as it is.

↓↑report

Hydrogen Fuel Cells are an electrochemical battery, just like the Lithium batteries in the Tesla or the Nickel batteries in your Prius. The greatest potential advantage that H2 has over these batteries is weight. Hydrogen is incredibly light for its available energy density. (They used to put Hydrogen in blimps to make them float.) Now consider that the primary design obstacle facing automotive technology is weight reduction. (Some cars weigh almost double what the same model did 20-30 years ago.)

Right now the limiting factor for H2 is storage capacity onboard a car but they are working on it. (Sounds like a similar obstacle conventional batteries face, no?) GM's H2FC "Project Driveway" compact SUV's have nearly the range of a Tesla and they can "recharge" in 10 minutes. That's right, you recharge an H2 car because you replenish the supply of potential electric energy just like recharging a battery does. Refueling a H2FC is an efficient and inexpensive battery swap that everybody is getting themselves excited about as the technology that will save electric cars. (I replace batteries in the kids toys all the time, it's not earth shattering tech and comes with some severe limitations.) Fuel Cells are electrochemical batteries with external storage that can easily be refreshed.

H2FC and batteries are bound to progress at a pace similar to conventional batteries and it would be foolish to discount Fuel Cells as worthless. The World's space programs all use exotic fuel cells for shorter duration flight (days to weeks) because the energy density it offers is orders of magnitude beyond the most advanced conventional batteries. (Before you bash NASA I'd like you to point to where you have parked your car on the moon.) Both technologies hold a promising solution to our future needs and both are still in their infancy of development. To discount fuel cells or conventional batteries at this point in their young lives is a very vain and unwise move.

↓↑report

Jay: You clearly have zero clue of the technologies involved or you never would have posted. Fuel cells are not batteries at all and work on an entirely different principle. Batteries store energy and discharge it over time before needing to enter a recharge phase to gain more energy. They're storage. Fuel cells vehicles will still have a fuel tank, like cars today. That's the storage in a fuel cell vehicle. The cell converts fuel to power like an ICE and ultimately is analogous to an on-board petrol refinery.

Moreover your claims about H2 having a respectable energy density are moronic. Show me where this complete crap is claimed because I would bet money you just pulled that out of your ass because you "heard it somewhere". H2 has one hydrogen-hydrogen bond to break versus gas with multitudes of hydrogen carbon bonds. H2 is also a gas and so you have to hugely cool or pressurize it to even get it close to the energy density of gas. Think about it this way, take a long hydrocarbon chain and then pack them as tightly together as you can. This is pretty close to what liquid gas looks like. Then do the same with little H2 molecules. You'll get more molecules in, but way less bonds between them and that's where the energy comes from. But you clearly didn't know that because you're an eco warrior without the sense to study basic chemistry before posting about something you know nothing about.

God, if people as a group weren't so damn stupid, maybe you'd find yourself in the company of someone willing to shake you out of your coma of misinformation, you mindless hippie.

Basically Bill is right because battery tech is improving WAY too slowly. Fuel cell tech isn't doing much better, but it avoids recharge times and it a step. Personally, I think someone should try to find a smaller alternative to the Vanadium oxide battery cell and then "fueling stations" can swap the electron poor ions for rich ones, which is basically an instant recharge. Voila, infrastructure, storage handled and no need for a fuel cell.

↓↑report

A "Range Extended Electric Vehicle" like the GM Volt IS a "Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle", just a different design from the PHEV that Toyota has proposed. A PHEV, regardless of design, replaces part of the energy from gasoline with energy from the electric outlet, thereby reducing gasoline consumption. Whether that reduction in gasoline consumption is worth the extra cost is highly debated, and depends a lot on driving habits, battery capacity, and cost.

While the "range extender" is just dead weight when the PHEV is operating in EV mode, the battery does play a major role in improving overall efficiency when the range extender is running, just like it does for other hybrid designs, it supplements the IC engine power when needed and stores surplus power, thus allowing the IC engine to run at the optimum speed and power output to maximize efficiency most of the time.

As for making H2 using nuclear derived electricity, I must point out that the combined process of electolysis, compression for H2 storage and H2 fuel cells is only 24% efficient. The combined efficiency of charger and batteries is 85% efficient - more than 3x better efficient than the H2 route! Do you really want 3x more nuclear plants using 3x more uranium (from strip mines) and producing 3x more nuclear waste? At more than 3x the cost? Better to go the plug-in route instead.

By the way, it isn't a good idea to electrolyze salt water, as it produces sodium hypochlorite - unless you really want to produce toxic and corrosive chlorine bleach for some reason.

↓↑report

There had been some proposals to use H2 fuel cells for "auxiliary power", thereby taking the load off the IC engine and saving petrol. BMW was rumored to be considering that approach.

The down side is that due to the bulky nature of H2 gas and the small fuel cell, the car would have a limited H2 supply and would end up relying mostly on the petrol engine for motive power. It could complicate operation, as both "tanks" would need to be refilled, unless it was designed to run on petrol only when needed.

The purchase cost would still be much higher than a plug-in electric hybrid design, and H2 fuel would still cost several times more than the equivalent amount of electricity, and H2 fuel may even cost more than petrol, negating any potential cost savings

↓↑report

Nope.

Even a small stack is just too expensive for a mass-market vehicle.

Range-extended BEVs like the Volt use a cheap (compared to adding more battery capacity) ICE generator.

↓↑report

Since the gas ICE is available to assist for peak power, you only need 25kW fuel cell stack. If the mass production cost is $200/kW, you are looking at $5k. The cost is on per or better than lithium considering the Hymotion L5 costs $10k. Range of the hydrogen can be easily extended by storing more in the tank, giving more bang for the range.

Hydrogen-gasoline-electric hybrid make more sense than plug-in hybrid with very expensive lithium battery pack.

↓↑report

Turbines in real-world applications have not been noted for their efficiency compared to piston engines.

I'd want to see an independent 3rd party confirm claims that "micro"-turbines are more fuel efficient in an actual vehicle (not just on the lab bench)

↓↑report