Toyota To Start Selling Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Car In 2015
Toyota is sticking to its timetable of selling a fuel-cell sedan in three years, said Justin Ward, advanced powertrain program manager at the Toyota Technical Center in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Initially, it likely will be sold in California, which plans to have 68 hydrogen fueling stations by the end of 2015, Ward said at the Center for Automotive Research Management Briefing Seminars. Michigan has not made a similar commitment.
Ward said the fuel-cell car will be available for both retail and commercial sale.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2013 Liberaland
By: William
retired military , former cop, lifelong gym rat and doting grandfather alive and living in Maine
31 responses to Toyota To Start Selling Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Car In 2015
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Benner March 16th, 2015 at 15:50
So here we are in 2015 and the Toytota FCV (Mirai) only gets a 60MPG efficiency rating. Like I have been saying all along. FC vehicles are not worth it.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/15/toyota-mirai-test-drive-hydrogen-fuel-cell.aspx
Also – if you think reducing your CO2 footprint is worth it – think again. All hydrogen for FC vehicles is produced from natural gas (CH4). Are those of you who understand chemistry wonder where the Carbon goes when they remove the four Hydogens?
“Fossil fuel reforming does not eliminate carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming#Disadvantages_of_reforming_for_supplying_fuel_cells
arc99 March 16th, 2015 at 16:09
Natural gas reforming is currently the cheapest (and consequently the most widely used) but certainly not the only method of producing hydrogen. Other methods are being researched. Here in California, there is a standard requiring a specific amount of the hydrogen produced here to come from renewable sources.
I think it is rather premature to declare that fuel cell vehicles are not worth it. That would be like saying in 1966 that color television is not worth it because only the rich can afford one.
Benner March 16th, 2015 at 17:10
I’m speaking of genaral worth towards curbing the effects of climate change.
What renewable would have an impact on increasing the overall efficiency of the FCV?
There has been FC buses running here where I am for more about 15 years and with mixed reviews they are being sold off due to operating costs. I can’t see how taking a gas that is usable in its native form and stripping off the hydrogen to be used instead is more efficnet than using the CH4 directly.
Obewon March 16th, 2015 at 19:42
Many NYC Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses work very well and are everywhere. Remember? Go back and reread your notes & amaze yourself.
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 19:14
I am aware of the many ways to make hydrogen and never once questioned that.
All those methods of producing hydrgen are not efficient nor cost effective and do nothing to up the dismal 60mpg rating of the Maria.
Overall efficiency is the point I’m making and have always been making. The responses to my posts indicate that this point continues to elude.
mea_mark March 17th, 2015 at 19:42
What about the fact that these cars pollute the air less where the people live and drive, in the big cities. Regardless of the current efficiency ratios at producing hydrogen to other fuel sources, the amount of pollution that goes into the air where the car is driven is less. Once these cars are out there and people are demanding fuel for them, hopefully innovation and development of new technologies will drive down the cost of making hydrogen and make it cleaner to produce. Solar power is very clean, lets figure out a better way to make hydrogen using solar energy.
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 20:16
The current method of obtaining hydrogen is to get it from natural gas but the chemical formula for that is CH4. In the process you get the four Hydrogens (H4) but you dump the Carbon (C) into the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide. So the bottom line is you have not reduced your carbon pullution foot print one bit. The process of splitting methane to get the hydrogen also takes a lot energy which must also be accounted for. This energy can also add CO2 and it also reduces the efficiency of energy use.
It would be more efficient to use the natural gas directly instead of needing more energy to conver it.
Solar panels would great but they can not produce enough as is evidenced by Germany firing up new coal power plants to replace their nuke plants.
Please remember mea_mark – it’s not about costs when I talk about efficiency. I am speaking about how much of the maximum potential energy in a given source is actually used compared to how much is wasted in conversion plus the overall inefficiency of the final system that uses the fuel.
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 19:23
And what’s with the ad hominem argument right out of the gate? Are you that weak at debate?
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 19:37
Here is an example of the BS that people tend to glom onto to when they are illiterate in basic science. They do not understand what they are reading and can not spot the obvious flaws in the articles.
You posted …
2. British Columbia researchers wanted to find a better (Cheaper) way to make coatings that can be painted onto surfaces to conduct electricity or convert electricity into hydrogen fuels. http://www.rdmag.com/videos/20…”
… yet you don’t see the problem with the that statement Obewon. You do not know that electricity can not be converted to hydrogen. And you want to present yourself as credible?
Obewon March 17th, 2015 at 20:23
Benner you know peer-reviewed research is far better & is demonstrable vs your ‘super-secret, not to be discussed’ fantasy bullshit, right?
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 21:35
?? I am only debating the efficiancy of FC cars. I have no idea what you are doing at this point. What is this super secret stuff you keep babbling about?
Michael Stone March 18th, 2015 at 21:49
You are correct that producing hydrogen gas by the use of fossil fuels is not good. If we are to go to hydrogen powered vehicles, and 68 mpg is not half bad, then we must produce the hydrogen with clean energy and there are several different methods to do that and if done on a large scale it would be affordable.
Ferrosilicon is a method of producing hydrogen gas and is used by the military to quickly produce hydrogen for balloons. The chemical reaction uses sodium hydroxide, ferrosilicon, and water. The generator is small enough to fit a truck and requires only a small amount of electric power, the materials are stable and not combustible, and they do not generate hydrogen until mixed.[31] The method has been in use since World War I. A heavy steel pressure vessel is filled with sodium hydroxide and ferrosilicon, closed, and a controlled amount of water is added; the dissolving of the hydroxide heats the mixture to about 200 °F and starts the reaction; sodium silicate, hydrogen and steam are produced.[
Biological hydrogen can be produced in an algae bioreactor. In the late 1990s it was discovered that if the algae are deprived of sulfur it will switch from the production of oxygen, i.e. normal photosynthesis, to the production of hydrogen. It seems that the production is now economically feasible by surpassing the 7–10 percent energy efficiency (the conversion of sunlight into hydrogen) barrier with a hydrogen production rate of 10-12 ml per liter culture per hour
The conversion of solar energy to hydrogen by means of water splitting process is one of the most interesting ways to achieve clean and renewable energy systems. However if this process is assisted by photocatalysts suspended directly in water instead of using photovoltaic and an electrolytic system the reaction is in just one step, it can be made more efficient
Benner March 19th, 2015 at 17:45
The efficiency rating is actually 60mpg equivalent rating – it could have been a typo.
Here is an exerpt from the linked article in my original post.
“No official figures are available, but the Mirai is expected to get close to 60 mpg-equivalent. That’s not much better than the Toyota Prius gasoline-electric hybrid, and significantly less than the Prius plug-inhybrid’s 95 MPGe. And it really pales in comparison to battery EVs like the Nissan Leaf andBMW i3, which are in the 125 MPGe range.”
I stated 60mpg but as you can see they say “close to 60 mpg”, which means it could very likely be slighly less.
Poor efficiency and power density (how much space a specific amout of power takes up) are the main reson many of these green techs go nowhere. It’s really hard to beat hydrocarbon fuels, espceially in their natural state is a liquid.
I wanted to go solar panels once and since I have skills I could do it for even less than most. During my planning I discovered the very low power density of solar panels – which killed the plan. I then started to research further to see what I was missing when I see so many touting the virues. I found it’s not some conspiracy theory by oil giants as many might claim, but rather real science based shortcoming.
Benner March 19th, 2015 at 18:57
The production of hydrogen is not an issue as there are many ways to do it. The issue is the overall production costs and the efficient use of energy and space along with the harmful waste products that might need to be dealt with. The production of Ferrosilicon is very energy intensive and if you follow the wikis on the production of sodium hydroxide you will see the resources needed for those steps cut into the overall efficiency and adds to the cost.
That method is used because it’s an easier, more cost effective and safer way to get hydrogen than the transport of liquified hydrogen produced elswhere.
This is why so many are trying to develope other ways to make it but none have panned out so far that have a low enough cost, higher energy efficiency, higher power density and pollute less than current methods. These 4 factors are key to the success of any green technology.
Fuel cells that use air (not pure O2 in tanks) for the oxygen supply are not very efficient in general but yes that are clean. To offset the fairly poor efficiancy, the efficiency of hydrogen production needs to be very high for FC vehicles to compete with other green tech vehicles.
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 19:47
Looking at your #3 post in more detail I see that the process sues Methane which is CH4. So where does the C go? Oh – right – dumped into the atmosphere as they do when they use the steam method on methane. It still doesn’t nothing to reduce the carbon foot print … next.
mea_mark March 17th, 2015 at 20:05
Who really cares as long as the methane isn’t going into the air. Methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases. Really though carbon sequestration should always be attempted, if at all cost efficient.
CB March 17th, 2015 at 20:12
The feedstock is critically important as well.
Biological feedstock like sewage, garbage and agricultural waste will get you carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative energy.
Earthgas feedstock will not.
The technology itself doesn’t really care where the methane comes from.
mea_mark March 17th, 2015 at 20:14
Most definitely, capturing any methane that is going into the air already and turning it into hydrogen to be used by cars in the big city is a win-win.
CB March 17th, 2015 at 20:20
It’s not just that it’s going into the air already, it’s that it’s part of the short carbon cycle. It came from the air.
Almost 100% of the carbon in biological methane was recently sequestered by plants, so even if you didn’t capture it, the system would still be carbon-neutral in comparison to fossil carbon.
There is a huge amount of confusion surrounding methane and the short carbon cycle…
I would suggest battery-powered cars are more likely to replace our current mode of transportation, but hydrogen is still likely to play an important role in any future renewable system.
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 20:35
I am not confused about the short carbon cycle. While it is all good it just can not supply enough. not even close to what we need.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
As you will see in the wiki – biomass is a drop in the lake, Other disadvantages are – power needed in most cases and lots of prime space.
CB March 17th, 2015 at 20:45
My guess is that the biomass estimate they are using refers to crops grown specifically for fuel.
I don’t think this makes much sense.
There’s a huge amount of energy in our waste stream we could be extracting and simply aren’t.
I would agree with you that hydrogen doesn’t make much sense as a transportation fuel. Batteries are much more efficient.
That said, I still think hydrogen extracted from our waste stream is going to play a critical role in any future renewable energy system.
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 20:28
you do not understand efficiency. Yes – capture methane but use it directly. Do not convert it into hydrogen because it takes a lot of power to do that. The power used cuts into efficiency of using methane directly.
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 20:25
We need to control CO2 because once the temp goes up enough we will not be able to stop the methane in our oceans from escaping.
Obewon March 16th, 2015 at 19:40
Benner could amaze himself with Hydrogen produced from Solar: Artificial Photosynthesis, ‘Solar Fuels’
1. Progress in low-cost “artificial leaf” that produces clean hydrogen fuel http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/12/progress-low-cost-%E2%80%9Cartificial-leaf%E2%80%9D-produces-clean-hydrogen-fuel
1 B. http://www.rdmag.com/topics/energy/hydrogen-energy
2. British Columbia researchers wanted to find a better (Cheaper) way to make coatings that can be painted onto surfaces to conduct electricity or convert electricity into hydrogen fuels. http://www.rdmag.com/videos/2015/03/cheap-lamp-key-energy-storage
3. New material, technique efficiently produce hydrogen, syngas fuel feedstock http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/01/new-material-technique-efficiently-produce-hydrogen-syngas-fuel-feedstock
4. Moving toward a cheaper, better catalyst for hydrogen production http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/12/moving-toward-cheaper-better-catalyst-hydrogen-production
Google “r&d magazine Hydrogen from solar” https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS378US378&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=r%26d+magazine+Hydrogen+from+solar
Obewon March 17th, 2015 at 20:58
All vehicle makers are rolling out Hydrogen Fuel Cells!
Toyota Mirai Fuel-Cell Car To Get Global Showcase At 2020 Olympics http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1097246_toyota-mirai-fuel-cell-car-to-get-global-showcase-at-2020-olympics
Hyundai https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/
Honda is expected to join Toyota (Nissan) and Hyundai in offering hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in the U.S. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/fuel-cell Toyota, Honda, Nissan To Support Hydrogen Fueling Sites In Japan http://www.greencarreports.com/news/fuel-cell
Audi & VW Buys Patents For Fuel-Cell Technology From Ballard Systems “DON’T MISS: Audi A7 h-tron quattro ‘Performance’ Fuel-Cell Plug-In Car Unveiled At 2014 LA Auto Show.” http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096736_audi-buys-patents-for-fuel-cell-technology-from-ballard-systems
Benner March 17th, 2015 at 21:43
Yes – and they are doing it because they want the money from deluded customers and governement subsidies – if that’s what the users think they need to make themsleves feel better when the net result is worse in termas of efficiency and carbon foot print.
Funny how you continue to not address that Obewon.
And don’t say you did by presenting unproven tech. Not addressing the efeicincy issue shows that you undertand efficiency – something that can’t easily be looked up on the net as you are finding out.
Obewon March 18th, 2015 at 00:46
We discussed these e.g. today solar PEC’s deliver hydrogen today at 20% efficiency, as linked below for you. These ‘artificial leaf’ solar cells generate hydrogen guaranteed to rise via Moore’s law increasing efficiency while lowering cost.
Benner March 18th, 2015 at 21:24
If PEC are that “good” (12.5% is not good) why are they not being used?
Your argument/post about all the car makers jumping into the FC market is a logical fallacy and doesn’t support the arguemmnt that FC is a useful efficient tech for cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I am not addressing alternatives because that dilutes the discussion regrading the efficiency point I am making. Your attempts to deflect and distract.show your lack of debate skills in discussions that could lead to truths. You employ the typical shot gun strategy where you throw out all kinds of arguments and claims resulting in wasted effort dealing with unrelated issues. This is a typcal apporach that people use who really have nothing to back their arguments – much like the religious do in formal debates to try to prove the existance of a diety.
The other fluff you add about some “friend” is another example of your dismal skills.
Benner March 18th, 2015 at 21:48
Obewon – It just occured to me that you may have not read the link in my orginal post, that restarted the discussion, where it compares efficiency – in terms even you can understand – to other existing auto tech. If you did read it you didn’t undertand it or have forgotten already. In any case I suggest you check it out if you need examples of comparitive efficiency ratings. You will note that the dismal 12.5% too little to catch the top tech mentioned there.
Benner March 18th, 2015 at 21:49
It also just occured to me that you may have not read the link in my orginal post, that restarted the discussion, where it compares efficiency – in terms even you can understand – to other existing auto tech. If you did read it you didn’t undertand it or have forgotten already. In any case I suggest you check it out if you need examples of comparitive efficiency ratings. You will note that the dismal 12.5% too little to catch the top tech mentioned there.
Benner March 23rd, 2015 at 16:20
So I guess there is some agreement that the efficiency of FC cars so far is rather lackluster and currently doesn’t do anything to reduce ones carbon foot print.
In some circles has been argued that using hydrogen today actually increases ones carbon foot print by the production of additional CO2 from the energy needed to aquire the hydrogen from natural gas on top of the waste CO2 that is spewed into the air after the hydrogen is removed.
To clarify Obewon’s comment below – not “all” vehicle makers are rolling out FC cars as evidenced by articles found at greenreports.com.
From Obewon’s comment below “Honda is expected to join Toyota (Nissan) and Hyundai in offering hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in the U.S.”
I wonder why Obewon added (Nissan) – which does not appear in the link and as well as leaving out the bit of negative. Here is the full text and link to the full article.
“Honda is expected to join Toyota and Hyundai in offering hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in the U.S., but the timeline for that may have become a bit fuzzier.”
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1097098_honda-fuel-cell-vehicle-u-s-sales-date-gets-a-little-fuzzier”
Nissan is working with Ford and Daimler (signed some collabaration deal 2 years ago) because they want to share the research expense likely due to things not looking that good on paper. If the 3 thought it was a no brainer you would bet that at least Nissan would go it alone in secrect like they did with the Leaf.