Seeing Future in Fuel Cells, Toyota Ends Tesla Deal
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
So of course it's a terrible product. The only thing it excels at is getting Toyota enough ZEV credits. They recently changed the credit scheme, so now Toyota is switching to that:
http://insideevs.com/carb-zev-program-changes-tesla-takes-la...
31mpg highway is what counts for gas guzzler these days?
- Hydrogen "manufacturing". Guess where most of it come from? Fossil fuels. If you use water, you require a lot of energy input. Actually, in either case you need energy input, so hydrogen is more like a battery, not an energy source.
- Hydrogen distribution/storage. At the refinery, between that and the 'gas' stations, etc. Not all containers are suitable for that (hydrogen is quite difficult to store) and no matter if liquid or gas, the tanks need to be much bigger than a comparable gasoline tank (by energy).
- Actually using the hydrogen. You are using fuel cells to generate electricity, which will power electric engines. Why not skip the middle man? You are using a much more complicated battery, really.
And that just to make the 'charging' faster? How long would it take to cover a country the size of the US with hydrogen stations? I'd put all that infrastructure money on battery research.
This is just Toyota giving up on EVs completely. They just don't want to say it outright. Green companies and all that.
Range is the #1 crippling factor for EVs to most people I talk to.
If you want compact hydrogen, hydrocarbons are your best bet.
As for how long, probably about 6-24 months... it's actually more a question of capital... if you have the capital i can't imagine it's that difficult to scale up the building of hydrogen storage tanks.
Yes, charging faster is important to people... aren't we having a whole net neutrality debate because being able to download a 2 hr movie in 2 hrs and 30 minutes is no where near as good as being able to download a 2 hr movie in 1h 50m.
I'm pretty sure if you could fly some hydrogen from Berlin to New York in the 20s we can figure out how to make bags for hydrogen. (Yes, some may leak... but who cares, it's not like it doesn't just float away when it gets to the top of the atmosphere...?)
It all looked nice and tidy, but effectively they had to duplicate the natural gas infrastructure and then have /several/* fuel-cell objects behind houses that were about the size of a large refrigerator.
* If I remember right, one was merely to remove the odoring agent for leak detection.
2. Batteries suck. They are heavy and don't hold much energy. Advancements seem to come very slowly despite the fact that everyone wants them to be better!
3. Complexity isn't always bad. Hybrids are much more complex than a traditional drivetrain, yet they manage to deliver improvements in fuel economy.
/devil's advocate off
I do love Tesla, and wish them all the success in the world. Their cars are really heavy though, that is a pretty serious drawback to overcome.
BTW the Model S is of a similar weight to other large sedans -- BMW 7-series cars weigh between 4,310 and 5,100 pounds.
Even if they can make a hydrogen vehicle with equal, or even slightly greater performance than an electric of the same cost, then they still need to solve the problem of the hydrogen infrastructure. That's really hard. You can generate it on site, but the equipment to do so is expensive and complex.
I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla.
Yes. I am sure Toyota is just terrified by a company that is haemorrhaging money and only sells in a few countries.
According to the US Department of Energy, there are eleven public hydrogen stations in the US, almost all in Los Angeles. There are more compressed natural gas stations in my state alone.
They have in the sense that I go to a station and fill up then leave in a reasonable amount of time. I don't have to alter my driving habits from the last 50+ years.
With an EV, you can "fill up" in your own garage every night, or even while parked at work.
If Toyota goes hydrogen, there will be stations. They can push the tech just as well as Tesla is pushing recharge stations.
1) which actually sucks quite badly in winter since I have nowhere to plug in a head bolt heater.
Which requires changes around the world to parking lots, apartments, homes etc.
Most places don't have a power socket for each car space.
You can't really expect to radically change tech and have the entire experience be the same.
Not to mention that the only thing preventing one from filling up a tank the way they do with gasoline is battery technology. If they are improved (graphene capacitors?), almost nothing needs to change in the grid.
[EDIT: I am comparing the hydrogen gas stations (which are so rare that might not even exist) to the experience of refilling a compressed natural gas vehicle. It is the closest real world parallel I can think of.]
In India, people convert their gasoline based cars to use gas cylinders. The replacement is infrequent and doesn't need to happen as often as much as filling up gasoline.
I did not notice a real decrease in refuelling stops, compared to a gas vehicle. But that is subjective, I haven't measured. That might also be explained by the size of the tanks: most 'converted' vehicles retain their ability to be powered by gasoline by flicking a switch, so the tank cannot be too big and has to go in the trunk.
Almost all conversions are done to decrease costs, most frequently by taxi drivers. As you are required to do annual inspections, it drives up the costs and it is only worth it if you drive long distances in one year.
I do believe we are talking about hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen doesn't seem to act as you describe.
"the only thing preventing one from filling up a tank the way they do with gasoline is battery technology"
Yep, and every year it will be solved next year. I am hopeful but not certain.
The only reason for me to get an Electric Vehicle is the green factor. If instead of my car polluting the environment, there is an increase in say coal factories, not sure how that helps the environment. So there is a need for fuel cells.
Do you want to manage the emissions from one generation source? Or 100K? Also, as the electrical grid becomes more clean, EVs become cleaner. Not so with ICE vehicles.
A diesel vehicle has a service life of at least 200K miles; assuming 12K/miles a year, you're looking at ~16 years of burning petrol.
How much cleaner is the electric grid going to be over the next 16 years as coal plants are shut down due to being unable to meet new emissions guidelines? Electric vehicles future proof the energy required for mobility.
Electricity, on the other hand, was determined to have average lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of 41.37g/mj.
http://ecomento.com/guide/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vs-battery-elec...
Currently fuel cell backed EVs produce ~50% more greenhouse gas emissions than battery backed EVs. If you are going for green factor take the batteries.
Both require energy. It's not like hydrogen is just sitting around ready to go in your car.
http://www.cngnow.com/vehicles/refueling/Pages/refueling-at-...
Tesla claims that it costs less than $10 for a similar 250 miles of range in the Model S.
By comparison, it would cost at least $27 to fill up a Civic with gasoline to go the same distance.
Of course "everywhere" means just the US.
Some people really need to wake up and realise that there are nearly 200 countries in the world. Most of which Toyota sells in and Tesla doesn't. It really isn't appropriate to judge the success of a technology based on the available infrastructure for quite a while yet.
Last I heard Hydrogen was still problematic in winter cold just like batteries.
* Can deliver full power instantly
* Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities)
* Lesser moving parts
Electric car with battery cons:
* Range too small with current designs
* No charging stations (infrastructure problem)
* Battery needs to be replaced every several years
* Requires lithium, which reserves are very limited on earth
* Carbon tube based battery doesn't seem to be reality any time soon
Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements and also doesn't pollute environment at the time of energy release.
Only downsides are it is more difficult to store as of now? How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks that are already widely used? I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. What is the problem with hydrogen then?
Cars catch fire in accidents all the time, it's not that hart to imagine that the problem might get worse if we switched to an even more flammable fuel.
You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere. The bottles can be designed so they don't explode when damaged, but it would take a non-zero amount of time for the hydrogen to escape. For however long that takes, you have a jet of escaping pure hydrogen that would make an excellent blowtorch if anything resembling a flame or spark gets too close.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml shows another option for storage (Materials-based storage) that will probably be safer.
Don't fuel cells need platinum?
Pardon me if I don't understand your point there, but you can't really say there aren't charging stations available, can you? I can agree that bringing electric car charging infrastructure to par with gas refueling infrastructure is still a challenge.
Give me a Tesla and I can charge it anywhere there's electricity. If there's no dedicated charging station, then I can still charge it from a regular wall socket, albeit slowly. There are also a ton of charging stations around here.
Give me a fuel cell vehicle and I can't refuel it anywhere near here. According to the Department of Energy, there are 11 public hydrogen filling stations in the US:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html
You list "no charging stations" as a con for batteries, but it's really not bad at all, and the hydrogen situation is vastly worse, and I don't see it getting better with any kind of speed.
Ford Pinto isn't ringing any bells? I mean, it's not as common as TV and movies would have you believe, but yeesh, you've never heard of this happening?
EDIT: forgot this one... > No charging stations (infrastructure problem)
There are infinitely more electric car charging stations between my house and work than there are hydrogen stations. I understand that it's different in other parts of the country, but in the Seattle area you'd have to really put in some effort to run out before you find a charging station. My only complaint is that aren't enough fast charging stations.
> How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks Storing hydrogen is MUCH harder. It requires much lower temperatures (-162C for LNG, -253C for H). LPG can be stored liquefied at room temperature. Natural gas cars use CNG (compressed, not liquefied gas).
1. Hydrogen (as opposed to (L|C)NG / gasoline / other hydrocarbons) wouldn't either.
2. I don't think the where matters for CO2? Sure it's supposed to melt the ice caps and put us all underwater, but I don't think there are any local effects?
In this respect, batteries and fuel cells are similar.
My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes?
Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?
Yes, because the whole world has the same reliance on fossil fuels as the US. Homework: what's quicker to replace? A few power stations, or the whole vehicle fleet? Also notice that electric engines are way more efficient than gas engines.
> My question has always been: Does shifting from gas to depending on the electrical grid actually help? Or are we just smoking cigars (or e-cigs) instead of cigarettes?
Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from. If you are that worried, power your EV yourself at home with solar/wind/whatever power.
> Also, what is the downside to collecting Hydrogen?
If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable.
If it is from water electrolysis, then you'll be using the same fossil fuel power plants to split water.
Do not forget that electric cars have WAY less parts (the simplest conceptual car is a battery and engine) and require much less environmentally unfriendly stuff, such as lubricants, additives, etc.
average vehicle age in the US is 11.4 years.[1]
average power plant age in the US is over 30 years.[2]
1: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130806/RETAIL/130809922/av...
2: http://qz.com/61423/coal-fired-power-plants-near-retirement/
More number crunching is required however. See, we stopped producing all gasoline vehicles today, based on your source, it would take 11.4 years in average for the fleet to be replaced, so it would be an obvious win.
But we are not doing that. As this whole EV vehicle discussion proves, it is very difficult to replace the fleet. And the infrastructure.
Notice how I said US instead of World. That was done on purpose.
>Long or short term? Electrical vehicles do not care where the power comes from.
Long term: if the state I lived in switched to 50% usage of EVs overnight. How much more Green House emissions would be generated by the power plants? Would it be an overall decrease of GH gasses for my state? I doubt the hydro power is going to help that much.
http://www.georgiapower.com/about-us/media-resources/plant-b...
>If it is from fossil fuels, it is kinda obvious. It is apparently possible to sequester CO2 from the process of extracting hydrogen from natural gas, but I have no idea if it is even required by regulations, or economically viable.
Interesting I didnt realize we had to use natural gasses to get H. Wow even Helium is produced from Natural gas.
If we switch over to electric vehicles, yes in the short term we are still generating that electricity with fossil fuels, but we don't have to. And in fact because the generation is currently centralized, each plant we switch over has a huge knock-on effect. Switch to hydropower and boom, 500,000 cars on the road just became carbon neutral (excluding production outputs of course). Even better, because electricity is so easy to generate it opens up the possibilities for decentralized generation! It would be impossible for everyone to have their own oil well, but in a decade or 2, everyone affording their own solar panel or wind turbine could be pretty feasible. Boom, now you've not just moved to carbon neutral generation, but decentralized generation!
In practical terms, moving as much as we can to using electricity instead of combustion gives us way, way more flexibility in terms of future directions. Solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, etc, etc. All of these can be a power source for electric cars, but we only have one method of getting gas. Moving to electric cars would be a huge boon.
CA: Most of American electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. How can an electric car that plugs into that electricity help?
EM: Right. There's two elements to that answer. One is that, even if you take the same source fuel and produce power at the power plant and use it to charge electric cars, you're still better off. So if you take, say, natural gas, which is the most prevalent hydrocarbon source fuel, if you burn that in a modern General Electric natural gas turbine, you'll get about 60 percent efficiency. If you put that same fuel in an internal combustion engine car, you get about 20 percent efficiency. And the reason is, in the stationary power plant, you can afford to have something that weighs a lot more, is voluminous, and you can take the waste heat and run a steam turbine and generate a secondary power source. So in effect, even after you've taken transmission loss into account and everything, even using the same source fuel, you're at least twice as better off charging an electric car, then burning it at the power plant.
Url: http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spa...
I saw it at a science fair once.
I saw it in a science fair, they could switch directions of the fuel cell to go either way.