Report: Toyota to begin sales of fuel cell sedan in Japan this December
15 October 2014
The Nikkei reports that Toyota will begin sales of its new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCV), reportedly named Mirai, in Japan in December. The company had earlier said the fuel cell sedan would be on sale in Japan before April 2015, and in the US and Europe by summer 2015. (Earlier post.)
The Nikkei said that Toyota had planned to make 700 of the fuel cell cars annually, but that initial demand is already reaching close to 1,000. The company will consider raising output based on the progress of the deployment of the refueling infrastructure required.
|
|
| Toyota FCV at the Paris Motor Show in October 2014. Click to enlarge. |
The new hydrogen-powered Toyota is a front-wheel drive 4-door, 4-seater sedan. It features performance and a cruising range similar to a gasoline engine vehicle (approximately 650 km / 404 miles) and a refueling time of roughly three minutes.
To maximize cabin space and lower the center of gravity, a distinctive feature of its architecture is that the fuel cell, battery and tanks are installed under the floor. The two tanks store hydrogen at pressures of up to 700 bar.
The front compartment houses the electric motor, electronic control system and boost converter. Increasing the voltage produced by the fuel cell, this converter has allowed both the size of the motor and the number of cells to be reduced, thus cutting costs and increasing performance.
Since 2002, when Toyota began renting Highlander SUV-based fuel cell vehicles to Japanese and North American customers, technology has advanced considerably.
A key feature of this new generation of fuel cell is that it has no humidifier. The humidity required for its operation is derived directly from the production of water inherent in the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. The structure of the cell is therefore simpler, more reliable, more compact, lighter and, all-in-all, cheaper.
Although government and municipal buyers will receive the cars first, 20 or so a month will be sold to the general public as well, the Nikkei said. Pricing is around ¥7 million (US$65,800), but Toyota expects government subsidies to lower the effective price to around ¥5 million (US$47,000).
The car will be sold mainly in the four metropolitan areas of Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka. Only 30 hydrogen refueling stations are currently available, but the government is targeting 100 in fiscal 2015.
In Toyota’s powertrain vision, for the immediate future, short range, individual mobility will be catered for by small, typically urban, electric vehicles such as Toyota’s innovative i-ROAD. (Earlier post.) At the other end of the scale, Toyota sees the fuel cell as particularly appropriate for long-distance car journeys, public transport and freight transport.
Between these two currently-emergent extremes, the majority of vehicles will continue to use an internal combustion engine powered by liquid fuels including gasoline, diesel, bio and compressed gases such as natural gas.
In this context, Toyota remains convinced that its award-winning hybrid powerplant—that topped the 7 million mark in September (earlier post) is the technological response best suited to dealing with mobility issues relating to the environment and the depletion of energy reserves.
> 20 or so a month will be sold to the general public
Gee. And I thought that Honda had set a low bar with the 44 Honda Fit EVs they sell a month.
> Toyota remains convinced that its award-winning hybrid powerplant is the technological response best suited to dealing with mobility issues relating to the environment and the depletion of energy reserves.
Because 50 mpg on fossil fuel is so much better than 120 mpg on a clean electrical grid mix, or 100% renewable energy if you have a roof, hillside or parking spot you can install $6k worth of solar panels on.
Yep, I can see how they could remain convinced of that. As Upton Sinclair said:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 15 October 2014 at 07:53 PM
It is difficult to sell FCEVs by the 1000s without H2 Stations.
Hyundai, Toyota, Mercedes and others interested in selling FCEVs will hasve to do like Tesla and install essential fuel (H2) stations.
A progressive country by country or area by area approach in Japan, South Korea, Germany and California could be a good start for the first few 1000s FCEVs.
As the technology matures and cost goes down, the H2 stations network could be expanded and FCEVs sales increased.
Posted by: HarveyD | 16 October 2014 at 10:03 AM
@ECI,
Considering the grid with 70% fossil fuel and 40% coal power plants, an HEV does not emit more CO2 than a BEV. An HEV is much more affordable than a BEV, so, more CO2 reduction for the money. A Prius C is omly $20k vs a Leaf $29k, yet, the Prius c has 500-mi range with quick fill up while the Leaf can go only 100 miles then needing long recharge. Carbon footprints of the two are comparable.
It would take several decades for the grid to be fully zero CO2. At the same time, major progress in converting biowastes and renewable H2 into gasoline that will cost less than petroleum and 100% renewable and CO2 neutral. Then, both HEV and BEV will again be equally green.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 16 October 2014 at 10:40 AM
Furthermore, eci, the sheer sale volumes of the Prius means much greater CO2 reduction than the paltry sale volumes of all BEV's COMBINED! Toyota know exactly what they are doing!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 16 October 2014 at 10:44 AM
It will be difficult to sell FCVs whose fuel will cost 4x that of EVs, about $2k per year extra.
If you're going to get people to switch, you're going to have to give them a good reason to do so. A car that pays for itself in fuel cost savings will do it. That wouldn't be a H2 FCV.
Even people willing to pay more to drive green are not enthusiastic about H2 because it doesn't actually accomplish the zero-emission mission. It's a very disingenuous slight of hand and most people are just not that dumb.
As H2 proponent George Bush so aptly said: "fool me once..."
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 16 October 2014 at 10:49 AM
You persist with you 4X lie even though we showed you and everyone else that it IS a lie.
Posted by: SJC | 16 October 2014 at 11:42 AM
Good point, SJC.
With 4-cent/kWh solar and wind electricity, and 50 kWh/kg, the raw energy cost per kg of H2 is only $2. Adding facility cost and profit, this H2 can be sold at $3.5/kg.
A FCEV with 70mpg will cost 5 cents per mile.
A BEV with 3.5 mi per kWh and 12c/kWh with 85% charging efficiency will cost 4 cents per mile. A little less, 20% less, but not 4x less.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 16 October 2014 at 12:39 PM
SJC, Roger, I live in Southern California, the one place in the US where there is any significant H2 fuel infrastructure of any consequence (one fueling station in the Bay Area kinda doesn't count for real world use).
Tell me again how much I pay per kg on a credit card at these stations?
Really, post it here for all to see.
And post a link to the web site which substantiates that price quote please.
It's simply embarrassing for you to talk about 4 cent electricity and $3.50 kg hydrogen while quoting 12 cent electricity for BEVs.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 16 October 2014 at 01:34 PM
Current retail H2 price is irrelevant because its availability is very limited hence no economy of scale, and no competition.
The retail price of electricity is stable due to over 100 years in the market. Average residential price for electricity in ISA is 12 cents per kWh, even though wholesale price of power by the utility co is only 3-5 cents per kWh.
Local H2 stations will buy low cost solar and wind power produced at solar and wind farms nearby at low PPA prices not available to residential consumers. Surplus wind and solar energy sometimes cost nearly nothing, thus the low PPA pricing to H2 producers that can accept power at any time.
Thus, even before the grid will become completely CO2 free, H2 may get to be 100% CO2 free way ahead of the grid, and FCEV'S will be green way ahead of BEV'S, at comparable energy cost per mile.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 16 October 2014 at 03:40 PM
RP> Current retail H2 price is irrelevant
Hydrogen fueling stations cost $2million - $4million each. Every FCV produced will need to use these H2 fueling stations for every single fueling operation. On the other hand, most BEVs will charge overnight using the existing grid (no new capacity needed for overnight charging until 2025-2030, utilities say).
DOE estimates show a nationwide H2 fueling infrastructure as a $500 billion to $1 trillion dollar investment.
RP> Surplus wind and solar energy sometimes cost nearly nothing
Electrolyser plants, which are already non price competitive, are not going to become more price competitive by running at less than 100% capacity. Even if their source energy was free. You still have to pay for an industrial scale plant. And you're not going to do that in your spare time.
On the other hand, if you had a lot of BEVs on the grid that could soak up production surpluses through pricing incentives, it could help load-level the grid. That's a lot more likely to happen than building a trillion dollar H2 infrastructure over the next 20 years.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 16 October 2014 at 06:21 PM
@ECI,
In 2011, the US spent $460 B on IMPORTED oil, which is roughly 1/2 of total crude oil consumption which would close to a $trillion. That is for crude oil only, and refining this crude would bump up even higher, perhaps $2T.
http://www.greenlifestylechanges.com/how-much-did-the-us-spend-on-imported-oil-in-2011/
The money invested in H2 infrastructure will last for 30 yrs. If H2 will replace most of petrol used in surface transportation at an investment of only 500B to 1T, it would be a real bargain, since facility investment would be at only roughly 1% of total oil expenditure over 30 years, the life span of the investment. This means that most of the cost of H2 will be in raw energy cost plus profit, possibly bringing the retail price of 1 kg of H2 down to well under $3/kg. This will bring the energy cost per mile of FCEV to be equal to that of BEV.
Remember that from RE to H2, the H2 is made on the spot, no transportation of crude oil, no refining, and no dispensing cost. No more oil tankers on the streets... no more oil pipelines to rupture nor to maintain.
H2 will be thus be produced very economically. Ionic compressors will last forever, while high-pressure electrolytes can produce H2 at thousands of psi all in one step!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 16 October 2014 at 07:28 PM
Roger, in what time frame do you think this "on the spot" hydrogen production, in suitable quantities to replace gasoline use, will occur?
What will make hydrogen compelling as a transportation fuel, if by that time battery electrics have 200-300 mile range at a cost competitive with ICEs? What advantages do they offer other than possibly saving 20-30 minutes of refueling time after a 300 mile journey (when most people need to take a 45 minute break anyway).
If its long term "seasonal" storage, that is not going to be "on the spot" production from electrolysis.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 17 October 2014 at 07:34 AM
@ECI,
Advantages of FCEV include:
1). Serving those who don't want to plug in with cleaner option.
2)). Relax the demand on battery critical raw materials, allowing BEV and PHEV TO REMAIN AFFORDABLE.
3)). RELAX DEMAND ON POWER ELECTRICAL RAW MATERIALS SUCH AS COPPER AND RARE EARTHS METALS, BECAUSE COMBUSTION ENGINE BURNING H2 CAN BE USED AS LOW-COST POWER BOOSTER. THUS, A 100-KW HFCEV (HYBRID FCEV) CAN HAVE 50-KW MOTOR AND 50-KW ENGINE, WHILE A BEV MUST HAVE ALL 100-KW ELECTRIC, MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE.
4). MASS PRODUCTION, HENCE LOWERING THE PRICES OF FC'S, ALLOWING FC'S TO PROVIDE POWER AND HEAT FOR HOMES AND OFFICES IN WINTERS FROM H2 PRODUCED FROM OTHER SEASONS.
SORRY FOR THE ALL CAPS, TABLET PC MALFUNCTION!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 17 October 2014 at 10:43 AM
RP has a good point.
The world market is large enough to support BEVs and FCEVs in much the same way as gasoline and diesel units have been used for decades.
Users should be the ones to make the final selection based on their needs, preference and Pocket book.
Posted by: HarveyD | 17 October 2014 at 06:54 PM
If automakers are not enthusiastic about installing fast charge networks (Tesla, Nissan and BMW excepted) what makes you think they are going to fund H2 distribution and retail at 5-8x the cost? The business case for fuel retailers is just dismal, and anyone who has seriously studied the issue readily concedes that significant incentives will need to be offered. If the current H2 incentive in Japan is any indication, they will need to be far greater than EV incentives - 2-3x as much.
None of Roger's proffered FCEV advantages are compelling consumer motivators. Certainly not at 4x the cost of electric fuel at retail (If you think hydrogen will be less expensive than gasoline at any time in the next 30 years, Volkswagen has a bridge to sell you).
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 17 October 2014 at 08:14 PM
The bottom line is that we now have two viable means to get off petroleum. They both complement each other, and can't do it alone! We all should cheer and be very happy from that fact. H2 should be subsidized until it can be commercially viable on its own. GW is raging on, and accompanied by adverse health effects such as spreading of tropical diseases in higher latitudes, extreme weather such as drought and flood. We can't just sit and wait and not doing much.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 18 October 2014 at 07:45 AM
Good points RP.
Two solutions are certainly better than one?
That's what Germany, South Korea and Japan seem to be doing. Are they smarter than us?
Some $500B for a national H2 network is much cheaper (and cleaner) than prolonged on-going oil wars.
Another $150+B on quick charging facilities would also be a good long term investment. This may have to be coupled with $350B for new RE power plants?
Both programs may cost $1T over 5 to 10 years but it is much less than USA spent on Oil wars in the 10 years or so.
Posted by: HarveyD | 18 October 2014 at 09:59 AM
No argument from these quarters on the folly of the excess of US military expenditures. I believe we've had this conversation before.
But pretending that the quantities of hydrogen we would need for transportation fuel will come from anywhere other than fossil fuel hydrocarbon sources is willful ignorance. Too many good comments with links have been posted here about the cost of electrolysis vs methane reforming to take up space posting them again.
I would ordinarily agree that two option are better than one. But when taxpayers are asked to foot the bill to install hydrogen infrastructure to service a few thousand FCVs, at an expense far greater than it would take to complete the infrastructure that could support 100,000s of BEVs, and the CO2 is not actually sequestered by these H2 fueling stations, I'lol call it what it is - a wasteful, ineffective boondoggle.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 19 October 2014 at 09:33 AM
@ECI,
Each BEV already receives $7500 from the Fed and $2500 from the State, and you still are not content with that?
H2, FC and batteries for homes, Business, industry, and transportation opens up way to utilized stored intermittent solar and wind that will allow us to completely wean off fossil fuels. Neither batteries nor H2-FC can do it alone, but together, fossil fuel dependency can be overcome.
The modest amount spent right now to get the H2 economy going will save many subsequent generations from the perils of global warming and climate change.
Do you have better ideas to get us off all fossil fuels?
Posted by: Roger Pham | 19 October 2014 at 12:16 PM
Roger, it isn't helpful to make straw man arguments, I never suggested that the current BEV incentives were not generous enough, only that spending excessively on H2 infrastructure was wasteful and ineffective at solving the problem it is purported to solve.
California has committed $100 million to build a few dozen H2 stations. They are not cheap. For example:
Hydrogen Frontier, Inc., will receive $3 million to build a 100 percent renewable hydrogen fueling station in Chino (San Bernardino County). The award agreement includes a $1,615,385 match-funding requirement.
Over four and a half million dollars for a single H2 station.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2013_releases/2013-06-12_award_expand_CA_hydrogen_fueling_stations_nr.html
Linde, LLC, will receive $4.5 million to install three hydrogen fueling stations in the cities of Mountain View and Cupertino (both in Santa Clara County), and Foster City (San Mateo County). The agreement includes a $3,069,948 match-funding requirement.
Seven and a half million for three stations - two and a half million each.
To see what happened last time the state funded a 'Hydrogen Highway', read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Hydrogen_Highway
In June 2012, the California Energy Commission revoked $27 million in grants for hydrogen filling stations after complaints that the companies authorized to use most of the grant money had largely self-dealt the contracts. By that time, the number of Hydrogen filling stations in the state had declined to 23, and only eight of these were "publicly accessible".
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 19 October 2014 at 06:08 PM
The money spent on infrastructures will create local jobs and contribute to the state's economy.
The untold and unaccounted amount of money to the tune of hundreds of billion USD spent in Iraq and Afghanistan to hire foreign workers did nothing for the US economy while adding to national debts. Why don't you take issues with that?
Posted by: Roger Pham | 19 October 2014 at 11:11 PM
Progressive investment in infrastructures (e-charging and H2 stations) that almost everybody will use would be very positive for USA (and most other countries) and the environment.
For USA, a public + private investment of $100B to $200B a year could solve e-charging and H2 stations availability in less than one decade.
It would launch the next industrial revolution.
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 October 2014 at 05:42 PM
ECI
The EV owner may pay $500 per year for electricity, but they pay $1000 per year for battery replacement. Do NOT mislead people by using the 4X lie, be honest and account for Total Cost of Ownership.
Posted by: SJC | 03 November 2014 at 08:25 AM