Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[epirali]

Neither you nor Tony are in a position to tell anyone else what they think or believe.

Facts are facts, regardless of who believes them.

Amen. Please dispute facts offered, don't offer opinions.

 

[RegGuheert]

Yes they are. But that's not the point that's continually causing us problems here, is it? Seriously man - look at your argument for the past few pages - NINETY SEVEN PERCENT! NINETY SEVEN PERCENT! Yes, that's nice - some lithium cells can achieve 97% efficiency in a specific combination of temperature, charge or discharge rates, state of charge, and calendar life.

You acknowledge this fact. epirali does not.

I have no problem with your further qualifications. The issue is when simple facts are not acknowledged followed by this disingenuous statement is made:

You can persuade me easily: please offer facts and data, not opinions.

There is no way to have a meaningful discussion when basic facts are denied.

The issue is how to proceed, which is based on interpretation of the facts and some level of prognostication of how the future might unfold.

 

[AndyH]

Yes they are. But that's not the point that's continually causing us problems here, is it? Seriously man - look at your argument for the past few pages - NINETY SEVEN PERCENT! NINETY SEVEN PERCENT! Yes, that's nice - some lithium cells can achieve 97% efficiency in a specific combination of temperature, charge or discharge rates, state of charge, and calendar life.

You acknowledge this fact. epirali does not.

I have no problem with your further qualifications. The issue is when simple facts are not acknowledged followed by this disingenuous statement is made:

You can persuade me easily: please offer facts and data, not opinions.

There is no way to have a meaningful discussion when basic facts are denied.

The issue is how to proceed, which is based on interpretation of the facts and some level of prognostication of how the future might unfold.

You might want to check the messages again - epirali has been consistent from the start.

I agree with him and others, Reg - this thread started with an unsupported emotional fear and in spite of paper after paper, road test after road test, real data doesn't stick and the fears come back on the next page. Look at Tony's 'terrorist' meme for one example - we killed (sorry) that one in late 2013 and it's Zombied back at least three times since. It's ok if one is unsure about driving something with a hydrogen tank, but maybe we don't have to keep using a fear as a weapon with which to attack someone trying to pop that bubble so we can move on.

I agree 100% that refusing to acknowledge facts kills a conversation...I just don't think we agree where the disconnect is located.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think that since it really only is about ten people who actually post, that we could post issues that we do have consensus (I've made this appeal previously, but there's always hope for an awakening).

But, what will likely happen is that no consensus is made, and instead we just jump to the next thing.

Andy brought up "terrorists will love hydrogen", and claims to have solved that problem.

Well, I don't agree. I don't even need a hydrogen tank to demonstrate why.

Currently, the bad guys need a large quantity of explosives to get results, but with a highly compressed tank of >>> ANY FLAMMABLE MATERIAL <<<<, that 10,000 psi tank becomes a very effective bomb with just enough explosives to breatch the pressure vessel.

It doesn't bleed off pressure in the method Andy has shown in a controlled experiment.

So, again, while I don't personally know terrorist, or exactly what they might love, I do know that this is a fundamental fact with highly pressurized tanks.

So, with this ONE simple issue, here's your chance to disprove that.

 

[AndyH]

I think that since it really only is about ten people who actually post, that we could post issues that we do have consensus (I've made this appeal previously, but there's always hope for an awakening).

But, what will likely happen is that no consensus is made, and instead we just jump to the next thing.

Andy brought up "terrorists will love hydrogen", and claims to have solved that problem.

Well, I don't agree. I don't even need a hydrogen tank to demonstrate why.

Currently, the bad guys need a large quantity of explosives to get results, but with a highly compressed tank of >>> ANY FLAMMABLE MATERIAL <<<<, that 10,000 psi tank becomes a very effective bomb with just enough explosives to breatch the pressure vessel.

It doesn't bleed off pressure in the method Andy has shown in a controlled experiment.

So, again, while I don't personally know terrorist, or exactly what they might love, I do know that this is a fundamental fact with highly pressurized tanks.

So, with this ONE simple issue, here's your chance to disprove that.

This is why this is so frustrating, Tony. Do you remember when I did a point by point on the explosive thing? It would take so much C4 to rupture the tank and then the H2 wouldn't explode - it would go straight up at like mach 392 1/2 (ok really about 45 MPH according to the below sheet). Compressed H2 won't burn - at any pressure. It has to mix with air. By then the C4's long past done and the H2 won't even burn unless there's a fire after the C4 goes off. If someone could get enough C4 to blow an H2 tank they'd be better off putting it in a truck and parking it under a building.

edit...here's the safety sheet linked way up thread:
http://www.arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf
And the post: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335639#p335639

An explosion cannot occur in a tank or any contained location that contains only hydrogen. An oxidizer, such as oxygen must be present in a concentration of at least 10% pure oxygen or 41% air. Hydrogen can be explosive at concentrations of 18.3- 59% and although the range is wide, it is important to remember that gasoline can present a more dangerous potential than hydrogen since the potential for explosion occurs with gasoline at much lower concentrations, 1.1-3.3%. Furthermore, there is very little likelihood that hydrogen will explode in open air, due to its tendency to rise quickly.This is the opposite of what we find for heavier gases such as propane or gasoline fumes, which hover near the ground, creating a greater danger for explosion.

Also found this - this was pretty cool, actually...though I get that a computerworld piece isn't peer reviewed science...:
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...gen-fueled-cars-arent-little-hindenburgs.html

Today's hydrogen fuel tanks are also made from highly durable carbon fiber whose strength is assessed not only in crash tests but also in trials in which bullets are fired at it.

Toyota reached back to its roots as a loom manufacturer in the early 20th century to create triple-layer hydrogen tanks made of woven carbon fiber.

The tanks, which are lined internally with plastic, underwent "extreme" crash and ballistics testing, Hartline said, noting that they were "shot with bullets that actually bounced off."

"They had to move to high-caliber armor-piercing rounds to pierce the tank, and even then it had to be shot in the exact same spot twice with an armor-piercing bullet," Hartline said.

 

[epirali]

You acknowledge this fact. epirali does not.

I have no problem with your further qualifications. The issue is when simple facts are not acknowledged followed by this disingenuous statement is made:

You can persuade me easily: please offer facts and data, not opinions.

There is no way to have a meaningful discussion when basic facts are denied.

The issue is how to proceed, which is based on interpretation of the facts and some level of prognostication of how the future might unfold.

I am an engineer and a scientist. I do not deny facts. Please respond to what I wrote and correct my error. Again I used your charge that shows charging/use is not 97% efficient. If I am wrong it's easy to show, no?

You also refuse to address any points raised. So if this is "religion" then do not say facts just say I believe therefore it is true. If you are rational please point out rational and factual errors.

 

[RegGuheert]

It needs to be said, again:

Several of us have shown, repeatedly, that there is no crossover point for FCVs vis-a-vis BEVs when it comes to efficiency. The battery in the LEAF already has a demonstrated round-trip energy efficiency of 97%. BEVs are already preferred for many applications and are in a steady development stage in which all of their characteristics will be improved over time: range, weight, cost, speed of refueling, performance, etc. In contrast, hydrogen only has a single benefit over BEVs: speed of refueling. That benefit will erode over time, but hydrogen has no chance to catch BEVs in the realm of efficiency. As a result, any time a hydrogen vehicle is fielded instead of a BEV means massively more damage done to the environment to generate the additional electricity needed to fuel it. As such, FCVs need to be restricted to applications with CANNOT be addressed by BEVs, for whatever reason.

I know Andy believes that you can throw together a bunch of inefficient parts and get the best overall result, because of some sort of broad-minded system thinking.

This is utter crap conjured up by those who have never developed energy systems. If you want to have a successful energy system, you need to apply the most efficient solutions wherever possible. Less-efficient solutions need to be restricted to areas where they offer other benefits which are critical to the application.

This is very important in large energy systems, since the amount of generation needed will be dictated by the efficiency of the chosen storage solutions. If we deploy fuel-cell systems widely today, we will quickly learn that we need to completely destroy our environment in order to deploy enough renewable generators to generate the extra energy which we are wasting. It would be a gigantic mistake from which we would likely be unable to recover.

This is why it is critically important to limit H2 fuel cell technology today to the lab and to applications which are critical and not widespread until (and only if) it can attain efficiencies which will not result in the destruction of the world's natural resources.

 

[RegGuheert]

Please respond to what I wrote and correct my error. Again I used your charge that shows charging/use is not 97% efficient. If I am wrong it's easy to show, no?

Yes, you are wrong and it is easy to show. I have shown you repeatedly. There are not simpler words that can be used.

 

[epirali]

I think there is a lot of shouting in a vacuum going on here. And the point completely lost is the economic forces that help achieve goals. I can make a lot of arguments for BEVs, but the economics are just not there for infrastructure. I am working out a quick model for running a charging station as a money making business. I'll share my numbers shortly for review but I am not making it work.

On the other hand I think I can make hydrogen fueling stations profitable using the gasoline distribution model. This alone could make a big difference in being able to gain acceptance.

 

[epirali]

Please respond to what I wrote and correct my error. Again I used your charge that shows charging/use is not 97% efficient. If I am wrong it's easy to show, no?

Yes, you are wrong and it is easy to show. I have shown you repeatedly. There are not simpler words that can be used.

No you really have not. Please just write the short and complete error in my statement. Just repeating something doesn't make it right, no matter how much you do it.

 

[RegGuheert]

On the other hand I think I can make hydrogen fueling stations profitable using the gasoline distribution model. This alone could make a big difference in being able to gain acceptance.

Sure, that can be done with steam-reformed methane and ridiculous government subsidies to build both the stations and the vehicles.

But I have done extensive calculations earlier in this thread showing that you cannot make H2 refueling stations that run off of renewable energy make any sense, economically or physically.

This is the main point that ydnas7 has been making: the "hydrogen economy" is a trojan horse being rolled in by the fossil fuel and automobile companies in order to maintain the status quo and thereby hold off the onslaught of renewable energy technologies.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think that since it really only is about ten people who actually post, that we could post issues that we do have consensus (I've made this appeal previously, but there's always hope for an awakening).

But, what will likely happen is that no consensus is made, and instead we just jump to the next thing.

Andy brought up "terrorists will love hydrogen", and claims to have solved that problem.

Well, I don't agree. I don't even need a hydrogen tank to demonstrate why.

Currently, the bad guys need a large quantity of explosives to get results, but with a highly compressed tank of >>> ANY FLAMMABLE MATERIAL <<<<, that 10,000 psi tank becomes a very effective bomb with just enough explosives to breatch the pressure vessel.

It doesn't bleed off pressure in the method Andy has shown in a controlled experiment.

So, again, while I don't personally know terrorist, or exactly what they might love, I do know that this is a fundamental fact with highly pressurized tanks.

So, with this ONE simple issue, here's your chance to disprove that.

This is why this is so frustrating, Tony. Do you remember when I did a point by point on the explosive thing? It would take so much C4 to rupture the tank and then the H2 wouldn't explode - it would go straight up at like mach 392 1/2. Compressed H2 won't burn - at any pressure. It has to mix with air. By then the C4's long past done and the H2 won't even burn unless there's a fire after the C4 goes off. If someone could get enough C4 to blow an H2 tank they'd be better off putting it in a truck and parking it under a building.

Well, the flammable material WILL mix with oxygen and will go "boom".

I do not believe for one second that with enough explosive material to breatch a tank won't also ignite the fuel (hydrogen, acetylene, propone, CNG) that meets oxygen.

So, here's where we need a demonstration. I have actually posted pictures of actual HYDROGEN explosions. Apparently, that wasn't good enough.

 

[AndyH]

I think that since it really only is about ten people who actually post, that we could post issues that we do have consensus (I've made this appeal previously, but there's always hope for an awakening).

But, what will likely happen is that no consensus is made, and instead we just jump to the next thing.

Andy brought up "terrorists will love hydrogen", and claims to have solved that problem.

Well, I don't agree. I don't even need a hydrogen tank to demonstrate why.

Currently, the bad guys need a large quantity of explosives to get results, but with a highly compressed tank of >>> ANY FLAMMABLE MATERIAL <<<<, that 10,000 psi tank becomes a very effective bomb with just enough explosives to breatch the pressure vessel.

It doesn't bleed off pressure in the method Andy has shown in a controlled experiment.

So, again, while I don't personally know terrorist, or exactly what they might love, I do know that this is a fundamental fact with highly pressurized tanks.

So, with this ONE simple issue, here's your chance to disprove that.

This is why this is so frustrating, Tony. Do you remember when I did a point by point on the explosive thing? It would take so much C4 to rupture the tank and then the H2 wouldn't explode - it would go straight up at like mach 392 1/2. Compressed H2 won't burn - at any pressure. It has to mix with air. By then the C4's long past done and the H2 won't even burn unless there's a fire after the C4 goes off. If someone could get enough C4 to blow an H2 tank they'd be better off putting it in a truck and parking it under a building.

Well, the flammable material WILL mix with oxygen and will go "boom".

I do not believe for one second that with enough explosive material to breatch a tank won't also ignite the fuel (hydrogen, acetylene, propone, CNG) that meets oxygen.

So, here's where we need a demonstration. I have actually posted pictures of actual HYDROGEN explosions. Apparently, that wasn't good enough.

I'll pull this down here...I edited the post above but it's already back a page. H2 is not propane - completely different. And yes, I have had both terrorism and flammable gas training while in uniform, FWIW. And as already stated, this thread already contains actual video of a hydrogen explosion near an airport (LAX?) and it didn't even make a hole in the ground...unlike the CA natural gas pipeline explosion that destroyed most of a block...

edit...here's the safety sheet linked way up thread:
http://www.arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf
And the post: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335639#p335639

An explosion cannot occur in a tank or any contained location that contains only hydrogen. An oxidizer, such as oxygen must be present in a concentration of at least 10% pure oxygen or 41% air. Hydrogen can be explosive at concentrations of 18.3- 59% and although the range is wide, it is important to remember that gasoline can present a more dangerous potential than hydrogen since the potential for explosion occurs with gasoline at much lower concentrations, 1.1-3.3%. Furthermore, there is very little likelihood that hydrogen will explode in open air, due to its tendency to rise quickly.This is the opposite of what we find for heavier gases such as propane or gasoline fumes, which hover near the ground, creating a greater danger for explosion.

Also found this - this was pretty cool, actually...though I get that a computerworld piece isn't peer reviewed science...:
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...gen-fueled-cars-arent-little-hindenburgs.html

Today's hydrogen fuel tanks are also made from highly durable carbon fiber whose strength is assessed not only in crash tests but also in trials in which bullets are fired at it.

Toyota reached back to its roots as a loom manufacturer in the early 20th century to create triple-layer hydrogen tanks made of woven carbon fiber.

The tanks, which are lined internally with plastic, underwent "extreme" crash and ballistics testing, Hartline said, noting that they were "shot with bullets that actually bounced off."

"They had to move to high-caliber armor-piercing rounds to pierce the tank, and even then it had to be shot in the exact same spot twice with an armor-piercing bullet," Hartline said.

Here's the follow-on from Nov 2013:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335686#p335686

Manassas hydrogen tank 'explodes'...
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/09/manassas-hydrogen-tank-explodes-94374.html
(Cylinder was knocked over in a lab, valve broke off, gas ignited, the tank went up through the roof like a rocket. No fire, no serious injuries, but there were broken windows.)

Natural gas pipeline:

 

[TonyWilliams]

The exact same point applies to the fuel cells. Look at some of Toyotas testing reports. I would feel completely comfortable in a properly designed hydrogen fuel cell car.

And I do not. I would not put any pressure vessel (hydrogen or even just compressed air) at 10,000 psi in my house.

I'll stick with batteries.

More power to you (sorry couldn't resist the bad pun). But I think personal decisions/biases and public policy/effective approaches should be separated to achieve the best results.

I still say fuel cells can cover a group of potential electric car drivers that battery based ones can not. It may not be you, understood. But I know many people I think I could easily convert only if there were real hydrogen based solutions and refueling stations.

Absolutely, the few thousand hydrogen cars that Toyota intends to build will be purchased / leased by well meaning (and well healed) consumers, provided:

1) governments and Toyota grossly subsidizes the hydrogen stations

2) governments and Toyota grossly subsiidize the hydrogen energy

3) governments and Toyota grossly subsidize the hydrogen car

 

[RegGuheert]

I don't know what you are referring to when you use the 97% efficiency. There is no battery technology in use today that achieves that in charging OR use.

 

[AndyH]

Tony - "caught fire" "allowed to vent" - no explosion...

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-n...atches-fire-on-60-freeway-in-hacienda-heights

A tractor-trailer hauling compressed hydrogen cylinders caught fire on the 60 Freeway in Hacienda Heights on Thursday afternoon, prompting authorities to shut down both directions of the freeway. ...

Once the tanks were emptied, he said, officials hoped to start working to move the scorched remains of the truck and reopen the freeway. The venting process was expected to take about 45 minutes.

No injuries were reported in connection with the fire, Miller said.

 

[eloder]

I believe cost, efficiency, manufacturability and ability to refuel at home will all improve with technology

That's interesting. How exactly do you plan on scaling down a 1.5 million dollar facility down into something that can fit inside a home? How do you propose to safely compress 10,000 PSI into the tank at home when you can't even refill fire extinguishers or propane tanks safely at home without expensive commercial equipment?

You can't refuel hydrogen cars at home. It's more viable to have a gas station at home than it is to have a hydrogen station.

Look, I get it. Hydrogen was more viable at some point in the past. I remember watching in awe at a hydrogen FCV spitting out nothing but water two decades ago. But that tech hasn't improved much at all, while batteries have made gigantic leaps with lithium ion batteries tiny fractions the cost and weight of what they were 1-2 decades ago.

I imagine very few to no individuals will choose hydrogen FCV over a similarly-cost BEV (Tesla) even if infrastructure was 100% equivalent, and they definitely will never be equivalent unless you have a massive government bailout of the hydrogen industry. In a few years, a good 60-70%+ of the country will be able to afford a Tesla with a 200 mile EPA range.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hydrogen fire / explosion danger

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/2048-Hydrogen-vs-Battery/page138?p=727981&viewfull=1#post727981" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CalDreamin - In my opinion, the most significant argument against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles involves the safety risks from hydrogen explosions. This is far beyond the potential consequences of gasoline, diesel, or battery fires in personal vehicles.

I work with industrial high pressure hydrogen processes as a chemical engineer. A significant part of my job is preventing Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC) accidents involving high pressure hydrogen and other flammable gases.

During discussions of hydrogen risks, one often sees comparisons made to the Hindenburg airship disaster. I think that's a poor comparison. The hydrogen in the Hindenburg was not at high pressure.

Fuel cell vehicles such as the Toyota FCV car store hydrogen at very high pressure -- 6 kg of H2 is stored in the car at up to 10,000 psig. This pressure is so high that the decompression force upon catastrophic LOPC could produce a large damage radius even if the compressed gas was merely air. But it's not just air, hydrogen is a flammable gas that has a very wide range between the lower and upper explosive limits when released into air, and has a very low energy for detonation.

The evidence from accidents involving rapid decompression of high pressure hydrogen demonstrates that these events often result in detonation of hydrogen-air mixtures.

Proponents of hydrogen FCVs point to photos showing the controlled release of a vehicle's H2 tank through the tank's pressure relief device (PRD), a very small orifice that is sized to produce the flame shown in the photos. A well-designed PRD in this service will produce a large vertical jet of flame, the least bad direction to aim the flamethrower (assuming the vehicle stays upright). What they don't tell you is that the PRD specified for FCV H2 tanks would not be legal for use to protect industrial vessels used in high pressure H2 service, where we are required to use pressure relief devices to protect against any feasible overpressure scenario.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle PRDs and CNG vehicle PRDs protect only against specific fire impingement scenarios -- the PRD has to reach a sufficient temperature to melt the plug before it will activate. The idea is that the PRD will activate before the high temperature from an external fire increases the vehicle tank pressure to the catastrophic rupture point. Unfortunately these PRDs don't work in all overpressure scenarios, including all fire scenarios. The PRD did not protect a Honda's CNG tank in this fire. The CNG tank heated up, overpressured, and ruptured before the PRD activated, blowing open the doors and blowing off the roof, and propelling parts of the Honda as much as 100' across a wide radius.


In all likelihood, H2 FCV and CNG PRDs don't provide broader overpressure protection because the consequences of a false-positive activation could be pretty severe -- the vertical flamethrower anywhere the car might be located.

Proponents of hydrogen FCVs also point to the DOT bullet test, which pierces the FCV H2 tank with a rifle bullet. However this is misleading. The bullet-sized hole produces a high speed flame jet. It does not illustrate the much more rapid LOPC and explosion that could result if the tank catastrophically ruptured.

The H2 tank in a FCV is undoubtedly very strong. It has to be strong to contain 10,000 psig. In a bad accident, such as the FCV car being rear ended by a large truck or a fire started by some external source, the FCV H2 tank is probably less likely to rupture than a gasoline tank in an ICE vehicle. But in the event of a FCV H2 tank rupture, the consequences could be far worse than an ICE gasoline fire. High pressure vessels also have other failure scenarios, such a brittle fracture, or the failure of associated valves, fittings, or piping.

There was an industrial accident that demonstrates the magnitude of the consequences from an explosion involving 3.5 - 7 kg of hydrogen -- which is coincidentally the amount of H2 in one FCV tank.

NOTE: this hydrogen was at 30 bar; the Toyota Murai and other modern hydrogen vehicles will be at 700 bar pressure.


The amount of H2 that exploded in this accident was calculated by the blast damage:
- prefabricated sections of concrete walls weighing over 1 ton each were blown out along a long length of the building during the explosion
- windows in an adjacent building were shattered, and large shards of glass were embedded in the opposite wall
- all ordinary window glass within 100m and some as far as 700m away was shattered
- the 700 kg/m2 roof of the building was lifted 1.5m from the overpressure of the explosion
- large metal structures were bent, twisted, and some were propelled tens of meters
- two workers were killed, and causalities would have been far higher had it not been a Saturday

Try to imagine this blast damage -- one of the worst industrial hydrogen explosions in history -- in a residential neighborhood, a parking garage, a busy highway, or in a dense commercial district at a filling station.

It's one thing to deal with these amounts of high pressure H2 in industrial settings, far away from the public. It's quite another thing to deal with it in thousands or millions of personal vehicles in homes, cities, or on our public roads. This is an unnecessary risk, there are a number of means of personal vehicle transport that do not involve the high consequences of a 6 kg hydrogen explosion.

A fire in a gasoline or diesel ICE car does not cause explosive blast damage of this magnitude. Only the small percentage of the fuel that has vaporized can explode.

A fire in a BEV car cannot cause damage of this magnitude. The stored energy is simply not there.

Authorities at the San Francisco International Airport didn't have any problem imagining the blast damage from H2 FCVs, because they apparently would not allow a FCV H2 fueling station to be located near their airport.


San Jose Mercury News:

"same time, airport officials were left feeling skittish after the Pacific Gas & Electric natural gas line blast in San Bruno, hydrogen detonations at the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan and the fireball during a May hydrogen leak at an AC Transit facility in Emeryville"



This airport handles over 2 million gallons of jet fuel a day, but a nearby H2 filling station for fuel cell vehicles was deemed to be an excessive risk. The H2 supplier Linde -- who has vast experience producing and handling hydrogen on a huge industrial scale -- refused to assume the liability for the FCV H2 fueling station near the airport. If the vicinity of an airport can be deemed an excessive risk for siting a FCV H2 station, imagine the NIMBY fights over locating H2 fueling stations in many of the other places gas stations get located.

 

[epirali]

I don't know what you are referring to when you use the 97% efficiency. There is no battery technology in use today that achieves that in charging OR use.

Right and as I said in my post the efficiency should be measured from "fueling" to "use" and you ignored it, E/A.

I also stated that in order to discuss efficiency smartly it has to be the ENTIRE production to use chain.

So why is this an issue?

 

[epirali]

Absolutely, the few thousand hydrogen cars that Toyota intends to build will be purchased / leased by well meaning (and well healed) consumers, provided:

1) governments and Toyota grossly subsidizes the hydrogen stations

2) governments and Toyota grossly subsiidize the hydrogen energy

3) governments and Toyota grossly subsidize the hydrogen car

Absolutely at the beginning yes. Just like electric cars are HEAVILY subsidized right now. So are chargers. Is that an issue?