No More Electric Cars from Toyota

[minispeed]

I'm still surprised by Toyota's and Honda's decision to back fuel cells instead of BEV. I do think that hydrogen has some smoke and mirrors, and isn't the best thing for cars, which is why I believe that BEV's and PHEV's will be the future for personal transportation.... but....


What about trucks? There is nothing that I have seen/read that points to anything that can deliver zero emissions for what the trucking industry, and to a lesser extent small comercial vehicles used non stop all day with the exception of hydrogen. Yes I know that most of the hydrogen will come from natural gas and thus not be true zero emissions, just like anyone who charges their leaf from a coal fired plant. However it will have the label slapped on it, it will let the companies benefit from green image and it will meet the environmental targets because they will be set up in a way to favour hydrogen. Is that such a bad thing if it gets trucks off diesel?

We can debate all day what is best but the current trucks use about 5mpg and drive for around 10hr shifts (I think that's the standard) which leaves 14hrs at rest. At 55mph avg that's 110gal a shift. If they were BEV that would mean charging for 14hrs. Now I'm taking a guess at the math but by my estimates a gal of diesel has 147000btu, or 43kw. Let's say that truck was 30% efficent and the electric version would be 90%. So for that 110gal of diesel you would need a battery with 1576kw in it, or approx. 75 leaf batteries, at the $6500 Nissan charges currently (which they said is a loss) that's $487500 for batteries. Then comes charging, you'd have to charge every truck in the truck stop over 14hs to a full charge, or approx 90kw/hr for each truck.

Now feel free to poke as many holes in my numbers as possible, they are probably wrong, but even if I am double what the truck would need I don't think BEV will ever come down in price/energy density/charge time quickly enough to beat hydrogen in the trucking industry.

So maybe Toyota and Honda are waiting for a break through in battery tech for personal cars while soaking up as much government backing for hydrogen as they can. They may know that it won't be a money maker in personal cars but if they can lead this market while there is demand and prove it to individual customers willing to have the car in for service for a day or 2 they can then adapt it to the trucking industry that won't take risks with new technology.

 

[RegGuheert]

What about trucks?
...
They may know that it won't be a money maker in personal cars but if they can lead this market while there is demand and prove it to individual customers willing to have the car in for service for a day or 2 they can then adapt it to the trucking industry that won't take risks with new technology.

If they are doing it for trucks, then why are they pushing fuel-cell cars? While Toyota is doing nothing with trucks, others are already putting them on the streets.

 

[minispeed]

What about trucks?
...
They may know that it won't be a money maker in personal cars but if they can lead this market while there is demand and prove it to individual customers willing to have the car in for service for a day or 2 they can then adapt it to the trucking industry that won't take risks with new technology.

If they are doing it for trucks, then why are they pushing fuel-cell cars? While Toyota is doing nothing with trucks, others are already putting them on the streets.

As I said above because the trucking industry will not take a gamble on new technology. A truck only makes money on the road. Reliability and quick repairs are key. The industry will gladly pay more money for fuel to meet the customer expectations. The whole industry is built on meeting deadlines that the rail industry could never meet.

Even though Toytoa may not make the long haul trucks if they can perfect it in a car they will have the reliable technology that the trucking industry will pay for. Also as referenced in the green car report which I read after my post,

Toyota has 8 types of vehicles there and only see's the fuel cell in one of the type's that we are use to seeing here in north america with a toyota badge. If that turns out to be true it's only logical that the middle too, PHEV and HV will eventually be squeezed out by either side, FC or BEV as cost/range/availability/ease of fueling change. If the cost of both come down I don't think anything can beat a hybrid BEV and FC range extender. Fill at home on electricity over night for cheap, only ever visit a refueling station on long road trips.

 

[msbriggs]

What about trucks? There is nothing that I have seen/read that points to anything that can deliver zero emissions for what the trucking industry, and to a lesser extent small comercial vehicles used non stop all day with the exception of hydrogen. Yes I know that most of the hydrogen will come from natural gas and thus not be true zero emissions, just like anyone who charges their leaf from a coal fired plant. However it will have the label slapped on it, it will let the companies benefit from green image and it will meet the environmental targets because they will be set up in a way to favour hydrogen. Is that such a bad thing if it gets trucks off diesel?

IMO biodiesel would be cleaner than natural gas derived hydrogen FCVs - especially if the biodiesel is derived from algae or waste biomass (there are several technologies for the latter, with the "blunt force" approach being gasifying any type of waste biomass, and using Fischer Tropsch synthesis to turn the biogas into synthetic biodiesel).

The big problem for hydrogen in trucking is that the energy density is too low. BEVs are rapidly catching up to hydrogen in that area - and that is really the only area that hydrogen had an advantage over BEVs. The trucking industry would not be willing to lose a large portion of their shipping space to giant tanks of hydrogen. Nevermind the immense safety concerns with trucks running around with giant hydrogen tanks. Sure, the tanks can be designed to "powderize" on impact - but there is still the immense mechanical energy stored in a huge volume of highly compressed gas. If a tractor trailer ran on compressed hydrogen, the amount of mechanical energy that would be released if a tank ruptures - even if the hydrogen doesn't ignite - is easily enough to level a building. Many times more energy than what is in artillery shells.

We can debate all day what is best but the current trucks use about 5mpg and drive for around 10hr shifts (I think that's the standard) which leaves 14hrs at rest. At 55mph avg that's 110gal a shift. If they were BEV that would mean charging for 14hrs. Now I'm taking a guess at the math but by my estimates a gal of diesel has 147000btu, or 43kw. Let's say that truck was 30% efficent and the electric version would be 90%. So for that 110gal of diesel you would need a battery with 1576kw in it, or approx. 75 leaf batteries, at the $6500 Nissan charges currently (which they said is a loss) that's $487500 for batteries. Then comes charging, you'd have to charge every truck in the truck stop over 14hs to a full charge, or approx 90kw/hr for each truck.

That's a reasonable ballpark figure (although modern diesel engines are a little over 40% efficient, with homogeneous charge diesels getting up around 50% now - better than fuel cells with reformers.

Now feel free to poke as many holes in my numbers as possible, they are probably wrong, but even if I am double what the truck would need I don't think BEV will ever come down in price/energy density/charge time quickly enough to beat hydrogen in the trucking industry.

I would qualify that to say it won't come down enough to beat *liquid hydrocarbons* in the trucking industry. Hydrogen will not be able to beat liquid hydrocarbons in the trucking industry either.

 

[msbriggs]

Even though Toytoa may not make the long haul trucks if they can perfect it in a car they will have the reliable technology that the trucking industry will pay for. Also as referenced in the green car report which I read after my post,

Toyota has 8 types of vehicles there and only see's the fuel cell in one of the type's that we are use to seeing here in north america with a toyota badge. If that turns out to be true it's only logical that the middle too, PHEV and HV will eventually be squeezed out by either side, FC or BEV as cost/range/availability/ease of fueling change. If the cost of both come down I don't think anything can beat a hybrid BEV and FC range extender. Fill at home on electricity over night for cheap, only ever visit a refueling station on long road trips.

Woah woah there! There is something VERY VERY wrong with their graph. They have hydrogen on the right end, as if it is a much higher distance (range) option than gasoline, diesel, etc.. Hydrogen FCVs that have been produced have ranges on par with Tesla BEVs - generally 150-250 miles. That is with very highly compressed hydrogen (10,000 psi - wouldn't want to be within two city blocks of one of those tanks personally), and the best wheel to tank energy efficiencies the industry has managed to muster - around 45-50% - far lower than BEVs.

If they are claiming that hydrogen is the future for achieving better range than gasoline and diesel, then they are very, very deluded. Or stoned. Probably both.

 

[msbriggs]

Anyone with a scientific background, who spends a little bit of time examining the competing technologies, quickly comes to the conclusion that fuel cells can not possibly compete with battery EVs. They are inherently more expensive and *at best* about half as efficient. Add in the fact that you would need a much larger investment in infrastructure, and it's a no brainer. If you want more details, I'd be happy to post my PhD thesis, which included a thorough analysis of the options.

Yes, I would love to see your PhD thesis. Thanks for injecting a note of rationality into the discussion.

Enjoy:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~msbriggs/BriggsPhDDissertation.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Warning: it's over 700 pages. That's in part because I tried to explain things very thoroughly to make it more understandable - and of course also because of the grad school's stupid requirement that theses be double spaced....

Most of my thesis was actually on a thorough analysis of nuclear fusion systems, and a new design for a driven subcritical nuclear fission reactor I came up with. But, I also did a thorough analysis of other means of producing and storing energy, including biofuels, hydrogen, BEVs, etc..

 

[RegGuheert]

As I said above because the trucking industry will not take a gamble on new technology. A truck only makes money on the road. Reliability and quick repairs are key. The industry will gladly pay more money for fuel to meet the customer expectations. The whole industry is built on meeting deadlines that the rail industry could never meet.

So they need to prove them out. Building cars does not accomplish that.

The port of LA is partially funding this effort to develop hydrogen-powered drayage trucks. They started testing them in 2011 and are planning upcoming long-term tests, as does the Port of Houston. PR stunt? Maybe. But I think it is self-preservation. If they don't clean up their trucking, they eventually be forced to move. Drayage trucks have traditionally been the least-efficient and dirtiest trucks on the roads. Having them operate in a crowded city has never been popular.

I've posted a few YouTube videos and a couple of relevant articles in the Vision Motor Corp Tyrano Class 8 Hydrogen Plug-In Truck thread.

 

[minispeed]

IMO biodiesel would be cleaner than natural gas derived hydrogen FCVs - especially if the biodiesel is derived from algae or waste biomass (there are several technologies for the latter, with the "blunt force" approach being gasifying any type of waste biomass, and using Fischer Tropsch synthesis to turn the biogas into synthetic biodiesel).

The big problem for hydrogen in trucking is that the energy density is too low. BEVs are rapidly catching up to hydrogen in that area - and that is really the only area that hydrogen had an advantage over BEVs. The trucking industry would not be willing to lose a large portion of their shipping space to giant tanks of hydrogen. Nevermind the immense safety concerns with trucks running around with giant hydrogen tanks. Sure, the tanks can be designed to "powderize" on impact - but there is still the immense mechanical energy stored in a huge volume of highly compressed gas. If a tractor trailer ran on compressed hydrogen, the amount of mechanical energy that would be released if a tank ruptures - even if the hydrogen doesn't ignite - is easily enough to level a building. Many times more energy than what is in artillery shells.

That's a reasonable ballpark figure (although modern diesel engines are a little over 40% efficient, with homogeneous charge diesels getting up around 50% now - better than fuel cells with reformers.

I would qualify that to say it won't come down enough to beat *liquid hydrocarbons* in the trucking industry. Hydrogen will not be able to beat liquid hydrocarbons in the trucking industry either.

I work around warehouses and although it only shows a small snap shot of the trucking industry I also use to date a girl in a family of long haul truckers. From warehousing I know that having emissions around an enclosed area with workers is a mojor health and safety issue. There is a push to gettting all ICE engines out of a persons working environment. Workers and unions are very concerned with air quality now. There are lots of tests that you can do, lots of other things to burn in an ICE to make it cleaner but the workers want zero emissions, they want the label. From knowing the family of long haul truckers, if a truck can have an ICE at 40 or even 50% efficency, they drivers don't do anything to maximize it, and even do the opposite. Sometimes they tack on a fuel surcharge and are basicly marking up all fuel they burn on that trip, if it's used to make the truck go down the highway or keep the AC running while on the dock it gets passed onto the customer, the driver is cool and happy and the trucking company makes an extra bit. I think that 30% is a fair real time road number, they also don't drive 55mph or limit themselves to 10hr shifts. Many of them speed as much as they can and fake log books to spend more time in vegas, reno or shopping in tax free states.

I honestly do not think hydrogen is the best, but from what I read I think it will win. I don't think it "can" beat hydrocarbons but it will because people want it to.

Woah woah there! There is something VERY VERY wrong with their graph. They have hydrogen on the right end, as if it is a much higher distance (range) option than gasoline, diesel, etc.. Hydrogen FCVs that have been produced have ranges on par with Tesla BEVs - generally 150-250 miles. That is with very highly compressed hydrogen (10,000 psi - wouldn't want to be within two city blocks of one of those tanks personally), and the best wheel to tank energy efficiencies the industry has managed to muster - around 45-50% - far lower than BEVs.

If they are claiming that hydrogen is the future for achieving better range than gasoline and diesel, then they are very, very deluded. Or stoned. Probably both.

That graph isn't saying "this is the way it is". They are not saying hydrogen can give better range, they are saying it will be adopted by people who want to go further in a day due to refill times. Even though a tesla can drive more miles than a Honda Clarity can now on a charge the clarity can do more miles per day as a 24hr taxi around a refueling station than a tesla could.

So they need to prove them out. Building cars does not accomplish that.

Building cars will get them the proven patents to sell the technology, or to apply it to their wholey owned Hino truck/bus division and then maybe we'll see them bring more over here, wikipedia says they sell about 12000 trucks a year in North America but they are one of the largest in Asia.

 

[msbriggs]

Woah woah there! There is something VERY VERY wrong with their graph. They have hydrogen on the right end, as if it is a much higher distance (range) option than gasoline, diesel, etc.. Hydrogen FCVs that have been produced have ranges on par with Tesla BEVs - generally 150-250 miles. That is with very highly compressed hydrogen (10,000 psi - wouldn't want to be within two city blocks of one of those tanks personally), and the best wheel to tank energy efficiencies the industry has managed to muster - around 45-50% - far lower than BEVs.

If they are claiming that hydrogen is the future for achieving better range than gasoline and diesel, then they are very, very deluded. Or stoned. Probably both.

That graph isn't saying "this is the way it is". They are not saying hydrogen can give better range, they are saying it will be adopted by people who want to go further in a day due to refill times. Even though a tesla can drive more miles than a Honda Clarity can now on a charge the clarity can do more miles per day as a 24hr taxi around a refueling station than a tesla could.

When some of the new thin film lithium sulfide electrolytes are incorporates info batteries, especially with aerogel or carbon nanotube electrolytes, recharging batteries from zero to 80% in five minutes will start becoming feasible. Some of the thin film electrolytes being developed can drastically reduce the internal resistance.

 

[msbriggs]

Note of course that recharging that fat would only be feasible at very high power charging stations - no home charger could do that.