Certainly Toyota, the sacrosanct Automaker of all things fuel efficient, genetically incapable of making errors, and just plain all around good corporate citizen, is intelligent enough not to fall for this millenia's largest farce known as the horrible monster of Hydrogen??? Tell me it isn't so!!! (all sarcasm intended).

516 mile range!?! That's excellent. The automakers just keep making these things better and better. I still see Hydrogen as better range extender application, such as the Chevrolet Volt fuel cell REEV, but the above is an excellent thing.

excellent work, but the fuel cell approach based on pressurized or liquified H2 or even hydride storage is flawed. The problems remains and will remains the poor overwhole efficiency of the well to tank (not to mention the unpractical aspect and sefety issues of handling H2 liquefied or pressurized). The problem that the world is going to face with the depletion of fossil energies, is the scarcity of primary energy, on top of globlal warming. So the world can simply not afford a solution based on poor well to tank efficiency, period.

This master piece of engineering is a pure lost of time.

Only the oxyde fuel cell or the direct ethanol or methanol fuel cells (providing we can improe the efficiency of these later) are worth continuing.

Treehugger,
H2 synthesized from water, solar, wind, or nuclear energy will replace fossil fuel.
Battery-electricity is a more efficient route, but society will still need a source of renewable energy storage produced in seasons of excess renewable energy production for use in season of increase energy consumption. H2 so far has proven to be the most efficient and least expensive form of synthetic chemical fuel made directly from water using renewable energy sources.

Let's say, in the winter, which may last 5-6 months in northern regions, you will need to generate electricity from the stored H2 to charge your BEV. Then, you will see that a car (FCV-HEV) that can directly utilize H2 to the tune of 60% efficiency from tank-to-wheel wise like the Honda FCX will be more efficient than a BEV getting its electricity produced from H2. (~35% H2 to grid to wheel). When considering the value of waste heat used to heat the vehicle's cabin, then FCV will be even more efficient than BEV charged from H2-fueled grid electricity.

When you average out the increase in BEV's efficiency in the summer when charged directly from solar PV panels vs. the FCV's efficiency edge in the winter, then, BEV and FCV-HEV have comparable overall efficiency. This is to be fair!

So, there, all is not lost.

How much energy does it take to squeeze all that H2 to 650 bar, or liquefy it? With no plan to recover any of that energy prior to end use, hydrogen makes no sense. It always will be a fuel for the future. Perhaps (one day, of course) it can be used in flying cars.

Roger Pham

Yes we need a storage energy process but I don't think it will be H2, too expansive and too impractical an too inefficient. The direct generation of H2 by Solar requires temperature more than 2700C and is even more inefficient than electrolysis, means you would need to cover huge amount of land with highly sophisticated concentrators. Also some simple calculation shows that the amount of water that it would required would be humungous.

What the hell happened to the "Remember personal info" function? Moderator, can it be restored?

Even if the H2 concept can get over the production, storage, distribution and delivery issues in both developed and undeveloped countries, there are two issues that can bring it to a dead stop. First, the Hindenberg factor - one explosion and the concept is dead. Second, H2 leaks from everything. When the effects of higher concentrations of H2 in the atmosphere are fully understood (Ozone layer effects for example) H2 may be banned along with other Ozone depleting gases.

My compromise position is using hydrogen as a combustable fuel in a hybrid or PHEV drivetrain. Hydrogen won't have to be stored at high pressure, and hybrid infrastructure can utilize any practical fuel. The real problem with automobiles is their shear numbers and the increasing distances which they're driven daily. An 'Apollo Project' ought not lead to the implementation of some alternative fuel for motor vehicles as much as lead to significant reductions in the need for driving. The low driving range (on battery power) PHEV achieves that sort of Apollo Project objective.

To resolve the issue of hydrogen production, just use natural gas. Boom, production problem solved. Now you dont have to worry about where that hydrogen comes from. Just in case chicken little is reading, we have lots and lots of domestic natural gas. Dont get hung up on "its not renewable" it is. Biogas can also be used to create methane, and thats 4 atoms of hydrogen for those counting.

Hi everyone,

I'm certainly not an expert. I've been learning about hydrogen use and the vehicles like the Honda FCV was estimated to cost over $1 million, so I don't know how practical that is. Honda didn't know how long it would take to make production cars of the FCV for under $100 K. We seem much closer to finding solutions to our dilemma using cars like the EV-1 when they were charged during off peak times when usually we dump excess electrcity (7pm to 7am or so). The vehicles cost about $17K to make and ran on electricity. Li Ion batteries made the last one run about 340 miles on a charge that AeroVronment, Inc. (AVAV) during the last year of production could fill in about 30 minutes. The last batteries lasted 100K miles. The large flaw was the loss of efficiency in colder climates, but it was being addressed with insulatory properties when the plug was pulled on batter technology applications for transportation. Also, there are 86 vehicles in the world with an average mpg of over 40, yet only two (Prius & Civic hybrid) are currently sold in the U.S. I'm not including the Civic GSX since it doesn't use petro.

Hoping to hear from electrical engineers, etc. on this topic. Thank you.

@Bill and Hunter,

Your doubts regarding the economy of Hydrogen can be alleviated by the following link, (select the following link using ctrl button and left mouse button simultaneously, copy the link and paste it to your browser address line)

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/top-ten-hydrogen-myths/

Indeed, wind electricity to hydrogen in modern FCV's can result in operating cost comparable to gasoline at $3.50/gallon. And no, FCV's won't cost anywhere near $1 million USD, either. Give GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Huyndai, BMW, Daimler-Benz... etc. some credits for pushing FCV's, won't y'all?

Rodger Pham, I'm sorry, but I go to the trouble of expressing a compromise position -- that hydrogen may be more practical as a combustable fuel -- and this is not enough for you. If you can't accept that viewpoint, neither can I accept your unwavering position on hydrogen fuel cells. You may think you've got it all figured-out, but you have yet to dedicate the least attention to the benefits and advantages that only PHEV technology offers, nor have you addressed the significant production, distribution, application problems with fuel cell technology. Your love of cars diminishes your humanity.