To me its amazing to see manufacturers work together to make a FCV, new transmissions, and even cars together. I am glad there is more demand than they originally expected. Car manufacturers spend billions of dollars in R&D to wring out more performance from systems, and I think the ICE is about to hit its limit in the next ten years.Advanced egr, combustion mixtures, and advanced combustion timing will only help so much, but it will still be significant enough for them to pursue it.

I'm fairly excited at the prospect of a FC car, while currently I am incapable of purchasing one at the moment(for reasons of both price and availability); I just get so excited over the idea of leaving behind an ICE, a power train that miraculously spins at 8000rpms, relies on controlled ignition of a highly volatile substance, and is tremendously complex in operation.

The ICE is a marvel of science and engineering, and I think FCVs can overthrow that position of power, while maintaining all the features we know and love about the ICE today without much of the downside. People are afraid of change, some can't change, but FCVs don't really ask for too much change on the habits of the consumer. That's why I think it'll succeed.

And if PHEVs become a thing, or even become mandatory, we can use a moderate size of batteries, somewhere near the capacity of a leaf or a volt, a vast majority of miles will come from the electric grid, yet none of the vehicles will be dependant on it, none will be based around a battery that overtime weakens and becomes obsolete/diminished within 10years(or even sooner if you compare to alternative chemistries).

I feel the price of the car is an ever growing burden on the working and lower classes, to put tons of capital into a system where 80% capacity is "Normal" after 5years kind of doesn't make sense at this moment in time, I hope Tesla and Chevy can bring down the price substantially, up the reliability / long term performance we'll see much more market for BEVs, especially if they ever get to cost parity with ICEs for a similar range.

If the trend of long term ownership continues, i.e. The average age of vehicles on the road climbing i feel it will hinder BEV adoption greatly. Unless they made an industry wide standard and modular replaceable parts, updating the form factor every 5years or more(creating a market for the aftermarket). Also think of motherboards and socket types, several board makers, 2 prevalent processor makers.

If I knew i could update my Bev, to a better performing one over time, it would appeal to me.

So I look to FCVs, yes, diminished efficiency over time, but usually its rarely notable. The cost of the system is spread out over battery, tank and generator. If they launch FCV as PHEVs I think it will satiate even the most demanding of the BEV crowd.

Kellydorsey18:

There are lots of ways of providing hydrogen, many not available for petrol.

For instance you can simply use the natural gas pipelines, and reform the natural gas on the forecourt.

You can also mix hydrogen including from renewables in with the natural gas, and readily filter it out on site.

Here is an analysis of production and distribution strategies and costs:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review11/h2pn01_dillich_pd_2011_o.pdf

Of course, if VW's idea is used, and they are built as PHEVs, most everyday running around would be on electric anyway, and hydrogen would only be used for longer journeys, so infrastructure and hydrogen volumes would be much reduced.

DM> reform the natural gas on the forecourt.

What do you do with the CO2? Carelessly toss it into the atmosphere, as if that didn't matter?

Hydrogen is a Shell game.

eci:

What are you on about now?

Where do you think your electricity comes from?

If you are charging your car from the mains overnight then you are largely using coal as well as natural gas.

What are you doing with the CO2?

Toyota is a responsible company who know have forgotten more about engineering than you will ever know.

The folly of your relentless pumping of other less respectable companies on your blog and lack of judgement will become more apparent as the year progresses.

eci,
You don't get it, FCV does not emit ANY combustion products, electric cars on the other hand emit LOTS of combustion products at the power plants.

the simplicity of battery is that we can all provide for our own at NO extra infrastructure cost as it exists in most areas of modern life.

That makes it disruptive and hard to regulate. That may well be the reason H2 is being pushed way beyond manufactures commercial interests. That is to say the govt and BIG (not car makers) business interests.That leads me to believe it is in "the boss's" interest above the end user.

Hydrogen will be fraught with regulation and suit large co's and regulation with the appropriate attached price tag.

Existing domestic supply and self generated renewable electricity to bev is a simple affordable and independent proven stand alone capable method that should suit everyone else.

The existing electricity infrastructure exists at high market penetration and would normally be expected to evolve with the greater renewable penetration, Any upgrade to meet high vehicle take up is a small concern, more likely will be beneficial.

I can see no good reason to recommend hydrogen at the expense of reducing the efforts to bring the electricity grid up to it's (required) potential

With battery tech able to meet the demands of much transport needs.While not looking suitable for the heavy lift areas such as
Heavy vehicles incl earth moving, air travel, ocean going etc.

While there is a clear demand for energy in a form as met by H2, I don't support it at the expense of the more direct, more efficient, more suitable for empowering system we are seeing evolve with new battery chemistries development and known potential.

If, with bev, I can refuell from home with affordable infrastructure what is not to like?
I don't see H2 acheiving that anytime soon.

It's a no brainer that Japan will go H2 hence Toyota others are on board.
Germany and France yep SO?

Can't see H2 penetrating developing countries other than the globalised or big turnover industries Certainly not self sufficient applications anytime soon.

Another consideration is that the same say P.V. will up skill everyone to the smallest participant. H2 at present is a specialised read propriety game.
Hence it's popularity with big any.

You know that there is no argument to answer when your detractors resort to abuse and mindless rhetoric.

Some think if you produce enough batteries they will be real cheap, that may be true to an extent. Now you have size, weight, cycle time, shelf life and other considerations.

Now some of the same people think the next battery 2x, 3x, 4x break through is just around the corner. I look at more than a decade of going from laptops to EVs with LOTS of work to make them safer. Then look at the last 5 years trying for sulfur, air, vanadium, magnesium and other methods.. we have a long way to go.

Meanwhile, FFVs may become much cheaper , lighter and more efficient with smaller H2 tank.

Making H2 with clean low cost electricity during off peak periods and storing it in mid-pressure tanks or in NG pipelines is not that difficult to do.

I don't understand why posters insist on declaring winners in a race that has just begun. If you can tell me exactly what gasoline will cost 5 years from now, maybe you can tell me how much electricity or hydrogen will cost. But I won't believe it until a winner emerges. I personally think there is a place for all of these technologies. Among other things, hydrogen, whether cheap or not, can provide certainty that renewable electricity cannot. It is not a question of which is the cheapest or best technology, it is a matter of what mix works. After all, I can buy 3 grades of gasoline or diesel, and guess what -- they all sell, and at different prices. Explain that.

There is very little difference conceptually between the FCV
and Battery, the physics are very close.

A FCev requires every component that the Bev plus some. The battery (or maybe Capacitors) and downstream drivetrain are identical.
That is the battery and electric drivetrain.

Ideally the chosen FC type EV starts with a hybrid platform with modest battery but the higher the battery capacity and lower the weight as well as better life expectancy, the better the platform.
We see this now in hybrids and plug in hybrids.

It is pointless calling one better or winner from the engineers point of view.

The very same improvements that enable Bev's transfers directly to FCv.

The fact that the Bev architecture is mandatory, suggests to me that development efforts here at the root will have an order of magnitude greater as it returns benefits across the industry as well as other consumer markets plus grid storage.(hint)

With higher efficiency numbers quoted for electrolysis H2, It must be hard to put a number to the end efficiency differences and convenience must be seen in context.

We can be sure that they will both be found in the same repair shop requiring the same cross X ? discipline skillset and likely built in the same factories.

That this leads to greater choice is a good thing. If only to give creative people their head.
Neither path leads to greater environmental benefits as both are capable of near zero emission.

My crystal ball sees the Bev very likely in my future but it can (will) be upgraded via future internet downloads.

It makes sense that FC will come at a higher cost from added complexity though that may reduce to the added processing and storage as cheaper stacks evolve.

There would be low cost options as well for supply when integrated to various gas pipelies.

To supply those pipelines I would suggest the *model will be based on fossil fuels with small renewable component for the forseeable future*.As described in most projections.
That is not best practice in a carbon constrained world. Unfortunately the same can be said for most existing e grids.

Seems we will be choking and sweating a while longer as the transition from fossil fuels accelerates to primary source.

The roadmap suggests that will take three more decades with serious commitment and sytems available form ~2020 leading to total changeover within the following two decades.

That timeframe is still considered problematic from the climate perspective but doable from the engineering and economic perspective. Given the united voices of concern from our brightest and informed govt advisers, That scenario seems to have a good chance of accomplishment.

But politicians curious rationality - putting ideology in front of common sense, and business have a reputation for feathering their nests taking easy short term options double talk and appeasing the powerful lobbies.

I would suggest that acceptance there will be the hardest bit.