Komatsu Europe introduces new 36t hydraulic hybrid excavator; 20% fuel savings
DOE to issue funding opportunity to develop plans for drop-in bio-hydrocarbon biorefinery

Japan updates hydrogen fuel cell targets; 320 stations by 2025, 800,000 vehicles by 2030

Japan’s Council for a Strategy for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells, which includes experts from industry, academia, and government, recently issued a revised version of the Strategic Roadmap for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells.

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) established the Council in December 2013; the Strategic Road Map was first published in June 2014. With the increased dissemination of fuel cells for households, the launch of fuel cell vehicles onto the market, and steady progress in the construction of hydrogen stations, the Council has revised the plan, setting new targets. For vehicles, these targets are:

  • About 40,000 fuel cell vehicles by 2020; 200,000 by 2025; and about 800,000 by 2030, in total. Currently there are some 500 fuel cell vehicles on the roads.

  • The number of hydrogen stations is to increase to about 160 stations by 2020 and about 320 stations by 2025. There are about 80 currently.

The council also discussed the technical and economic challenges concerning the utilization of hydrogen generated using renewable energy.

The new plan published by METI also calls for research and development to reduce the cost of fuel cells to one-fourth the current level.

The Asahi Shimbun reported that the Japanese government projects that the cost of fuel cells can be halved from the current level by 2020 and lowered to around one-fourth by 2025 by reducing the use of expensive cell materials and the standardization and sharing of cell components.

Reduction in stack cost will enable the auto industry to introduce popular-market FCV models priced less than ¥3,000,000 (US$27,500), according to the plan.

Toyota Motor has said it plans to achieve annual global sales of more than 30,000 Mirai fuel cell vehicles by 2020.


Robin> ...Japan, they are pushing on FC to be independant in term of energy.

Given that hydrogen is an enery carrier rather than an energy source, how do you propose this works in the real world? Where do you think the energy will come from?


The world is:

1) moving (fast) away from fossil fuel power plants and vehicles to reduce GHG and pollution.

2) REs without storage are already competitive with CPPs, NGPPs, NPPs

3) REs with (H2) storage will be competitive by 2025 or so.

4) H2 made from surplus extremely low cost Hydro (19 hours/day from Monday to Friday and 24/24 on Saturdays and Sundays and Holidays) and from other surplus REs on irregular basis will become as cheap as regular 24/7 electricity for BEVs.

Of course:

1) the use of REs could be progressively mandated (similar to CAFE)

2) a progressive carbon fee could be levied on coal, oil, NG and on all fossil and bio liquid fuels burned.

3) initial research and construction of H2 stations could be subsidised (much the same way as were the Nuclear, Oil and Coal industries for decades and $$$$B).

Due to easier long term storage, lower cost clean H2, FCs and competitive FCEVs will become a reality in the post 2020 era.

Competition from FCEVs will not stop short and mid-range BEVs from progressing but it will force more research into improved lower cost batteries for future all weather extended range affordable BEVs.


@Robin, your grip on reality is tenuous at best. You want to compare the number of H2 charging stations with EV charging stations? Do you want to compare the number of EVs on the road and in production over the next 3 years with FCVs?
Do you want to compare the availability of over 70 MILLION households in America that have a place to park and plug in an EV to do the vast majority of their charging AT HOME with....approximately 20 total H2 stations in the entire good old US of A???

Seriously, take your trolling or stupidity or religiosity about H2 somewhere else. At least Roger and Harvey are arguing about what *might be* one day. You're the only person here who seems to have a serious problem with today's reality.

Do you also believe in alien abduction and all that probing business? LOL


Hold on, folks, it's FISKING TIME!

It is incredible how this website is trolled by Tesla fan and how obvious is their lack of technical knowledge.

Translation:  "They're spoiling my fantasy."

I can see many people fighting to defend H2 and FC in an objective way while other respond with belief and false ideas.

Translation:  "Pointing out that electricity is already ubiquitous and much cheaper than hydrogen (a) trashes my hopes for a worldwide Energiewende and gives me a sad (b) isn't what my fossil-baron paymasters want people to understand (c) all of the above."

For the last ones, I will expose a few facts

<rubs hands with glee>

All the major car manufacturer (Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, Renault-Nissan, etc) are doing research both on FC and battery: they are doing this because they think both market can work.

They're doing it because there are government research grants for it.  If you pay people to do things, you'll find people to do them.

Tesla has never mass produced neither made any benefits.

I can't translate this to English.

H2 is being produced, stored, transported by Gas industry for decades. There is no miracle or secret.

So you know that the fossil-fuel barons have their fingers in this pie, but you won't admit that they will own the hydrogen business and that is why they want FC vehicles so badly:  there is no future for them in a world of EVs.

To come back to the case of Japan, they are pushing on FC to be independant in term of energy.

A Japan full of Leafs and iMievs would be able to run on nuclear power and make Japan independent of petroleum motor fuel and most imported electric generating fuel as well.


Regardless of the current 'war on words' going on between posters, both extended range (700+ Km), all weather, BEVs and FCEVs will be mass produced.

The real questions are:

1) Which technology will be most affordable.

A TESLA Model S-140 @ $125+K could do it by 2025+
A Toyota Mirai can do it NOW @ $60K

2) Charging-refills facilities.

Currently, non existing extended range BEVs are better served with slow 30+ minutes chargers.
Quicker charge (3 minutes) large Hub H2 Stations and smaller sub-stations will be available in many places by 2020 and before.

3) Recharge versus refills cost:

H2 will inherently cost 20% to 30% more than electricity. Refill quickness and FCEVs lower initial purchase cost will compensate for higher refill price.

There's only one real winner unless 5-5-5 batteries show up!

Harvey, its a debate. It's what we do here. No war. A civil discussion.

So what is it you're claiming a Mirai can do "now"?

Where are these claims about the future price of hydrogen coming from?


Hydrogen made from electricity isn't going to cost 20%-30% more.  More like 200%-300% as much.  This was noted many years ago by Dr. Ulf Bossel, and studiously ignored by advocates of ruinables ever since.


Water to H2 converters (electrolizers) will be up to 80% efficient soon.

Using very low cost surplus REs (outside high energy demand hours) and storing clean H2 will make this conversion effectively well over 100% efficient compared to charging batteries at regular price.

Fuel cells will also be close to 80% efficient by 2025 or so.

Using 120% converters + 80% efficient FCs, you may be able to beat the 90% to 95% efficiency of batteries/chargers?

Nothing is really impossible?

Near future computers on a single chip will be more powerful and use only 2.0 watts i.e. a 20:1 energy reduction gain over todays best. Adding the 10:1 computing capacity gain, the total will be more like 200:1. It will be around in less than 5 years.


Good news for BEV and PHEV owners.

All internal and external parkings in new houses and condos in our region will have to be equipped with 220/240 VAC plugs for Level II charging facilities.

This will add about $400 per house/apartment unit. The charger will add another $1000 or so.

Nothing yet for FCEV owners? Large investment in public H2 stations will start by 2018 or so.


Why are you being so extreme on this? You keep making wildly skewed statements that are simply not true:
1) FCVs are cheaper than BEVs. How many ~$35k FCVs are available? ZERO.
2) Homes will have to add 220/240 for $400 and the chargers cost $1,000. What a crock of crap. Most homes have 220/240 for appliances and you don't have to have it anyway. In addition, you can get chargers as low as $170 and the median is around $350 today before large volume and competition drives the price down.
3) Hydrogen will cost 20-30% more. WHERE? WHEN? It reality, it cost 200-300% more 4) Using RE outside of high demand will allow "effectively over 100%..." Total BULLSHYT. Do you think H2 is magic and it can be done off peak hours more than batteries can charge off hours? What evidence do you have for this claim?
5) BEVs need 160kWh batteries. ON WHAT PLANET? The vast majority of the worlds population lives in warmer climes than you do. I'm sorry, but that is a simple fact.
If you have some irrational fear that requires you to have a 600km battery, that is your issue and you should get a good hybrid and be happy. But people in Norway are doing just fine with their EVs and they don't whine about it every day like you do. Seriously, that's getting REALLY old.
By the way, the following link will give you a world population distribution. MOST PEOPLE DON'T live as far north as you do. I'm sorry, but that is simply a fact.


In addition, you keep talking about what FCVs will have or be in the future, like 2025. Batteries are already approaching the $100/kWh mark and keep improving as well. If you want to make these comparisons, you need to project battery improvements for the same time period.
Without assuming any breakthroughs and just the normal ~7% improvement in batteries we've always seen, a 400km BEV will have batteries at $73/kWh, the pack will weigh about 200kg and the car will charge to 80% capacity in 10 minutes from 100,000+ charging stations across North America AND there will be multiple vehicles in the $30K range to choose from.

How do you expect FCVs to compete with that considering the headstart EVs already have?


@ Dave D:

It is obvious that we are not referring to the same electrified vehicles and/or conditions.

Yes, good weather very short range e-vehicles are progressively getting better and cheaper. Even the new Tesla III may go over $50.

Yes, a TESLA, (the near future Model S-120D) will come close to being an all weather extended range BEV but will cost $125+K and will take up to 60 minutes to fully recharge.

Yes, the only current affordable ($57K to $60K) all weather extended range electrified vehicles are FCEVs from Toyota, Hyundai and Honda. (Many more to come)

Yes, $400 average per 220/240 VAC outlet for BEV/PHEV Level II chargers was quoted by the MoT for new houses and/or condos. The cost for existing condos is as high as $5K to fully meet local and regional regulations and individual building construction particularities.

Both technologies are progressing but BEVs have a long way to go to match FCEVs


So you're saying a Bolt and a 2nd gen Leaf will cost $50K? You know that they are ~$35K cars and they will be available in 2017. What FCV are you speaking of that they need to "catch up with"?

What existing H2 fueling infrastructure do BEVs need to "catch up with"?

You're cherry picking future projections for FCVs and comparing them to current EV tech. And then you say "the only current affordable ($57K to $60K) all weather extended range electrified vehicles are FCEVs from Toyota, Hyundai and Honda."

Are you saying those cars are more available, have larger numbers of current sales and more places to charge/use than a Chevy Volt? Are they cheaper? What makes them better? The fact they get their H2 from fracked NG in North America makes even their future value dubious.



I admit that affordable ($35+K-USD) short and mid-range good weather BEVs are available and/or will soon be.

I also have to admit that such e-vehicles do not meet our basic requirements and cannot replace our HEVs any more than FCEVs without H2 stations or not until 2020/2022?

By 2020/2025, a TESLA III B or C or D with 500+ Km range may be an acceptable solution, if the price is right.

With due regards to BEVs/FCEVs evolution, it seems that we will be using our HEVs for another 7 to 8 years.


And the Volt vs. an FCV? Hyundai and others are bringing their own version of the Volt to market in the next 12-18 months as well.



Just looking at some of the cars that have already been announced as PHEVs, I have no idea how FCVs would survive when these vehicles will already be on the road with cheaper fuel, existing infrastructure and a huge head start in numbers. Why do I care? Because unlike many H2 advocates I do NOT think that BEVs and HFCVs will be able to coexist. The money that Toyota and others has already wasted playing around with H2 could have been used to move the EV market forward by 3-5 years and build out all the infrastructure we'll need. The BEVs WILL be here, so all the FCVs do is delay that in an attempt to tie us into the fossil fuel industry for another 100 years:

"PHEVs scheduled for market launch between in 2016 and 2018 are the Hyundai Ioniq Plug-in, Toyota Prius Prime (second generation Prius PHEV), Cadillac CT6 Plug-in Hybrid, Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, BMW 740e iPerformance, Audi R8 e-tron, Audi Q7 PHEV, Mercedes-Benz E 350e Plug-in Hybrid, Mercedes-Benz GLC 350e 4MATIC, and Mercedes-Benz GLE 550e Plug-in Hybrid.[491][492][493][494] In total, Mercedes-Benz plans to introduce 10 new plug-in hybrid models by 2017.[108] The Mitsubishi ASX Plug-in Hybrid is scheduled for market launch in Europe and other markets in 2017.[495]"



Tks for the info on near future multiple new PHEV availability.

The current lack of in-house and public charging facilities are much the same as the rare H2 stations.

Otherwise, I admit that the new Chevy Malibu and/or similar Buick PHEVs or Chevy Volt would be very good interim solutions, better than limited use short and/or mid range BEVs, for our local conditions?

Btw, full page write ups and comparison matrices are available in a very attractive package at a Barnes & Noble near you.

On the shelf at Chapters/Indigo for you Harvey.

Such a deal!

Roger Pham


BEV's and FCEV's share the electric power train in common. The only difference is in the battery and FC. Research in electric power train benefits both BEV and FCEV.
Are you claiming that not enough money was devoted to battery research? In reality, it has been the opposite. In the last several decades, most major electronic giants have been devoting large sums of money trying to make Li-ion batteries with higher and higher energy density and less prone to fire hazard. Why? Portable electronics are getting more and more powerful and power hungry, and the screens are getting bigger and brighter...and they need a lot of stored energy. Many people have to carry their smart phone chargers to work and plug those in constantly so they won't be out of juice at the end of the day...Unacceptable!
And those vast sums of money devoted to Li-ion battery research brought back spectacular results.

Apple computer at the same time has also been doing research on FC for portable electronics and has filed patents on those. FC are increasingly used to power massive computer data centers and cell-phone towers, first as backup with plan to use FC straight as the primary source of power. It is not wise to put all eggs in one basket. Huge advancements have also been made WRT to FC and Hydrogen techs.

Don't look at battery and FC as rivaling each other, but as complementary to each other.
Batteries can more efficiently use Solar and Wind energy (S&W) as it is being produced.
H2-FC is less efficient than batteries for electricity generation, (though for heating purpose or combined heat and power can be just as efficient as batteries,) but FC can use stored grid-EXCESS S&W energy, with the H2 made in days and seasons of grid EXCESS S&W energy to be used in days and seasons deficient in S&W energy.

When all the grid-EXCESS S&W energy can be sold to make H2 and bring back predictable revenues for S&W investors, we will eventually able to financially support well over 100% grid penetration with S&W energy...The nameplate capacity of S&W can be as high as SIX times the grid's peak power demand, when the H2 produced can be used to replace fossil fuels in all manner of usages, from home heating to industrial use, making fertilizers, plastics, halt man-made Global Warming.


Roger, We've all debated with you for years on here and other forums. We simply disagree on the use of fuel cells in vehicles. But I have zero problem with fuel cells for stationary use. In fact, if there is a steady supply of H2 as a byproduct of some other reaction.

I also believe that H2 is a viable option to help S&W by storing excess to balance the workload. That's a simple matter of economics and projects are underway at utility scale for H2, Batteries, pumped Hydro, etc to see which one(s) win. So I'll let the market pricing determine that winner.

But I simply do not agree with you on vehicles. I think that FCVs on the vehicle front distract from, and take away from progress and infrastructure on BEVs. I know that is just my opinion, but I don't see the reality of FCVs taking off with the problems they have and the list of PHEVs they have to compete against already.

Just today, the Honda announcement! We've all known it was coming, and they will have a BEV on that Clarity platform as well as a PHEV. Now...we know that Toyota will also quit hiding their efforts there in the next year or so.

So, is yet another announcement today:



That announcement will favor/promote lower cost near future FCEVs and short mid-range BEVs.

A good near future combination.

Larger FCs (200 KW to 300+ KW) will soon find their way into long haul large trucks and buses?

Many EU countries (and California + a few other States) will soon have early thin H2 station networks. A mix of large main and smaller distribution stations will probably be used.


... Aaaand Roger comes back with the exact script used by Greens to justify hydrogen:  with unreliable and seasonally-variable wind and solar, you've got to be able to store electricity on the scale of seasons and nothing else will do.  This does beg the question:  why must hydrogen go to vehicles instead of using stationary FCs to charge batteries?

This is easy to understand if you view it as an issue of oil company and government tax agency interests.  Hydrogen dispensed at pumps is controlled by those who own the fuel networks and can be taxed just like liquid fuels.  The oil companies will be able to sneak in their H2 from steam methane reforming and profit from the huge markups.  They'd lose all of this if cars charged mostly at home, and nuclear power would eat the carbon interests' lunch.


Harvey, I'm not following you. How does Honda announcing a BEV and PHEV favor near term HFCVs?

I think it's time to ask why bother, Dave. Harvey, as usual, ignores all salient questions and puffs three new unsupported wishful suppositions right out of his pipe stem.

There's no effort or, I surmise, intention to stay moored to reality with any of these proclamations. H2 is the fuel of the future because Harvey said so. Not as much as a back of the envelope calculation ever need be offered, and certainly never any meaningful links that might support his preposterous arguments. 120kWh battery! 160kWh battery!

Harvey, whenever FCVs are offered in your area I sincerely hope you enjoy every princely mile. It will cost a kings ransom, but no matter. I believe Hyundai Tucson FCV is on sale in Canada now. Maybe you're just waiting for some more fuel stations to be installed?


The truth is that hydrogen IS the fuel of the future.

The joke is that it ALWAYS will be.

The comments to this entry are closed.