ClearFlame Engine Technologies raises $30M in Series B
Siemens Energy to supply 1.8GW of electrolyzers to HIF Global for Texas eFuels facility

Toyota runs GR Corolla fueled by liquid hydrogen

On 23 February, a GR Corolla fueled by liquid hydrogen was given a Super Taikyu test run at Fuji Speedway in Oyama, Shizuoka. It marked the car’s first public appearance and the first time for a manufacturer vehicle running on liquid hydrogen to hit the racetrack.


Whereas the GR Corollas competing in previous Super Taikyu events were fueled by gaseous hydrogen (earlier post), this official test featured a GR Corolla using liquid fuel. The car ran three sessions on the day. This test simulated real race conditions, including sharing the track with other cars and refueling within designated times.

We’re fighting to create a future for the internal combustion engine by tackling a technology deemed unfeasible for cars, in the uncharted territory of -253°C. While various hurdles still remain, as with gaseous hydrogen we hope that our agile development on the racetrack will feed back into everyday cars.

—Driver Masahiro Sasaki

With development ongoing, the team is aiming to compete in the 2023 Super Taikyu season that kicks off this month. Doing so will accelerate efforts to expand fuel options in pursuit of a carbon-neutral society.


In March 2022, at the Super Taikyu opening round at Suzuka Circuit in Mie Prefecture, Toyota revealed that it had begun developing a vehicle fueled by liquid hydrogen. Three months later, at the second round at Fuji Speedway, the team exhibited an onboard system and mobile station for liquid hydrogen.

From there, following testing and approval of liquid hydrogen tanks and other components, at the end of October, the vehicle was successfully filled up with hydrogen and taken for a test drive.

From November, the team racked up track sessions to flush out any issues with the liquid hydrogen system and get the car race-ready. This year, the focus is honing technology and personnel with the aim of fielding a liquid hydrogen-powered car in competition of Super Taikyu.

Until last year, the hydrogen-powered Corollas had been fueled by gaseous hydrogen. However, in general, the ability to run on a liquid fuel boosts the energy density per unit volume and increases driving range.

For gaseous hydrogen, tanks are filled at high pressure and must therefore be cylindrical. When the fuel is in a liquid state, however, there is no need for tanks to be pressurized. In the future, fuel tanks could be shaped conveniently for under-floor mounting, offering the potential to improve packaging efficiency.

Switching the fuel from gas to liquid also allows for more compact mobile hydrogen stations. Liquefaction reduces the required size of transport trucks and eliminates the need for facilities that boost pressure up to 70MPa. This shrinks the footprint of a station to about one-quarter of that needed for gaseous hydrogen. As with gasoline vehicles, refueling could also be done in the pit area.

Since refueling no longer needs to be done at pressure, multiple cars can be filled up in succession.

Moving forward, Toyota will focus on challenges such as maintaining the ultralow temperature of -253°C during refueling and storage, and dealing with natural vaporization as tanks heat up, as it strives to pick up the pace of technological development.



The Unfortunate Truth About Toyota's Hydrogen V8 Engine


Weird how everyone and their cat know way more than Toyota about how to build a car engine.

It is a good job that they have never attempted to build one.

It’s not necessary to build an engine to understand the inefficiencies of well to wheel hydrogen as a transportation fuel, especially in ICE engines.

It’s crushingly uneconomic.

The physics are not going to change, so no matter what clever engineering Toyota performs to manage the “challenges such as maintaining the ultralow temperature of -253°C during refueling and storage.” The inefficiencies of the system make it unable to economically compete with battery electric powertrains.

In Motorsport, where winning is everything, the cost may not matter to a sponsor.

For the average Joe who wants to get to work and back, this will never have any use.

It’s curious that Toyota continues to promote hydrogen. Between $21/kg H2 fuel in California, and the wheels coming off their BEV program, you’d think they would focus their resources on projects that will actually make a difference for customers, shareholders, and inhabitants of planet earth.


Choose favourable assumptions, and dismiss all others, then you can come up with any 'inevitable' outcome you happen to fancy.

There are umpteen possible paths to really cheap hydrogen, and in any case it is possible to transport energy using vectors like ammonia very large distances, so that the most favourable locations for renewables can be utilised.

If you stick a solar panel in the Gulf, you get twice as much power as on a rooftop in Germany,

Funnily enough, such 'inefficiencies' are never mentioned by battery only advocates

I don't know what the breakdown of different energy resources will be.

Neither do you, and your 'certainty' is not indicative of superior knowledge, but of the degree to which you are blinkered by thinking you know the answer to everything, and dismissing anything which does not fit in to your rigid and prejudicial framework

That is why Toyota simply have the objective of being at the forefront of transport, whatever powers it, including having been at the forefront of battery development as well as fuel cells, and combustion engines powered by a variety of sources

You aren't God, and should stop confusing yourself by assuming that you know everything, and your opinions are some sort of devine revelation.


Didn't you know that Toyota is secretly owned by Exxon?..just kidding!
Methinks Toyota is too far in to get out easy so they are working their Hydrogen Projects to the best conclusions they can. And, who knows. Maybe all this expensive H2 research will someday be of value; perhap in the aero business.


Hi Lad

Perhaps it is worth while pointing out that Toyota are looking at liquid hydrogen for a race car, so abstruce calculations of battery effiiciency if the whole fleet were running on them as against liquid hydrogen are rather beside the point.

Toyota just develop everything, they are large and profitable enough to do that, and see where it takes them.

I like suck it and see approaches, rather than 'universe down' ukases as to what is going to work, so beloved by the more extreme battery only advocates.

Not that I am accusing you of any such thing, of course!
But some other commentators are far too absolute for my taste.

Kelly Blue Book, via Cox Automotive, reported that EV sales soared 65% from 2021 to 2022, with over 800,000 electric vehicles sold in the US last year.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles shrank from 3,341 deliveries in 2021 to 2,707 in 2022 in the US.

The horses have left the gate, and the one in the lead has run nearly a quarter way around the track, but you can still place your bets, gentlemen.


Electric car insider:

It is clear from your impeccable logic that ICE engines are the future, as there are loads more of them than electric cars.

Do try reading what you write, and perhaps even understanding it, a little.

Gee, Davemart, for someone who posts so much on Seeking Alpha, I would have thought you would understand trends better.

14 US states and several countries have announced that ICE cars will be phased out by 2035-2040.

What percentage of ZEV car sales do you believe will be H2 FCVs by 2035?


@electric car insider.

Do try, at least, to follow chains of logic
You were referring to absolute units to make a fake point, not trends.

You go over the top to make arguments absolutist and get meritricious certainty

If you wished to make the point that Battery electric cars have a considerable head start, no one would be arguing with you.

But you go over the top, to make excessive claims.

In fact, being at an earlier stage, there is substantial evidence to support a contrary view that fuel cells are advancing way faster than batteries,.

However, that is an entirely different and far more nuanced debate, which you eschew in favour of grandiose and absolutist claims.

Weirdly, the claims of way better efficiency for batteries leading to better economics are dependent not only on ignoring the realities of renewable resources varying very strongly by location, so that it may, and note I say may, not 'will', be preferable in many cases to import it as, say, ammonia, but also ignore that their basic thesis depends on renewables continuing to fall in cost.

Given that scenario, which I agree with, then electricity being cheaper becomes less and less relevant compared to the purchase price of still expensive batteries, and notions that renewables are some sort of very limited resource to be severely rationed fail

And in any case, regardless of the issues with plug in hybrids, fuel cells are a far better fit as a long distance power source as they use the same electric engine etc, so notions which make absolute claims for the overwhelming desirability of BEVS with vast batteries fail on their notions of far better efficiency,

As Stellantis is doing for their goods vehicles, it is perfectly practical to combine fuel cells and batteries in a plug in, so that when you can, you can plug in, but for longer runs or where it is inconvenient to plug in, you just pump in some hydrogen

There are substantial and valid points in favour of BEVS, but by going OTT you become a mere propagandist, and do not use rational and objective even handed criteria to look at the very exciting possibilities which are opening up to us.

That’s a lot of ad hominem words to avoid the question Davemart.

What percentage of ZEV car sales do you believe will be H2 FCVs by 2035?


Ad hominem?

You are going on about posts years ago on a totally different forum, to avoid addressing anything substantial.

Do you understand that renewables are twice or more more energy efficient in some locations than others, and so the notion that the purported hugely superior efficiency of using a battery only solution is just avoiding the bits it doesn't fancy, and that it may make sense to import renewable energy as ammonia etc?

And it is you, not I, who imagines that it is possible to predict just how the different technologies will evolve, ande hence what the percentages will be.

The simply answer is that I don't know, and neither do you, if you could only face up to reality instead of your various suppositions which you imagine to be done and dusted certainties.

Doubling down on your inflated assumptions which masquerade as some sort of inevitability is absurd.

Batteries will certainly play a huge part in transport options.

OTOH, for instance, there are loads of options for FCEV hybrids, even without assuming more radical technologies, such as manganese hydride, which could come in at a fraction of the cost of massive battery packs.

And using, for instance, present day retail figures for hydrogen in California whilst on the contrary assuming radical cost improvements etc is just an absurdity.

To evaluate, you have to be even handed.

You don't even seem to have grasped that concept.

If you wish to take criticism of your statements as ad hominem, when they are in fact simply addressing the arguments you are making or seeking to make, simply indicates that you are not thinking clearly with reasonable respect for the meaning of words in that respect either,.


Well done Dave


Thanks, SJC.


' And using, for instance, present day retail figures for hydrogen in California whilst on the contrary assuming radical cost improvements IN BATTERIES etc is just an absurdity.

That shoe certainly fits one or the other.

Over the past decade, the cost of automotive traction batteries has steadily declined. For those fortunate enough to own the roof over their head, so has the cost of solar, so you can be assured of low and stable electric rates for clean renewable energy. For renters and multi-family dwellers, community solar is an increasingly available option to gain those benefits.

Over that same time frame, the retail cost of hydrogen has steadily increased, and there is no option for inexpensive residential production of your own fuel.

Twelve years ago, FCVs could claim ~300 mile range vs BEVs ~ 70 mile range (except for the Tesla Roadster)

That advantage has vaporized like so much liquid hydrogen boil-off.

Ordinary BEVs am have 250-300 mile range, and the BEV distance leader has 500 mile range fare greater than any passenger FCV.

These are simple facts. But please go on about how overstated my claims are, DM.


@electric car insider:

You love utterly unequal comparisons, don't you?

Sadly, I not even sure if you realise how inept they are.

If you want to compare fuel costs, you should be comparing the cost of electricity to the cost of hydrogen.

How do their price increases/decreases compare?

I have no idea, and suspect that neither do you, since you don't even specify what regions you are talking about, or if you are simply assuming that California is synonymous with the world.

I did do a cost comparison for the UK, of petrol prices versus electricity.
If the taxes on the two were equal ( here in Europe petrol although not electricity for cars is taxed at of the order of 60% ) then there is no way at all that that would cover the extra cost of the battery,
The BEV market here is entirely subsidy dependent, in a spectacular upwards wealth transfer based on suppositions by interested parties about future falls in battery prices, which sometime in the wonderful future are supposed to make them competitive ex subsidy for less expensive cars, as well as the present lux mobiles being heavily subsidised.

The other valid comparison if you don't fancy that, would be battery prices versus fuel cell prices.

Don't even think about going there, as the technology at an earlier stage, fuel cells, has massively greater falls in cost than batteries over the last decade or so.

There is a lot to be said about the advantages of batteries, although perhaps less about anything which is very closely associated with present technology lithium ion, but your comparison mixing up fueling costs and with what they are powering, fuel cells or batteries, is just weird.

You have no idea what you are talking about, or how to do a valid comparison.

Don't compare eggs and oranges.

I am comparing two commercially available transportation fuels, and the drive trains that they power. I’ve recently posted retail prices for each using California as a market because that’s the only place in the US that H2 is available as a motor fuel. I don’t follow prices outside the US, although if you’d like to post actual current retail prices and availability for your region, I’d be interested to see them.


@electric car insider;

The US and in particular California is an outlier, not typical of the worldwide market where the vast majority of cars are sold, which preponderance will be far greater over the next 30 years.

For starters, most cars are bought for not much more than the price of the battery pack in current, ludicrously subsidised and mandated, electric cars for the well off.

Even in the US, most folk will never buy a new car, and the notion that 50K cars need all the help they can get at everyone else's expanse is regressive nonsense.

Now maybe batteries will be able to break that cost barrier, but they aren't going to be much like current batteries, or most people will have to settle for very low range.

And lets hope the batteries don't give up the ghost for people who have bought second hand, or they are screwed and the current 14 years or so of average lifespan of cars may be in trouble.

I genuinely hope that we get the far better, far cheaper, batteries needed, but a certainty any time soon, it ain't.

Some of the reasons why California is an outlier include that elsewhere the possibility of at home charging is a rarity, and most places there is no chance.

Likewise the notion that cheap solar panels on the roof can do the job of charging cars, which is an offsetting fantasy even in California as people are largely out at work when the sun is shining, not at home charging their cars.

But California can build more solar, for instance over parking lots.

You try charging your car from your rooftop array in Hamburg in December.

Unless there is heavy recourse to nuclear power (which I would support, thus increasing the viability of BEVs ) there is no way at all in some places that low carbon electricity can power transport without massive imports, of, for instance, ammonia for conversion to hydrogen.

And power is way cheaper anyway in California than in Europe or Japan, for instance.

Since the hydrogen network in the UK has not yet been built, I will illustrate very roughly with German figures.
It is not worthwhile being too precise, as things are too much in a state of flux, for umpteen reasons including not only technology but war in the Ukraine etc

Roughly, in Germany green hydrogen runs at 9 + Euros kg:

That is the figure I am using, not the projected much lower cost in 2025, although there are substantial grounds for the 5 Euros kg given, including falling prices of electrolysers and increased volume in the distribution chain.

And electricity costs a household something like 40 cents (US) Kwh (0.38 Euros)

Taking a BEV at 3-4 miles KWh, (~5.5km) and an FCEV at 66mpge ( 3.6litres/100km)

Since 1kg of hydrogen is the energy equivalent of around 3.6 litres of petrol
then the fair way of stating things is that the costs of running a car on hydrogen and electricity are fairlycomparable, at of the order of 0.10 Euros/km for the FCEV and 0.07 Euros/km for the BEV

At the projected 2025 cost for hydrogen the FCEV may put its nose ahead, but really the fair way of saying things is that the fuelling costs are very comparable, although that disguises that neither would be contributing to the exchequer the way petrol taxes in Europe do.

Very roughly double the prices to allow for that.

This is all ballpark stuff, the result of googling, so that for instance the price I have given for hydrogen does not specify where the hydrogen is.

Here is another approach at the fuel pump, although it does not appear that this is green hydro


@electric car insider:

The above is all ballpark stuff, the result of googling, so that for instance the price I have given for hydrogen does not specify where the hydrogen is.

Here is another approach at the fuel pump, although it does not appear that this is green hydrogen:

' Hydrogen is charged in kilograms. The price for a kilogram of hydrogen at all public H2 MOBILITY filling stations is €12.85 (gross). For 100 km, a fuel cell vehicle consumes approximately 0.8 kilograms of hydrogen (WLTP), generating fuel costs of €10.28. An equivalent journey with gasoline or diesel and an assumed average consumption of 6.6 liters at a fuel price of €1.90 costs €12.54 in comparison. The price for charging 19 kWh at a public charging station is €11.21. (Source: ADAC 2022 and BMDV 2021)'

So on a like for like basis hydrogen costs around the same as petrol, but only because it avoids heavy fuel tax.

There is good hope that hydrogen will be able to hit broadly comparable prices even whilst paying tax within a few years, but without shovelling GHG into the atmosphere

Industrial electricity is way cheaper than residential in Germany, but unlike California if you want to use renewables for transport as well as other stuff you are going to have to import, which is why Germany etc are setting up massive renewables projects around the world in more favoured climes, and import facilities for hydrogen/ ammonia etc,.

The engineers have not all lost their marbles, San Diego is very different to Hamburg, mainly in respect of winter sunshine


electric car insider:

And just for completeness, here are electricity prices in the UK:

' However, from 1st of October, the actual cost of electricity per kWh will stand at 52p per kWh, but with the new Energy Price Guarantee, it will average 34p per kWh (exact amount varies depending on tariff and other factors). '

As can easily be seen, this is no better than Germany.
Scads of electric cars are being sold, on the basis of taking from the poor to give to the rich, as all sorts of subsidies and perks are disguising the underlying fact that they remain entirely uneconomic.

That is not to say that we don't need to move on from pure combustion engines, and explains for instance Toyota's preference for more gradual electrification, so that the cars can actually remain affordable to average folk.

One big difference for the UK compared to Germany is far better renewable resources in off shore wind.

The plan is to largely bring that ashore as hydrogen, as a hydrogen pipe can move several times the energy as an electric cable,

It seems to me that if it is coming ashore as hydrogen, it may often make sense to pump it into a car the same way, instead of turning it back into electricity.


@ Davemart:
"If you want to compare fuel costs, you should be comparing the cost of electricity to the cost of hydrogen."
Back in 2004, I designed and installed a heat-pump system in our home. Three years later I designed and installed a 15 kWp PV-system on our roof facing southwards. The average harvest amounts to approx. 16 to 18,000 kwh per annum.
I'm proud to say that I'm completely weaned off of fossils. I'm driving my 3rd BEV which is far more reliable than an ICE or a hydrogen fueled "Fool-Cell" and fulfills all my necessities without the slightest fears of range anxiety. As far as your interjection of electricity prices is concerned, I haven't even taken notice that they have been rising. Chuckle.



Anyone who calls fuel cells 'fool cells' is themselves a fool, IMO.

As for what you have done with your particular income in your particular location, fine, and congratulations.

To imagine that that is generalisable to all locations, with hugely variable solar incidence etc is absurd.

You do not mention where you are located.

Is it in the tropics, with essentially constant solar incidence throughout the year, or are you in fact taking input from the grid to balance what you oversupply in the summer, and in fact a user of fossil fuels, but with fiddled figures?

Are you charging your electric car during the day, or is that another offset, and more fiddled figures?

And why do you imagine that everyone can buy a house with a big enough roof correctly orientated to collect so much sunlight?


First of all, I didn't buy our house, I bought a building lot. From all those lots at disposal, I chose that one with the the correct orientation for the purpose I had in mind. I built our home with my own two hands from the foundation to the last faucet and electric switch. I worked at least 8 hrs. daily in the office and another eight hours in my spare time on the house. I didn't go on vacation during the 5 years it took me to complete our home. I worked my bum off during the time loud-mouthed buggers like you tanned their skin on vacation at least two or three times a year.
I detest monopolies or quasi-monopolies and am more than happy than I managed to sever myself from the likes of them. If you would work as much as you shout your insolent mouth off on various blogs, you would have certainly had more success in life other than presenting your conceited attitude.



So no substantial reply, on where you are located, or whether your 'independent power ' is in fact courtesy of power from a fossil fuel grid?

Or whether you got buckets of subsidy as in California, courtesy of the costs being loaded onto folk like renters?

I am not sure why you think it relevant that you have worked hard, entirely for your own advantage, or why you imagine what I have done or not done relevant to anything.

That is true ad hominen, not my comments, as I simply critiqued your statements about energy, not your personal life, and when you yourself brought it up, your claims of independence, which in California at least has usually been courtesy of other people's pocket book

If you imagine most folk in the world can simply build a house, presumably at a favourable latitude, in the correct orientation to get enough sunshine to be independent in reality, not a fake independence courtesy of a fossil fuel grid, you are fantacising.

Grow up, and if you can't debate without recourse to abuse, or differentiate between criticising views expressed and the person who expresses then, then you might as well discontinue your 'contributions'

The comments to this entry are closed.