MAN Engines presents hydrogen combustion engine for off-road applications; 500 hp from 16.8-liter displacement
TESCanada H2 proposes US$3.9B green hydrogen project for Québec

Toyota continues to evolve hydrogen-powered Corolla; beginning on-road feasibility testing of hydrogen engined HiAce in Australia

Toyota Motor will enter the ENEOS Super Taikyu Series 2023 Supported by Bridgestone Round 7 Super Taikyu Final Fuji 4 Hours Race with Fuji Niq Festival, to be held from 11 to 12 November, with the #32 ORC ROOKIE GR Corolla H2 Concept, which runs on liquid hydrogen (earlier post), and the #28 ORC ROOKIE GR86 CNF Concept running on carbon-neutral fuel.

The liquid hydrogen-powered Corolla, which first competed in the 24 Hours Race in May, has evolved even further in the three months since the Round 4 Super Taikyu Race at Autopolis in July.

  • Engine performance. Liquid hydrogen pumps must generate high fuel pressure with stability to achieve high output. Toyota improved the pressure boosting performance and durability of the pumps, which have been challenges, to achieve the same level of output as gasoline and gaseous hydrogen engines.

  • Cruising range. The maximum number of laps that could be driven on a single hydrogen fill-up at the Fuji 24 Hours Race in May was 16. Toyota made improvements such as better accuracy in determining hydrogen tank fullness, reducing the amount of boil-off gas by reducing the heat entering the tank, and optimizing fuel injection when the gas pedal is not fully depressed. As a result, the company is aiming to achieve 20 laps per fill-up in this race.

  • Vehicle weight. The hydrogen-powered Corolla is equipped with many features that prioritize safety and security first and foremost. Toyota identified parts that could be made lighter using the knowledge gained from driving experience while keeping this emphasis on safety and security and reduced their weight by adjusting factors such as thickness and number of parts. As a result, Toyota was able to reduce the weight of the tank, safety and boil-off gas valves, roll cage, high-pressure hydrogen system parts, and other components to achieve a vehicle weight of 1,860 kg—50 kg lighter than the 1,910 kg it weighed at the Autopolis race.

  • CO2 capture. As a trial, Toyota will install a CO2 absorption device at the inlet to the air cleaner; a CO2 separation device that uses heat from engine oil will be installed next to the air cleaner. The separated CO2 will be captured in a small tank filled with an absorbent. The equipment used to absorb, separate, and capture CO2 from the atmosphere will use filters coated with an absorbent developed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. that can release CO2 at lower temperatures than conventional absorbents, thereby increasing CO2 capture efficiency.


Hydrogen-powered HiAce to be used for feasibility testing in Australia

Hydrogen HiAce in Australia. Toyota has installed the hydrogen engine in a commercial HiAce to conduct on-road feasibility testing operated by companies on public roads in Australia. In doing so, Toyota says it will hone the hydrogen engine technology it continues to refine through participation in the Super Taikyu series even further toward practical application.


Albert E Short

I don't get the case for hydrogen ICE versus a fuel cell.

25 years ago, when fuel cells were made out of strips of platinum and EV motors were exotic, sure.


It makes no difference how fuel cells are devised; at best they reach an efficiency of 70 %. After compressing H2 for storage and pumping it around several times for transportation until it arrives at a fueling station and pumped and compressed again until finally arriving in an EV, huge amounts of electric energy are used.
Considering the complete chain of "green" H2, the whole process achieves a miserable efficiency of some 12 to 15% and is equivalent to a waste orgy of electric energy. The best BEVs today achieve an overall efficiency of 85 to 90%.


As yoatmon explained it basically helps the oil industry and is a huge threat to rapid decarbinazation but with a green guise.


Instead of liquifying hydrogen in a costly process and costly car it will be better for the economy and succes in the fight of co2 emission to make gasoline with the hydrogen.


Battery electric vehicles lose 10% in the charger 10 in the batteries 10 in the controller and more than 10 in the motor
which makes them about 60% from wall to wheels.


Feeding in any old assumptions favourable to your case comes up with results to suit.

If there are issues with the efficiency of the hydrogen cycle, and some of the stuff here is just nonsense, worst case stuff, then it is no problem at all to have a battery pack to take care of day to day running around, whilst hydrogen takes care of longer runs, as the likes of Stellantis are doing.

Actually, some of the cycles for hydrogen use and production are pretty darn efficient, whilst some of those for batteries are optimistic to say the least.


inverters and motors don't have 10% efficiency losses...and efficiency losses are on the drivetrain are not added, but multiplied. In your case: 90% efficient, two times in series = 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.81 -> 81% efficient


SJC, I've read about charging loss measured closer to 5% (difference between power coming from the grid and power accumulated in battery), not 20%.

Of course, even at 20% (plus 10% in the motor which would apply to both H2 and battery), batteries are hugely more economical for consumer applications. H2 might find uses for some off-grid scenarios that demand huge autonomy, certainly not for a Corolla driving around in Japan.


Typical assumptions for the exagerated efficiency of battery systems in cars include that renewable power is available right when you want it, not having to be stored in any way, and ignore self discharge losses , reduced efficiency in cold weather and battery efficiency degradation as they age.

Don't get me wrong, batteries are a magnificent asset, and essential to decarbonisation.

What they are not is a magic cure all, and most certainly need supplementing in all sorts of ways, and in particular with other forms of storage.

Even when not not fiddled with most potential losses ignored, efficiency is far from the only criteria.

If you don't believe me, try jumping on board your all electric aeroplane for the flight from New York to Europe.

You might make it about as far as Rhode Island before you get your feet wet.

The Lurking Jerk

I'm not an engineer, and many of you other guys are, but you're missing an important point. The overall efficiency of production/transportation/use of any fuel, but here hydrogen as discussed, will not matter IF: the system can be made economically viable and environmentally beneficial. In fact, if a fuel system of some kind can be afforable, feasible, and green, it can be 1% efficient. If it works better overall, it's efficiency won't matter.


@ The Lurking Jerk:
As you honestly stated, you're not an engineer; credit for you for being honest.


Lurking is right, economics is king in a free market not mandated by governmental fiat. It doesn't matter if H2 is only 1% efficient if you can produce a Kg of it for under $4 delivered at pressure to the tank that already equal to a gallon of petrol in many parts of the world. Burning that in a H2 ICE the cost per km would be identical or less than what the EU pays now. That's all that will matter the added convenience of a 5 min fill time or less vs 30 min at a fast charger is just a bonus. Plus you can store hydrogen for long periods of time in salt domes or aluminum lined tanks. Electric is use it or lose it unless you have massive grid scake storage cells those need to be under $50 kwh to even hope to be economically viable. If you have cheap h2 turn it into liquid methanol or ethanol using captured CO2 both store at STP and both are great high compression ICE fuels. Get the CO2 from seawater its loaded with it 150 times more than air and with OTEC type power plants you can have it for 35 euro per ton its a byproduct of OTEC power arguably more valuable than the net power of the otec system itself.


This is the way....

Combined with something like this.

JP8/5 will happily burn in a modern diesel the military does this every day. Add in 5% FAO biodiesel and it has a good or better lubicity as nunber 2 fuels. No need for crazy high pressure H2 tanks just plastic tanks and regular high efficiency diesels. With modern DPF and SCR diesels are as clean as any other engine cleaner than any gas turbines and much cleaner than older petrol engines. There is a reason diesels are used underground in mines where people have to breathe vs petrol engines which would kill everyone in short order. Even propane engines are banned from mines the cleanest spark engines of them all. Although you see LPG for lifts inside large warehouses in the regular. Their smell is a dead giveaway. With DPF/SCR diesels are scentless.

Also a good portion of the world still cooks and lights homes with kerosene far off the grid I personally go this far off grid a few times a year and also to Latin America and or Africa for pro bono water drilling work as a geologist briging fresh water to disadvantaged people's. Having an endless supply of kerosene is good for humanity. The oceans will never run out of CO2 nor water for hydrogen all that's needed is energy , nuclear is the obvious choice for the navy and any first world country already in the nuclear club. Add in some desal for good measure green up some desert coast lines with cattle and sheep and goats. Milk ,meat and leathers all in critical need in large regions of the world.


@ james
You may be right limiting your point of view to just this one criteria but there are many other aspects not even remotely touched in this discussion that speak against H2.
When considering all the calamities that occurred during the fossil fuel age like oil spills on drilling platforms, grounded tankers, tanker collisions, pipe line leakages etc. etc., I'm absolutely convinced that none of those mentioned disasters will be avoided in a hydrogen economy. Bear in mind that H2 - freed into the atmosphere - is a climate killer 30 times worse than CO2.
We have accomplished a very effective job so far in damaging our environment. Why not give it the rest via H2?

The comments to this entry are closed.