Jackpot! Las Vegas will appropriately be the site of a little showtime on the part of Toyota and its hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle development efforts. The Japanese automaker will use the upcoming Consumer Electronics Show in Sin City to showcase both the FCV concept vehicle (in its first North America showing; the vehicle debuted in Tokyo a few weeks ago) and the "test mule" that has been driven "thousands of miles" for durability testing on US roads. CES takes place from January 7th through the 10th.

Toyota's fuel-cell vehicle has actually been more than two decades in the making. The company has been working on fuel cells since 1992 and unveiled its first trial vehicle, in the guise of an H2 Highlander SUV, in 1996. The platform for the test mule appears to be that of a Lexus HS 250h. Autoblog was able to drive a prototype of Toyota's fuel-cell vehicle this year, but even we don't know the specifics of the power supplied by either the fuel-cell stack or the electric motor in the concept. The prototype had 98 horsepower and 105 pound-feet of torque and drove "like a peppier Prius." The car will have a maximum range of about 300 miles

Toyota hasn't yet gotten around to talking about the price tag on the first fuel cell vehicles, which are set to go on sale in 2015, but the word's out that it will likely be in the $50,000 range. Perhaps we'll learn more in Vegas. Check out Toyota's very short press release below.
Show full PR text
Toyota Fuel Cell Concept Sedan Debuts at 2014 Consumer Electronics Show

TORRANCE, Calif., (Dec. 18, 2013) – Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., will debut the FCV, a sedan based fuel cell vehicle, at the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The reveal will feature the North America debut of the concept vehicle as well as an introduction to the fuel cell "test mule", which logged thousands of miles during rigorous quality and durability testing on U.S. roadways. Toyota's news conference will be held Monday, January 6 at 1:00 PM at the Mandalay Bay Conference Center.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 107 Comments
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      Is the OIL Industry still trying to get this pig to fly? How are they paying Toyota for this dead end?
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      As I said, no point in mentioning it, because Joeviocoe only wants to see what's *now*. Here's what Toyota really thinks about Tesla: "Koei Saga of Toyota is a short, sturdy man who speaks very openly, but preferably not in English. The 62-year-old is part of the generation of Japanese business executives who prefer using an interpreter. Saga spent about 10 years working on hybrid drives before becoming the carmaker's chief developer last year. Saga is standing in a reception room at Toyota's administration building in Nagoya, speaking loudly and confidently. Battery development has brought Toyota to the "half-point to our target," he says, but he doubts this goal will ever be attainable. Electric cars based on today's battery technology, says Saga, are "loss makers." Tesla, a California startup miracle that produces electric sports and luxury cars and was briefly profitable, could serve as a counter-argument to Saga's statement. "Tesla is a rare case," says Saga. "They are targeting rich people, and you have many rich people in California." The battery car could exist as a niche toy for eco-snobs, says Saga, but it isn't suitable for the masses."
      JakeY
      • 1 Year Ago
      @Letstakeawalk "If you want to provide BEV prices, please do. It's not something I've spent a lot of time researching, so I wouldn't know the best place to look. Perhaps you're complaining that FCV commentators provide too much support, and BEV commentators provide not enough?" Not really. I'm saying he's pulling the BEV numbers out to thin air. And more frequently, like Joe says, he compares numbers for BEVs now in the real world, vs. some projections on paper which we don't know how long would take to reach (apparently 2030 by the report he posted). And in general if you want to do a decent comparison of two technologies, you need to keep yourself updated on both (I do look and follow the developments of FCVs too for that reason). I just don't give projections beyond 1-2 years (1-2 years is still able to be fairly accurately predicted by looking at early product announcements) much credibility no matter who wrote them, even if I value the same report for numbers given about the current situation. Even near term developments can easily be derailed when things hit the real world (see the whole Envia debacle). If you want some numbers: $213/kWh by 2030 by UK Committee on Climate Change ($6.4k/30kWh pack cost using pessimistic assumptions of no step changes) http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/04/element-20120417.html $150/kWh in 2030 by Bloomberg New Energy Estimates https://www.bnef.com/PressReleases/view/210 $180/kWh in 2020 by Navigant http://green.autoblog.com/2013/11/08/li-ion-battery-prices-headed--down-180-kwh/ $160/kWh by 2025 by McKinsey http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/13/study-says-ev-battery-pricing-could-plunge-by-70-by-2025/ ~$225/kWh by 2020, ~$150/kWh by 2030 is DOE projection (pg 12 first link, although they note projection is for 30kWh pack size and that larger sizes will have lower $/kWh costs than indicated), $125/kWh in 2022 is DOE goal (pg 7 second link). http://www.cse.anl.gov/us-china-workshop-2012/pdfs/session1_plenary/howell_US-China%20Bilateral%20mtg%20August%2020%202012.pdf http://www4.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/merit-review/sites/default/files/es000_howell_2013_o.pdf As you can see, the predictions are all over the map, which gives you an idea of how reliable they are (which is that they are not reliable).
      Marcopolo
      • 1 Year Ago
      Every time an article appears about FCV's or H2, a small army of naysayers appears. The majority of these naysayers post some pretty crazy and contradictory statements. Like Grendal, I think getting that upset about any technology, is pretty futile. If asked to speculate on which of the two technologies is more likely to emerge as dominant, my money would be on EV's, but not by much ! Both technologies, have relative strengths and weaknesses. But in my opinion, EV ESD capacity will advance more rapidly and narrow the disadvantage of EV 's against long range, high performance fuel vehicles. The most successful technology will be that which can deploy the greatest number of vehicles, across the widest range of applications. The future rests with ESD capacity. If EV capacity proved too difficult or expensive to expand, then the FCV H2 technology will become established, and EV's will fade back to being niche vehicles. FCV H2 technology, is a very attractive investment for Governments, Auto-makers, and H2 providers. It's also attractive to consumers. the adaptation to H2 instead of gasoline is easy, and very convenient. EV enthusiasts tend to thing in terms of their own circumstances. Major Auto-makers, should think in terms of a global market, and the same fuel technology throughout a wide range of vehicles. In those terms, FCV's make sense. In one way, the 'conspiracy theorists' are correct ! It's in the best interests of Governments, and oil companies to promote H2 technology. ( There's no 'conspiracy,' it's just obvious self-interest ! ). But, H2 has yet to reach a level of sufficiently viable " commercialization", to attract the level of investment needed to build the infrastructure. In the meantime, EV's are only one ESD breakthrough away, from making H2 obsolete before it began.
        DarylMc
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Hi Marcopolo Most of the regular readers here would be well aware of hydrogen's current shortcomings such as limited availability of vehicles and refuelling stations. There are a lot of other reasons why someone could object to hydrogen fuel. -Until the world has exhausted its natural gas reserves, hydrogen is likely to be sourced from fossil fuels. -It will be extracted and distributed by oil companies. -No matter how much we should love them for providing the energy which keeps the world as we know it running, no one loves the pollution from the odd oil spill or the air pollution from burning the stuff. -Their products are distributed around the world with collusion and price fixing as far as I know without peer. -The products are also heavily taxed by many governments. Regardless, I am happy to see work continuing on fuel cells and hydrogen because it has the potential to do a job for long distance transport which battery vehicles probably never will. I am happy for people to point out the negatives. You only have to look at the LPG vs gasoline here in Australia to see that it is entirely possible that the cheaper, cleaner fuel could be overlooked by governments and users.
          DarylMc
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DarylMc
          What disappointing and childish is the down voting going on here in place of discussion.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DarylMc
          @ DarylMc Like I would also be disappointed if EV's are displaced by FCV's, but to simply ignore the possibility is kinda childish
          DarylMc
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DarylMc
          Hi Marcopolo I agree. None of those reasons is beyond debate. When it comes to taxes, governments have to get money from somewhere. I was just pointing out that they exist. As I said, I am happy to see work done on HFC vehicles. What I do have some concern over is that they may displace battery powered vehicles due to decisions made by manufacturers, oil companies and government revenue interests. Or heaven forbid Jeremy Clarkson's opinion:)
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @DarylMc
          @ DarylMc There are lot's of reasons why anyone, could object to anything. However, most of your objections are realistically irrelevant. The world needs energy, and energy in reliable qualities, for increasingly industrial societies dependant on energy on demand. There are very few energy sources that can provide such power, economically and reliably. Governments need to provide services, and must pay for those services with tax revenue. Roads must be continually maintained, and built. The biggest problem facing the world, is not the replacement of oil, but replacing the economic wealth created by the oil's contribution to the world economy. Governments will be attracted to which ever technology can maintain or expand the current economic model. (That's just a matter of self interest ). But this debate attracts idealists. The idealists often get so passionate about their ideals, that they lose touch with reality. In the contest between BEV's and FCV's, it's a simple equation. Either EV ESD technology makes a break-through before the FCV reaches Shell's commercialization criteria, thereby rendering FCV's obsolete, or EV's will find themselves out-gunned by massive rival, with a coalition of allies with far greater resources, capital, organisational and logistical ability, and heavy government support. It really is that simple.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marcopolo
        First... ONCE AGAIN... YOU IGNORE PHEVs! --"If EV capacity proved too difficult or expensive to expand, then the FCV H2 technology will become established, and EV's will fade back to being niche vehicles. " FCVs have no room in the market, even if BEV ESDs do not improve. PHEVs today, at current tecnology levels, completely squash FCVs potential. Second... the small army of naysayers do not just, "appear". There is a small army H2 fanboys making pie-in-the-sky claims who have just as often, shown up first. Third... and ESD "breakthrough" is NOT absolutely necessary. A fast charging infrastructure, which will take a while to build, will suffice without moving away from Li-Ion batteries. Sure it would be nice to have advanced batteries with 5x higher density, and could last the life of the car.... but steady improvements on current tech (280wh/kg battery, and 150kw fast charging) over the next few years.. coupled with fast chargers being installed as rapidly as Superchargers are being installed.. should be enough.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe Joe, now you've reverted to making wild, and easily disproved claims. As Carlos Ghosn or GM, will tell you, selling BEV's and even PHEV's is a hard slog, even in California ! BEV adoption is slow, mainly due to cost, range and the lack of convenience of BEV technology. That's just a simple fact, no amount of yelling will alter the figures. Last year, in the US alone, 14.6 million vehicles were purchased. BEV and PHEV, sales represented less than 0.4 % ! All sort of explanations can be offered, but the truth is obvious, without incentives (and California), the public just isn't buying. Better charging facilities, better marketing, more familiarity, lower prices, inductive charging, more PHEV (and especially EREV) models, will all help. But, to what extent ? If GM's Volt, or the Prius PHEV, had sold 300,000 vehicles a year each, you might have point, but they haven't. Even a ten, or twenty-fold, increase wouldn't be enough to prove a deterrent to FCV -H2 investment or government support. Only the threat of a BEV ESD, with sufficient power, performance, convenience and range, to equal existing ICE models, would render investment in H2 impractical. The weakness of H2 technology as a fuel replacement, is to be viable, it must be introduced on a gigantic scale . It's a technology that needs volume sales, and a wide distribution network. That requires the sort of investment that can only be justified on a vast scale. That's the attraction for it's investors, and governments. Remove the revenue stream, and it become just a small niche player. Like a lot of ABG readers, you think only in terms of your own circumstances. You may own a nice suburban house in a American suburb, with solar panels. But you represent only a small proportion of motor vehicle buyers. I'm also fortunate enough to be in the same position as you, although in Australia. I can charge my Volt from my solar panels. In the UK, I can use power from my Bio-mass plant. But the EV I drive costs the equivalent of 3 years average income for the average UK family, many of whom don't have solar panels, a garage, or even their own roof ! Which is why EV sales are very slow. Hybrids, BEV's, PHEV's and EREV's have established a toe-hold in countries where infrastructure and the purchase price is subsidised. The justification for this public expenditure and support is environmental. (emission reduction). H2, provides the same justification of emission reduction,(in the public mind), and is far more familiar and convenient. At some point, Governments, and auto-makers, will be forced to make a choice. The only question will be which technology has the greater capacity to reach volume sales, across the widest range of vehicles, on a global scale. That's the harsh, and perhaps brutal, reality of industrial investment.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          -"You're surprised that people interested in FCVs would post positive comments in an article related to FCVs? " Not at all... I am surprised by Marco's accusation that people who are not buying the hydrogen hype are labeled as naysayers. We are just refuting as always. And as long as pro hydrogen advocates keep holding to claims about the future... There will be those to refute them.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe I really don't know how to explain it to you more clearly. You seem determined to justify the unjustifiable. Without a major ESD breakthrough, , EV technology can be only applied to a limited range of vehicles. EV technology can't directly replace for gasoline and diesel on a global scale, across a broad spectrum of vehicles. In contrast, H2 has the potential to completely replace gasoline and diesel, on a global scale. Not only that, but the very organisations that control the existing road transport industry are in control of the supply and regulation of H2. The vast majority of the motoring public don't give a damn ! If the government tells them H2 is an economical, responsible method of eliminating auto-mobile pollution, with the convenience of the the current fuel model, and nodisruption, the motoring public will happily adopt the new technology. The H2 providers, have the capital, resources, and logistical ability to roll out the infrastructure. The government and auto-makers will, from self interest, support H2. There will be no incentive to produce EV's. It's that simple ! That doesn't mean that EV's will disappear, but they will fall behind as a technology, and remain a niche vehicle.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Below, you were quite conciliatory, saying that you think we agree more than we disagree. "FCVs have no room in the market, even if BEV ESDs do not improve." This is a major point of our disagreement. " There is a small army H2 fanboys making pie-in-the-sky claims who have just as often, shown up first." You're surprised that people interested in FCVs would post positive comments in an article related to FCVs? How dare they! They must be refuted!
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Skierpage, "WHY? What will make car buyers skip cheap gasoline cars, walk past the existing moderately popular plug-in EV and PHEV cars that have many obvious benefits (recharge at home and a billion plugs, cheaper running costs, could make your own energy), and somehow buy the new, unproven, only a few refueling stations, HFCV car whose benefits over a PHEV are negligible? " Firstly, only with ABG (and other green car websites) are EV's and PHEV's, "moderately popular" ! The percentage of global sales are minuscule, and even US sales are less than 0.4 % . ( By your logic, no one would buy an ICE vehicle). To be successful, FCV's must met the "Shell criteria". If this can be achieved, then the ICE is doomed. The small price premium for FCV over ICE will be easily overcome by the operating cost savings. H2 providers will build a refuelling infrastructure equal to current gasoline infrastructure. At that point, FCV's will be cheaper, more convenient and perform better over a wider range of vehicles, on a global scale. EV's and PHEV's may still appear to some, but will no longer be able to be produced in sufficient numbers to achieve volume sales. The point you're missing, is the H2 providers don't need to 'create' a market and hope that people will adopt the technology. The H2 providers can reasonably rely on their two principle allies to guarantee success. Since FCV's are only of the verge of potential commercialisation, everything is speculative. But to dismiss FCV's, simply because the technology is not yet commercialised, without assessing it's potential, is foolish. Just in case you haven't yet read "Shell's criteria" for FCV vehicles; 1) Sale price not more than 10% premium of ICE equivalents 2) Range similar to ICE equivalents 3) Refuel similar to ICE equivalents 4) Model range similar to ICE equivalents 5) Service costs similar to ICE equivalents 6) Warranty similar to ICE equivalents 7) Production volumes similar to ICE equivalents 8) H2 pump price (including tax) same or less than gasoline 9) Mileage 30%+ better than ICE equivalents 10) Same performance as ICE equivalents 11) Technology shared by all major manufacturers. If the major OEM's can produce this standard of vehicle, the Shell has already provided for a stage one infrastructure roll out budget of $US 16.8 billion. This amount would be quickly matched by the other major H2 suppliers. Governments would respond with enabling legislation. The roll out would generate employment, preserve and protect tax revenue, be environmentally popular, aid the economy, and prove relatively non-disruptive. Politically, outside the rarefied forums of EV enthusiasts, FCV is the winner. That why the major OEM's are persisting. (Oh, by the way, in Australia, I drive a Holden Volt )
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          " I am surprised by Marco's accusation that people who are not buying the hydrogen hype are labeled as naysayers." By very definition, that's what a "naysayer" does. "FCVs can only market to passenger vehicles based on the shortcomings of BEVs." You're only looking from the perspective of the flaws of BEVs. FCVs have many benefits that will also steal business from ICEs. Specifically, they're much cleaner, and they have lower running costs than ICEs.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"and they have lower running costs than ICEs" Based on a speculation of H2 prices. Yet buying H2 today in California is $12/kg... for a costs much higher than gasoline. Yes yes, I know... that price will come down... depending on volume. But the question remains... how will FCVs sell in any reasonable volume if at the start FCVs cost way more to buy, cost more to refuel, and have a range limited by the area around H2 stations? BEVs could at least start to gain market penetration and increase volume just on folks who can charge at home.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes.. PHEVs is a marketplace filler. Soaking up the market share that even BEVs cannot fill. So yes of course they will take up some of the lost BEV sales. FCVs can only market to passenger vehicles based on the shortcomings of BEVs. Range and refill times. But PHEVs completely fills that void without adding infrastructure anxiety.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          PHEVs also have the potential to out-compete pure BEVs.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"Without a major ESD breakthrough, , EV technology can be only applied to a limited range of vehicles. EV technology can't directly replace for gasoline and diesel on a global scale, across a broad spectrum of vehicles." BEVs cannot alone. BUT ONCE AGAIN... you ignore PHEVs. There will not be a global "replacement of gasoline and diesel." Hydrogen can help fill niches in fleet vehicles ... but so will CNG and LPG and some biofuels. --"H2 has the potential to completely replace gasoline and diesel, on a global scale." And THAT is the Kool-Aid they have been feeding you. --" If the government tells them H2 is an economical, responsible method of eliminating auto-mobile pollution, with the convenience of the the current fuel model, and no disruption, the motoring public will happily adopt the new technology." No, they've been telling us for a while about hydrogen. And "believing" it is going to happen is VERY different than "adopting" the new technology. Once again, you are confusing speculation of demand and reality. You and a few others have been convinced because you've had your ear to the ground listening to every word spoken positively about hydrogen. The buying masses have not. Regardless of what the "government" tells them... when it comes time to buy a FCVs.. the motoring public will simply look at a map, and see the lack of fueling stations... and refuse to adopt. --"There will be no incentive to produce EV's. It's that simple ! That doesn't mean that EV's will disappear, but they will fall behind as a technology, and remain a niche vehicle. So you are predicting a complete reversal of the current situation? You are predicting FCVs will completely leapfrog BEVs/PHEVs. You do NOT have the moderate opinion you claim to have. Not even LTAW believes in that outcome.
          skierpage
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @Marcopolo You write some silly things, but this one takes the cake: "If the government tells them H2 is an economical, responsible method of eliminating auto-mobile pollution, with the convenience of the the current fuel model, and nodisruption, the motoring public will happily adopt the new technology." WHY? What will make car buyers skip cheap gasoline cars, walk past the existing moderately popular plug-in EV and PHEV cars that have many obvious benefits (recharge at home and a billion plugs, cheaper running costs, could make your own energy), and somehow buy the new, unproven, only a few refueling stations, HFCV car whose benefits over a PHEV are negligible? What fantasy land do you live in? (Answer: the wide-open spaces of fantasy Australia, where wealthy environmentalists regularly make 200+ mile trips past H2 refueling stations. Well, good on you mate :) )
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"There will be no incentive to produce EV's. It's that simple ! That doesn't mean that EV's will disappear, but they will fall behind as a technology, and remain a niche vehicle." I seriously doubt your claims that EVs are your preferred technology now. You seem to favor FCVs in the long run and consider BEVs a stepping stone that will eventually subside.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Marco, Yes, Ghosn realizes that BEVs are hard even in California... but he is doing it, for real, not on paper alone. Nissan/Renault is committed to BEVs for real. While they are also committed to FCVs only on paper and the R&D dept. --"BEV adoption is slow, mainly due to cost, range and the lack of convenience of BEV technology. " Um... you think FCVs will fare better? Higher costs, range and convenience based on the existence of H2 stations nearby. --"If GM's Volt, or the Prius PHEV, had sold 300,000 vehicles a year each, you might have point, but they haven't. " PHEVs are brand new tech in the marketplace. Only 2 years old. So you want to pull the, "not selling well" card? They are selling a LOT better than most have predicted. I don't know how you think that makes a case for FCVs, which will have a worse time selling than BEVs/PHEVs. --"It's a technology that needs volume sales, and a wide distribution network. That requires the sort of investment that can only be justified on a vast scale. That's the attraction for it's investors, and governments. Remove the revenue stream, and it become just a small niche player. Right... so why have investors been avoiding paying for the H2 stations in the US?? Governments doesn't seem to be rolling out any H2 infrastructure on this, "gigantic scale". Basically they go around saying, "I got your back"... so they don't have to be the one holding the check. --"you think only in terms of your own circumstances. " You aren't immune to that either. I don't own, I rent and park in a covered carport, in SF currently but have lived in several southern states and NYC/NJ. I am trying to think like most Americans... and there are more Americans with access to electricity for their cars... than there are with convenient access to an H2 station, even if thousands were to be built next year. You are right, in countries with MUCH higher automobile prices in general, a FCV/PHEV/BEV's price premium is more tolerable. But those are generally smaller markets than the US. --"H2, provides the same justification of emission reduction,(in the public mind), and is far more familiar and convenient. " Yes, but that familiarity in the public mind is an illusion. It is simple transference. With an EV/PHEV, the driver is more responsible for the energy pathway. It is their house and garage that must exist and be capable. For FCVs, the responsibility still exists to refuel... but customers have developed an assumption that fueling would be provided just as gasoline has been. It externalizes the responsibility for the consumer... and the mistake will be the assumption that H2 stations will be right where they want them to be, when they need them to be there. This is why automakers and governments have been fooled into believing in such a high demand for FCVs. Because the familiarity of convenience is assumed. When it comes time to buy... that demand bubble will burst. And only fleet managers, and fol
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          ...[cut off]... And only fleet managers, and folks near the Los Angeles area will turn out to buy FCVs. Where there are onesies and twosies of H2 stations.. that will NOT be enough to justify purchase of a $70k+ vehicle that may wander too far from an H2 station.
      Dave
      • 1 Year Ago
      "According to the NAS, "Detailed analyses of current costs and expected technology advances that are already under demonstration have resulted in a fuel cell system cost estimate of $39/kW for a high-volume FCEV commercial introduction in 2015." Even better? By 2030, the Department of Energy, in conjunction with NAS, estimates that the price for an average FCV will be around $34,181, before government subsidies. That's in comparison to the price for a BEV, which in 2030 is $34,979 . True, the FCV owner will have to pay for hydrogen, but the total ownership cost per mile is $0.358, just slightly above the $0.355 cost for battery-powered cars. More pointedly, when refueling, the greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen produced from natural gas are estimated to be 45% to 60% of a gasoline-powered car by 2035 -- less overall than the GHG emissions from charging a BEV." http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/11/16/toyotas-hydrogen-vs-teslas-batteries-which-car-wil/
        Dave
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Dave
        2012 hydrogen tank cost analysis: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review12/st100_james_2012_o.pdf 2012 fuel cell system costi: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress12/v_0_papageorgopoulos_2012.pdf
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Day Ago
        @Dave
        Nostra-effin-damus over here is still quoting the bullsh!1 predictions on pricing. 2030?? BEVs will only drop in price by a few thousand from where they are in 2013?
      Joeviocoe
      • 1 Year Ago
      LTAW... no, Dave doesn't get any benefit of the doubt. He has been posting links from C. E. Thomas for years now. A hydrogen shill who has been so intentionally wrong about the costs of EVs and EV charging.... and equally wrong about FCVs as time will prove. There is no shortage of online materials that predict future prices and costs for Hydrogen fuel cells. As Jake points out... BEVs do NOT NEED to have links backing up the prices anymore. They are HERE, now... in the real world. FCVs only have what is reported in papers and studies, which are naturally biased since nobody conducting these price estimations would publish negative results. When the first FCVs hit the market at $70k+ but can only be sold in the Los Angeles area because no other place in the US has H2 stations... you will see how miserable the sales are. There is no way to gain the volume production that would be needed to justify reasonable costs. --"The cost of automotive fuel cells has decreased by more than 80% over the last decade." You cannot honestly make that statement... since an automotive fuel cell has never been sold in a realistic market. This is all just part of a speculation. You cannot extrapolate falling costs based on speculatory costs of "millions of dollars". --"Mass-produced stacks are only starting to happen, which will bring costs down even more" FCVs can NOT reach "mass market volumes" without an H2 infrastructure first. The Tesla Roadster was never considered "mass market" even at 2,400 produced. FCVs will not sell even that many without a massive infrastructure rollout. So how will automakers drive down the costs? They cannot. This is what Ghosn was talking about last month. “I would be very curious and interested to see competitors who say they are going to mass market the car in 2015. Where is the infrastructure? Who’s going to build it?”
      Dave
      • 1 Day Ago
      2012 fuel cell research funding was $45 million. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress12/v_0_papageorgopoulos_2012.pdf Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that electric car tax breaks cost about $1 Billion per year: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/09/23/electric-car-tax-breaks-costly-deficit/70000944/1#.UrXuNLOA0dU
      goodoldgorr
      • 1 Year Ago
      Im minding if we can drive this hydrogen car inside this show as it is non-polluting. I hope the market choose this car as bevs have been rejected by normal consumers and are a fail at displacing petrol. We will see more and more hydrogen cars and less and less pure bevs but this will take a lot of time and also there is so much confusion spreaded by tesla, bloggers, journalists, car consumers, car mechanics, car compagnies, doe, big oil, goverment agencies, farmers, businessmans, that nobody is really doing something great and are just messing around collecting subsidies fron goverments in studies, carbon credits, regulations, etc.
      RC
      • 1 Year Ago
      The one hurdle for Toyota is that people at CES are likely better informed about technology and will probably already know that the Hydrogen push is being made to lock them into a monopoly, pretty much like oil. They have also driven Teslas and have had a taste of fuel independence.
        Dave
        • 1 Year Ago
        @RC
        If that's your argument, you've already lost. Your local electric utility is the only monopoly here. There are many companies producing coal, natural gas, and nuclear. All of them will be competing in the production realm. And the local fueling stations will be competing with each other at the retail level.
          Val
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Dave
          yeah, like gas stations are competing at the retail level....
          CoolWaters
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Dave
          We then, if your local Utility wants some of that transportation fuel PROFIT, they'd better get their AXX is Gear.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Dave
          @ RC, "Unlike FCV, BEVs are flexible and can plug to any outlet. People are free to easily produce or purchase energy from renewable sources " That's simply not true ! Some people can plug in to a home re-charger. Others live in apartments, rented accommodation, drive or operate vehicles for which there is no EV model, etc. Making claims based on your own personal circumstances, and then generalising, leads you to make statements that are obviously unrealistic. I want EV's to succeed, but pretending there are no obstacles, is absurd.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @RC
        @ RC I wish that was true, but in reality, Tesla's 20,000 sales, don't mean much in a world which buys 90 million new motor vehicles each year.
      Kit
      • 1 Year Ago
      The Highlander didn't even exist in 1996. You guys either got the year wrong (2006 maybe?) or model.
      Joeviocoe
      • 1 Year Ago
      "chief developer" of Toyota does NOT equal "CEO" of Nissan/Renault
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      Some respect, please. We all understand that you disagree, but at least Dave has presented links to provide backing details.
    • Load More Comments