Toyota has an undeniable vested interest in seeing its hydrogen sedan succeed when it goes on sale in the US next year, so it's no surprise that the company's North American CEO, Jim Lentz, says that he's got more hope for the car now than ever before. And if we remember ways that others in the company, like Bob Carter, have loudly sung hydrogen's praises, we have to assume that positivity is running awful high in Torrance. In fact, Lentz said that the US side of the company is far more excited by the H2 car than colleagues in Japan.

Speaking at The Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, CA this week, Lentz said:

After we've seen the product, understand its range, its driving dynamics, its refueling, we're a lot more bullish than Japan - probably about fivefold more bullish. It's just a question of how many can be produced now.

Well, we've driven this car, and we still feel that Toyota is placing a big bet on the technology. One important issue is cost, but Lentz would not say exactly how much the car costs to make or what it will be priced at. He did say, though, that the production cost has dropped by 95 percent from the $1 million price tag the car wore ten years ago. That hints at a production cost of around $50,000. Lentz also said he thinks it will take at least a decade for hydrogen vehicles to hit sales of 500,000 per year in the US. Speaking to Bloomberg, he said:

Their acceptance could get off to a quicker start than the hybrids did. I think you're going to see a lot more marketing of the concept of fuel cell much sooner than you did for hybrids, because basically the whole industry is behind it.



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
  • 74 Comments
      Marco Polo
      • 8 Months Ago
      @ Joeviocoe, No one is " back-peddling ", because no one involved in the HFCV industry gives a damn about what a few critic's say on the internet ! You've created a passionate 'cause' out of EV technology . You see EV technology in a wider context (so do I) , but you assume that everyone else has a 'moral' responsibility, believe in your chosen cause, but in reality, they don't ! I'm not trying to convince anyone. I don't have to. Either the engineers working for the HFCV stakeholders produce a viable vehicle, or they don't. It doesn't matter what you, or I, think, we've absolutely no influence in HFCV development. EV technology struggled, and still does, for general acceptance. The whole history of EV development is one of personalities and individual achievement. Small players can be involved. From the earliest hobbyists, to visionary industrialists like Carlos Ghosn and Elon Musk. It took political agitation, heroic pioneers, independent engineers, and a lot of public involvement, (including private investment capital), to create the conditions for EV Technology to become accepted. HFCV technology, requires noneof that. The major HFCV stakeholders, are already heavily funded, (governments are stakeholders) . Nor do they care about keeping to deadlines, or pleasing devoted fans. The HFCV stakeholders already employ, or can access, the world best engineers, who will work diligently to the brief set by the stakeholders. The stakeholders, don't need to " legitimise" hydrogen, (it's not illegitimate :) , they just don't care what you (or I) think. You are correct when you say that the stakeholders, are "not doing anyone any favours". To these organisations, this isn't a "cause", just a calculated business venture. If it succeeds they will throw their combined vast resources into making it work, if not, well...they'll just write it off and move on to the next project. It's just business. There is no "chicken or egg" paradox. Every day, business organisations agree to joint ventures or coalitions, on the basis of potentialities. In this case the H2 providers, have laid down a criteria, for the auto-makers, before the H2 providers will roll out the infrastructure on a world-wide scale. Unlike you, these corporations are quite accustomed to making decisions based on prototypes, projections and guaranteed production estimates. (That's called due diligence). If Toyota, Honda, Daimler, Hyundai, VW and other auto-makers give an undertaking that they are ready to meet criteria, then the H2 stakeholders will accept their word, and roll out the infrastructure. Governments will actively support the roll out, from self interest. Joe, unlike EV technology, HFCV has no need for ''supporters" or "critics". We make not like the possibility of a rival technology, but just burying your head in the sand and saying "it won't happen" , isn't productive.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        --"because no one involved in the HFCV industry gives a damn about what a few critic's say on the internet" I never suggested that they are backpedaling because of internet blogs. You are reaching for another straw man. They are backpedaling because they are realizing that they are NOT convincing government to pay for the entire infrastructure and they don't want to take the risks themselves. --"Nor do they care about keeping to deadlines, or pleasing devoted fans." Quite right. But it was never about "pleasing" people. But competing technology overtaking them. While they missed deadline after deadline, PHEVs and EVs are now being adopted in the very markets that Hydrogen was promised to fill. --"The stakeholders, don't need to " legitimise" hydrogen" I never said that either. I said YOU are trying to legitimize hydrogen by insisting that engineers know what they are doing. Even when a conversation thread only mentions the economic feasibility, you fired back with comments about engineers... as if they had any say in the economics of it all. So many good ideas that work engineering wise, fail because economics don't work. --"if not, well...they'll just write it off and move on to the next project. It's just business. " Well, since you don't pay taxes as an American citizen... I don't expect you to understand. If Oil/Gas companies were building H2 stations without taking any government tax money... I would not care. But this constant Hydrogen Hype DOES come at a cost to tax payers. You cannot suggest just "writing it off" is an acceptable solution. --"There is no "chicken or egg" paradox." You've got no clue then. Even CAFCP personnel have said exactly that. ----------------------------------------- And with so many words you typed... you still FAILED to provide proof of this "Shell Criteria". You claim it is is an industry term and have enumerated 11 very specific items. Where did you get this? Is this officially from Shell? http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/20/toyota-bringing-hydrogen-fuel-cell-concept-test-mule-to-ces-in/#aolc=BeV4Jw
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, CAFCP (there IS an 'a' in there). cafcp.org So, the "Shell Criteria" is nothing official. Might as well stop using it in these FCV articles then. It is misleading to keep talking about it, as if it were something important to automakers or H2 providers. You have mentioned this "Shell Criteria" 4 times: http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/11/2015-toyota-fuel-cell-hydrogen-vehicle-prototype-review/#aol-comments=&aolc=BdyJPg http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/27/hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-next-generation-ev/#aolc=Be34YQ http://green.autoblog.com/2014/01/06/toyota-hydrogen-vehicle-visits-ces-on-sale-in-us-in-2015/#aolc=BfOhYw http://green.autoblog.com/2014/01/16/toyota-fires-bullets-hydrogen-fuel-tanks-shoots-ev-supporter/#aolc=BgKTyg --"you seem to have formed your opinion from emotional bias" There you go again, trying ad hominem arguments. Whenever you seem to have nothing to contribute to an argument, you seem to always try to bring "emotion" into it. You are just as biased as I. Please, let's keep this on topic. --"I simply say that it's a possibility, but I'd probably bet on improved ESD making it a niche player" Now it is just an "improved" ESD that would make FCVs a niche. Just a few months ago, EVs needed a "breakthrough" ESD. http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/11/2015-toyota-fuel-cell-hydrogen-vehicle-prototype-review/#aol-comments=&aolc=BdxM-w and.. http://green.autoblog.com/2014/01/16/toyota-fires-bullets-hydrogen-fuel-tanks-shoots-ev-supporter/#aolc=BgKrCA --"if HFCV's proved viable, and meet the 'Shell criteria' , then HFCV's would become the dominant technology. " Like I've been saying. Batteries will continue a steady and moderate improvement over time... and combined with smart implementation of public charging infrastructure... FCVs will indeed be confined to niche markets. As the Hydrogen industry itself back pedals... there will be countless excuses as to why. Some will say, "batteries got so much better. Nobody saw that coming". And some will say that automakers failed to meet basic "criteria" that required unreasonable prices and volumes for FCV production. But all along, it has been a economic blunder because Hydrogen ultimately has a Chicken/Egg paradox that makes initial adoption infeasible. http://green.autoblog.com/2014/01/16/toyota-fires-bullets-hydrogen-fuel-tanks-shoots-ev-supporter/#aolc=BgKrCA --"if HFCV's proved viable, and meet the 'Shell criteria' , then HFCV's would become the dominant technology. "
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe Joe, this may come as a surprise to you, but there's a world outside the ''land of the free" ! Daimler, Toyota, Hyundai, VW, Nissan, Honda, BMW, etc, are not US companies, and most of the research is being undertaken outside the US. (For that matter most of the H2 providers, are not US corporations). If auto-makers finally abandon the technology, it won't be just US taxpayers who will share the loss, all over the world, governments are contributing to HFCV R&D. Naturally governments prefer H2, it's a far less disruptive technology. The DOE and other government agencies, are entitled to back any technologies they feel may produce beneficial results.( Not just the technology of your choice) There are those like EVnerdgene, who feel governments should not invest in industry at all. " CAFCP " personel ? Do you mean the CFCP ( California Fuel Cell Partnership ) ? Because you are so partisan, and one-eyed, you seem incapable of grasping the fact that I'm not "legitimising" or "advocating" anything ! In fact I'm saying the opposite. It doesn't matter what you or I think when it comes to HFCV technology. The major stakeholders will decide whether it's feasible or not. We can only speculate. You say it will never work, with absolutely no chance of success. LTAW and DaveMart, say it's a good possibility, I simply say that it's a possibility, but I'd probably bet on improved ESD making it a niche player. We are all speculating, but the difference is that LTAW and DaveMart back their opinions with factual logical reasoning, where you seem to have formed your opinion from emotional bias. But hey, who cares ! It'll either happen or it won't, there's nothing you or I can do the either promote or discourage , HFCV development. ( Oh, as I have explained numerous times, the term "Shell Criteria", is a term adopted by some Industry press and refers to an amalgamation of discussion papers presented at a Bilderberg Conference , the spokesperson was associated with Shell Oil. Such papers, are subject to the Chatham House Rule. Bilderburg discussion papers are never 'official'' nor binding, but are very good indicators of the future ).
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Either the engineers working for the Ethanol stakeholders produce a viable vehicle, or they don't. It doesn't matter what you, or I, think, we've absolutely no influence in E85/flexfuel development. The Ethanol stakeholders already employ, or can access, the world best engineers, who will work diligently to the brief set by the stakeholders. Engineers are given a brief by the stakeholders to design and produce a viable ethanol burning product within laid down specifications. But, I'm not in a position to say either way. However, the Ethanol stakeholders are very experienced and equipped with thousands of engineers and scientists who believe it's possible. Do you think they're all fools ? Now, doesn't that sound completely silly? Nobody has a problem with the 'engineering' of flexfuel cars. The problem is economics and politics. The SAME is true with Hydrogen FCVs. This example is used because I know you do not agree with the hype politics and economics of those pushing an Ethanol Economy on the public.
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe Good greif Joe, now you're really being pedantic. I've attempted to explain the possibilities and forces behind the development of HFCV technology. I've also tried to contrast the development history of the two technologies. Since neither of us have a crystal ball that can see into the future, or are superior engineers than the tens of thousands working on both technologies, we are both speculating. The difference between us is that you have decided HFCV technology will never become feasible, and I can see a scenario where it' could be a very viable possibility. Dismissing important industry indicators, because they're not "official ", is childish. Corporations, like politicians, use these conferences to send signals and insights to other vested interests. The 'Shell criteria', is accepted as a target for the auto-industry to induce H2 providers to roll out the infrastructure. All major H2 providers, including Shell, have compiled fully costed business models of the logistic's, and profits, to be earned from a roll-out. Before assessing the potential of any technology, or business model, I believe that it's important to have an open mind, and a neutral position. Both technologies have a common marketing objective, the production of zero emission transport. (both also share arguments about 'long tailpipes' ). The basic difference is that HFCV technology can be applied across a wide range of vehicles, without much disruption to the existing economic status quo. For the world's consumers, it's just replacing gasoline/diesel with a Zero emission fuel. EV technology is undoubtedly more elegant, but far more disruptive. For the suburbanite, living in the affluent West, especially those with solar panel and a utility willing to buy surplus power, EV's are preferable, and would still be able to compete, despite H2 replacing gasoline/diesel as an energy carrier. The biggest difference is that EV sales have so far been restricted to mainly specialized passenger vehicles, due to the restrictions of the ESD capacity. EV's need significant government incentives, by some governments, as outside of a few automotive manufacturers, there are no other stakeholders with the resources to push the technology. EV technology mainly thrives in hybrid form, due to a lack of affordable ESD capacity. In contrast, HFCV technology has the potential promise of an 'instant' method of quickly converting the world gasoline/diesel fleet to a zero emission 'fuel'. This method harnesses not just the resources of the automotive industry, but the resources of the world largest , richest corporations who have the capacity, resources and experience to implement the technology on a world scale. Naturally, governments favour a 'solution' that isn't economically disruptive, and doesn't affect the revenue stream from gas pump tax. Consumers simply want convenience.
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe It's really too hard to reach any kind of understanding with someone so perversely adversarial. No one said that engineers make economic decisions. What I did say was that engineers are given a brief by the stakeholders to design and produce a viable product within laid down specifications. Once an HFCV can be produced to the proscribed specifications, the H2 providers can be confident the business model will work, ( or at least, a justifiable risk ) at that point it's just a question of calculating the potential of rival competing technologies. Unlike EV's, the main HFCV stakeholders have the potential to be able to 'condition' market acceptance. The auto-makers can deliberately favour HFCV technology, attract subsidises and support from governments, while H2 providers can 'reward' the rapid adoption of HFCV technology on a world scale. The cost of rolling out infrastructure is not only affordable for these corporations, but should be very profitable. If that occurs, mass adoption will automatically follow. The choice for the consumer will be simple. Buy an HFCV at roughly the same price (or 10% premium) as an existing gasoline/diesel vehicle, with the same familiar refuelling method, but much better fuel economy, zero-emissions, and the same range and performance as an existing ICE, or a range limited vehicle, sold in very few numbers, with poor resale value. That's a possible scenario. Unlike LTAW, and Dave mart, I've have never been convinced that HFCV manufacturers can introduce such vehicles, before a sufficiently large ESD "improvement" or " breakthrough " renders HFCV technology no longer economically feasible. But, I'm not in a position to say either way. However, the HFCV stakeholders are very experienced and equipped with thousands of engineers and scientists who believe it's possible. Do you think they're all fools ? ( Perhaps if you were an attendee at Bilderburg, or an industry insider, you might be more familiar with the term ) . In conclusion Joe, there's nothing to "prove" ! It's all conjecture and speculation. Even Carlos Ghosn, "father of the Leaf" and pioneer of mass produced EV's, is still investing in HFCV research and development. Now if Ghosn's not sure, (with all his knowledge) how can you be so adamant ?
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"No one said that engineers make economic decisions. " --"the HFCV stakeholders are very experienced and equipped with thousands of engineers and scientists who believe it's possible. Do you think they're all fools ?" Those two statements show how YOU are claiming Engineers (and scientists) are making economic "conclusions" (not "decisions"). Engineers can believe their automotive technology works. And it does, I've test driven several great FCVs. But not a single Engineer or Scientist.. is responsible for deciding whether the CEO, board of directors, shareholders, etc... will decide to move forward on building H2 stations. You keep trying to add credibility to the Hydrogen Folly, as if employed engineers would simply refuse to work on Fuel Cell technology, if they weren't confident that FCVs would be accepted by the public. ---------- As far as Ghosn is concerned, Nissan/Renault still has shareholders and a board to answer to. Back in 2009, Nissan/Renault Senior VP Shinohara signed the Letter of Understanding with the other automakers... saying they will commit R&D and marketing efforts for FCVs so that energy companies would build the "Infrastructure of sufficient density by 2015". Automakers, like Nissan, have held up their end of the deal. But nobody build an infrastructure.... which is why not a single FCV was produced for sale. Now, in 2015 and beyond, when there is STILL no dense H2 infrastructure... Nissan will silently dispatch their FCV program over the following years. REAL commitment to a product is not about limited R&D, like Nissan is doing. Ghosn has shown his true commitment, beyond just words... and actually built a mass market EV.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          --"Since neither of us have a crystal ball that can see into the future, or are superior engineers than the tens of thousands working on both technologies, we are both speculating." I am completely in favor of the engineering behind FCVs. They are very well designed. But an automotive engineer CANNOT convince Oil companies to build H2 fuel stations any faster. It is YOU are constantly trying to bring engineers into an economic argument. --"you have decided HFCV technology will never become feasible" Only if you conveniently forget the countless times I have said which niche sub-markets FCVs can compete. So we BOTH see "a scenario where it' could be a very viable possibility" ... we just differ on which possibility. I have admitted this for a very long time. And you are slowly coming around to changing your views to something closer to mine. I remember when we argued specifically about which tech would dominate the passenger vehicle market. You, DaveMart, and LTAW were confidently thinking EVs were just a temporary stepping stone until FCVs and H2 stations were developed. Now, you are talking more about limited niches like me. You very recently were thinking that ESDs needed a major breakthrough to compete with FCVs. Now it is just an "improved ESD". Which we both agree is happening steadily anyway. --"The 'Shell criteria', is accepted as a target for the auto-industry" You've shown ZERO evidence of this. And I have repeated asked you to provide some.
        Marco Polo
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        Sorry, this was meant to be a reply to Joe, several comments earlier. The ABG comments system has certainly developed some active gremlins!
      Joeviocoe
      • 8 Months Ago
      The real test of "excitement" must come from people OUTSIDE off the industry. There is just so much a artificial "excitement" aka HYPE... intended to encourage investment. I will not believe "excitement" that comes solely from insiders who stand to profit. There really isn't any consumer driven groups that are excited about FCVs.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Really the PHEVs kill all excuses for FCVs. A 150 mile range Leaf is great... but FCV advocates will just keep moving the argument to a higher range or switch to "too slow to recharge" arguments.
        CoolWaters
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        A Nissan LEAF with a 150 mile range Kills all desire for another solution.
        Marco Polo
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        @ Joeviocoe You are quite right. You've accurately identified the difference between HFCV development, and the development of EV technology. EV technology grew from an interest by all sorts of people mostly outside the centre of the automotive industry. EV enthusiasts have existed for decades.The 'excitement ' was the creation of EV enthusiasts, hobbyists, environmentalists, and a broad church of people, from different walks of life and different, often new, industries, who saw the technology as 'exiting' and a passionate fulfilment of wider ideologies. HFCV technology is a creation of the auto-industry. It's an engineers solution to a carefully calculated industry brief. It's main backers and supporters, remain those vested interests who created the brief. Again you are correct, there are no 'consumer groups' clamouring for HFCV technology. (although there will always be some environmental support for any Zero emission vehicle). HFCV technology is designed to solve a far narrower brief than EV technology, and across a broader range of vehicles. The infrastructure required to support H2 as a replacement fuel for gasoline/diesel allows no room for amateur participation. There will be no "EVsuperhero" hobbyists. The support base for HFCV technology will consist of those Auto-industry manufacturers, Oil/Gas/H2 providers, Governments, and large Investment fund managers. Any " excitement", will be created by the reality of driving a zero emission vehicle, of any category, that has the same characteristics and convenience as existing gasoline/diesel technology. The problem for HFCV technology, is that before it can become viable, the ESD capacity of EV's may already exceed the operational convenience of H2, rendering the vast investment required uneconomic. It's a technology that should have been researched a lot earlier. If HFCV vehicles that met the "Shell Criteria" been available in 2006, EV technology would have never attracted enough investment to be commercially viable.
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          @ EVsuperhero, Hey, what's with all the indignation ? My comment about you was recognition of your participation as a devoted and pioneering EV enthusiast ! The point I was making, is that there was room for you, (and me) to build (convert) our own EVs, and enthusiastically take part in the development of EV adoption. This isn't true of HFCV's. The vehicles will be developed by major stakeholders, needing little or no public support. These stakeholders are so well resourced and the technology so complex, that there is no room for participation at ''enthusiast level". That's not ''good" or "bad", just a reality. Recognising reality, doesn't make me an advocate, just a realist. Refusing to recognise the possibility of another successful Zero Emission technology, because of emotional commitment, is understandable, but irrational. Personally, I still think that ESD capacity will increase so rapidly over the next decade that HFCV technology will be unable to compete economically. But that's just speculation (and hope ) on my part, no doubt the guys working on HFCV's are also confident.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          --"It's an engineers solution to a carefully calculated industry brief." I would NOT consider FCVs to be an engineers solution. Hydrogen is a compromise to achieve zero emissions while keeping the same fueling paradigm. Engineers would be more concerned with elegant and efficient solutions. Hydrogen trades efficiency to meet an industry goal rapid refueling at centralized stations. --"before it can become viable, the ESD capacity of EV's may already exceed the operational convenience of H2" Quite true... although I think that massive EV charging infrastructure will require much less ESD capacity than many think. 130kw - 150kw in several key locations (with a few swap stations perhaps), would likely still be easier and cheaper to implement than an H2 infrastructure (considering public charging infrastructure doesn't need to handle 100% of the EV miles driven, unlike H2 would). --"If HFCV vehicles that met the "Shell Criteria" been available in 2006, " Can you pls link some recent news (2013 or later) regarding the "Shell Criteria"? All I can find is your description here: http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/20/toyota-bringing-hydrogen-fuel-cell-concept-test-mule-to-ces-in/#aolc=BeV4Jw The "criteria" you listed is basically a wish list that a compilation of everything we already knew before 2006. The argument has always been that an economic paradox prevents this criteria from ever being met. You CANNOT seriously think that an automaker can produce an FCV for 10% price premium over an equivalent ICV. Of course criterion #7 assumes a vehicle with similar production volume. This is not realistic either. Basically, if that "Shell Criteria" is from an "official press release" from Shell... then it is basically a letter of blame for the automakers... as to why FCVs never happened. I predicted that the "Great Backpedal" of Hydrogen FCVs would include a lot of excuses. The 2009 "Letter of Understanding" from the automakers to the Energy companies passed the buck onto them (when they said "Infrastructure of sufficient density is REQUIRED BY 2015)... and now it seems the "Shell Criteria" is passing the buck back onto the automakers. I am on the side of automakers here. A few weeks ago I was talking to about 4 reps from CAFCP during the Alt-Car show in the bay area. I test drove all the Fuel Cell cars. I LOVED THEM! (except for one, the purge cycle was loud and looked like women whose water just broke). But only one of them had any real confidence of any H2 stations being built by October. She wasn't very convincing, but we will see if what she said would happen, will happen. Shell has no right to make unrealistic "Criteria" saying that automakers must offer such high volume FCVs for only a 10% premium above ICVs... it is NOT gonna happen. But they know this. Shell is just preparing the PR campaign to shift blame. The Great Backpedal continues.
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          @ Joeviocoe -"It's an engineers solution to a carefully calculated industry brief." Joe, I think you misunderstood the term "engineers solution to a carefully calculated industry brief". I was referring to the the brief presented to the engineers, not a brief you might give, but the brief that was given. You may disagree with those engineers, but you can't deny they are engineers, just because you don't agree with their research or solutions. The " Shell Criteria" is a widely used industry term, used to describe the principles laid down by Shell during a Builderburg Conference. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that HFCV providers, Auto-manufacturers, Governments, and large Investment fund managers, must somehow justify themselves to an imaginary jury passing judgement on their progress. There is no "back-peddling ", because they never cared about what you think in the first place. Like every investor, Shell, and the other H2 providers, have every right to inform the Auto-industry the pre-conditions and criteria the industry must achieve before they will invest. You may see this as a moral crusade, but to these giant corporations, it's just business. Either the technology works, or it doesn't, either the criteria can be met, or it can't. There's no idealism, just business. It all about making money. You'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that any idealism was involved !
          EVSUPERHERO
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Yes, well this EVSuperhero, owns a Tesla and makes approx 500 dollars per week working three day driving it for Uber in Seattle. How's that for a hobbyist my friend Mr Marco? I still have two Yarises that I keep going, replacing chargers and DC to DC converters when needed and chasing down other anomalies, the Yarises are my dog mobiles. I still have not given up on my 59 Anglia drag race car as well. I am out their 3 days a week competing against the gas cars with the Tesla after that I drive home to Portland to see my dog and take a shower, lol. Just went through my first set of back tires at 9.5k miles. Those P85+ cars eat back tires, especially when I punch it for the riders to give them a sample of the power. I am ordering 19 inch rims with the standard tires to mitigate this problem. I expect to have 200k miles on this Tesla in 4 years or less, how's that for a hobbyist? The Tesla qualifies for a Uber Black car but I am only Uberx right now. The two comments I get the most from riders are, "I have never ridden in a Tesla before", and "That is a big screen". So much fun for me to give people rides in one of the best cars on the rode and the future of automobiles. ABG comment system is getting worse as time goes by.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          --"The vehicles will be developed by major stakeholders, needing little or no public support." This sentiment has historically lead to hubris about demand. So many business models fail because they think they can just create a demand from nothing.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          You are really trying to convince people that Engineers are leading this Hydrogen charge. This is purely an economic and political driven movement, which is why independent engineers are not fawning over FCVs. You are only trying to legitimize Hydrogen hype by invoking engineers. They had nothing to do with pushing Hydrogen for all these years. So no link? It must be the worst "industry term" ever, since it doesn't even show up on the internet. And certainly doesn't describe the very specific list of 11 enumerated criteria that you listed. I am wondering whose backpedal this is now, yours, or Shell's Whether it came from Shell, and is "official"... or you made it up yourself... the "Shell Criteria" is a list of 9 reasonable items that hide 2 unreasonable items. Price targets can only be achieved with large economies of scale. And large production volumes can only be achieved with sufficient demand. And only a robust and dense H2 fueling infrastructure can create sufficient demand for FCVs. So essentially, that Criteria CANNOT be met by automakers unless Shell and other energy providers ACT FIRST. This is the whole point of the economic paradox (chicken/egg). --"There's no idealism, just business. " Straw man time? I have always said this. It is just business to want to continue profits with the same paradigm for transportation energy. Misleading the public is also, just part of business. They are not evil.. but they are also not out to do anybody any favors. So we must NOT just take their word for it, and must analyze their claims and see if they make economic sense. HFCVs for passenger vehicles... do not.
      Spec
      • 8 Months Ago
      "I think you're going to see a lot more marketing of the concept of fuel cell much sooner than you did for hybrids, because basically the whole industry is behind it." That is a pretty boastful claim for an industry that has yet to offer a single hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for sale (not including heavily subsidized leases).
        Dave
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Spec
        California never mandated hybrids. California is mandating ZEVs.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Dave
          Because ZEV mandates always work to sell cars. /sarcasm
          Dave
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Dave
          Not to mention a few other states: "Seven states -- Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon and Vermont -- have already adopted California rules requiring 15 percent of new vehicles sold to be zero-emission vehicles by 2025. Their definition of ZEVs includes battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell electric vehicles that run on hydrogen." http://www.autonews.com/article/20131024/OEM05/131029939/california-7-other-states-sign-pact-to-spur-ev-sales#
          Dave
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Dave
          Not to mention a few other states: "Seven states -- Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon and Vermont -- have already adopted California rules requiring 15 percent of new vehicles sold to be zero-emission vehicles by 2025. Their definition of ZEVs includes battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel cell electric vehicles that run on hydrogen." http://www.autonews.com/article/20131024/OEM05/131029939/california-7-other-states-sign-pact-to-spur-ev-sales#
        Dave
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Spec
        California never mandated hybrids. California is mandating ZEVs.
      Sasparilla Fizz
      • 8 Months Ago
      The richest most powerful industry in the world, the oil industry (and their lobbyists) want Hydrogen (probably not because its what would be in the best interest for the world). Their worst nightmare is EV's coming to fruition with $1.25-ish a gallon electricity (gasoline equivalent) and battery costs constantly declining so that they become cheaper than ICE vehicles (less than a decade away now at current battery cost decreases - without breakthroughs). Consequently the money (via lobbying) has continued to flow from governments for this technology...the biggest problem will be the cost of the fuel (more expensive than gasoline) - however if Hydrogen supporters can get the governments to heavily subsidize the fuel (or outright subsidize it themselves), so it appears very cheap, for a limited number of years (decade) to kill off EV's they might have a chance...we'll see what happens. JMHO...
        Marco Polo
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Sasparilla Fizz
        @ Sasparilla Fizz The oil industry doesn't really care about EV's. The major industry players have already largely divested themselves of consumer retail operations. Gasoline and diesel are very low profit margins for oil companies in comparison to petro-chemicals, and fertilizer. With 3-4 billion gasoline-diesel engines in the world, the market is pretty secure for decades to come. However, you are quite right, the prospect of a huge new market for a product produced from natural gas, would prove irresistible. It would also prove irresistible to governments as the tax revenue would continue without disruption. But even so, it doesn't need to be at the cost of EV's. The two technologies could co-exist, especially in the affluent west as EV technology is rapidly proving desirable in more ways that just having zero emissions.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 8 Months Ago
      We're getting ever closer to the time when FCVs will show us what they're capable of...
        brotherkenny4
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        They will show us they are as capable of taking our money as even better than ICEs. Best thing too, the money goes to the oil industry.
        Ziv
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        That may be true, but unfortunately, it may show us that FCV's simply cost too much to build and the fuel to run them costs even more. It is a noble idea, I just think it is highly unlikely that it will work in the real world.
      Joeviocoe
      • 8 Months Ago
      The real test of "excitement" must come from people OUTSIDE off the industry. There is just so much a artificial "excitement" aka HYPE... intended to encourage investment. I will not believe "excitement" that comes solely from insiders who stand to profit. There really isn't any consumer driven groups that are excited about FCVs.
      danfred311
      • 8 Months Ago
      They have a research department working on stupid pills and they've had a breakthrough. We have these complex cars that can run on fossil fuels at the same efficiency as combustion engines. It's sure to be all the rave any day now. Sales will only be limited by how many they can produce. Instant 100% market share. I knew that autoexecs are top of the line idiots and I have stated as much many times. But stuff like this still manages to surprise me.
      JakeY
      • 8 Months Ago
      Hopefully they have better styling that indicated so far. It'll be funny if the car failed on styling alone.
      CoolWaters
      • 8 Months Ago
      Hydrogen is just another oil/carbon monopoly solution. Only an Idiot would pick another carbon solution after the latest IPCC report.
      gslippy
      • 8 Months Ago
      This will fail, no matter that so many big players are behind it. Nobody is stepping up to pay for the infrastructure, and hydrogen has a serious perception problem that electricity and natural gas do not.
        Dave
        • 8 Months Ago
        @gslippy
        A serious perception problem? Outside of this forum, almost no one knows they exist. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_survey_2009.pdf
        Spec
        • 8 Months Ago
        @gslippy
        If they can build the cars cheaply enough then an infrastructure can be built. But I just don't see how they'll be able to build these cheap enough to compete with a Chevy Volt and other PHEVs. People already balk at paying a few thousand more for a plug-in hybrid. I don't think they'll jump at the chance to pay $20K more for a FCV assuming the hit the $50K price range. And while you can sell a small number of very expensive cars to a small niche, that won't be enough to cause the infrastructure to be built out. There is little public charging infrastructure out there but with plug-ins, people can cheaply install home-chargers. You can't do that with FCVs.
          DaveMart
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Spec
          Exactly why do you think that the cost of hydrogen cars won't continue its extremely rapid cost reduction path? What specific parts of the technology won't be capable of reduction? Where have the DOE and the engineers at just about every car company on the planet got it wrong?
          Spec
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Spec
          Do you believe a fuel cell stack and a high-pressure storage tank will cost as little as an internal combustion engine? I don't think so. And since everything else in the car is the same as a PHEV (the car, the electric motor, controller, a large battery, etc.) that is the price target they really need to hit to become really popular. I don't see that happening.
          Spec
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Spec
          Do you believe a fuel cell stack and a high-pressure storage tank will cost as little as an internal combustion engine? I don't think so. And since everything else in the car is the same as a PHEV (the car, the electric motor, controller, a large battery, etc.) that is the price target they really need to hit to become really popular. I don't see that happening.
      Electron
      • 8 Months Ago
      It remains fuzzy where Toyota's HFC vehicle is in terms of cost. Nikkei seems to think it's closer to $100K: http://insideevs.com/2015-toyota-honda-fuel-cell-electric-vehicles-expected-priced-approximately-97750-yikes/ That's a lot of money for a car I can't imagine anybody would pay more for than a Camry. Toyota itself suggests it will not be be competitive with battery electrics before 2030: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1089085_hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-price-competitive-with-electrics-by-2030-toyota-says That's basically like saying "there is really no telling if this will ever be a competitive mass market proposition".
      goodoldgorr
      • 8 Months Ago
      Hurry-up hudrogen. I need it badly used in 2023-2025 approx. Im pretty sure it will be a success and the hydrogen infrastructure should be an easy task as many high-tech companies are able to make hydrogen at the point of sale by water electrolysis or nat gas reforming. A hydrogen infrastructure is less complicated than a gasoline infrastructure as there is 100x less transport to get it to the pump. This is a goodoldgorr exclusive coverage, there is way less transport to get hydrogen at a pump, chris m is doomed by this as all the naysayers, LOL. You do the hydrogen almost entirely at the pump by an electrolyzer and water or at the pump by a natural gas line and a reformer. No more drilling overseas, refining at 500 miles away and then trucking that consume the fuel before it is delivered. Nobody ever told you that that gasoline cost come from transport, refining and especially cartel price gouging. Hydrogen can be made while sleeping or watching tv and eating chips and coke. Consumers will want hydrogen. It will be so popular that the state will subsidize it at the pump directly contrary to petrol where it's the big companies that get the subsidies for security reasons. The hydrogen car is long lasting unhamper by anything, no vampire draw, quick refueling, electric durability, no lost of power or heat in winter, unlimited speed like the actual space shuttles of today, woman and childrens will like it, Hollywood filmmakers will dramatize it in action movies where the good escape the bads with their bulletproof hydrogen tanks. We saw in recent jame bonds movies that they didn't show tesla cars even if it's costly, james bond need range and fast refueling but he will get a hydrogen car for sure. Taxis didn't adopted battery cars but they will strive for hydrogen because it will be the customers that will ask for it. Some folks will inflate their tires with hydrogen to save weight. The medical industry will recommend hydrogen as a fuel because it will help the health of everyone. The scientific community will be behind it to get rid of global warming. Forklifts in tesla factory and their gigafactory will be powered by hydrogen or tesla will be fined by epa.
        Chris M
        • 8 Months Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        Good friend Gorr, I sincerely doubt there will be any used H2 vehicles available in your area in 2023, due to a lack of refueling facilities, But don't worry, there will be plenty of used plug-ins available by then, and an abundance of recharging facilities everywhere. Heck, you might even be able to afford a new EV by then! At any rate, start saving up for it. BTW, James Bond has already driven electrics, most notably a cool submarine car.
        Joeviocoe
        • 8 Months Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        --" Forklifts in tesla factory and their gigafactory will be powered by hydrogen or tesla will be fined by epa. " Whose ass did you pull that nugget from?
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe H2, is gaining popularity as a zero emission forklift. We work hard selling electric forklifts, but fuel cell units are gaining ground against LPG, etc, especially in the food/refrigerated sector. The advent of Toyota's new HFC units will be major competition,. (especially as Toyota is nearly 50% of the world Fork Lift market). A disadvantage is installing the supporting infrastructure for the HFC forklift. Our EV forklift leasing plan took advantage of the government subsidy for solar panels and by packaging , we've been able to offset the longer running times of FC units, with a better economic argument and 'greener image. But it's all about better ESD capacity......
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          There are US gov't agencies that govern the production of forklifts, yes. OSHA may regulate what can and cannot be done safely in a factory. That being said, if any robot or forklift is battery powered, the EPA is NOT involved at all. So, although Marco would love to defend Gorr's delusions, just so he can be contrarian... even he can see that his statement was baseless ignorance.
          Chris M
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          It comes from the same place Gorr gets most of his information - from his vivid imagination. AFAIK, the EPA doesn't regulate forklifts (except possibly for emissions from diesel units) and would not force one zero emission forklift over another. Also, Tesla uses very few forklifts, most of their parts movers are automated robots, battery powered or direct electrical power. No need for inefficient H2 fuel cells.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          http://youtu.be/8_lfxPI5ObM?t=2m53s Smart Carts that Tesla uses. Battery not hydrogen.
          Joeviocoe
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I think FC forklifts are great. I don't see any problem with them. I just wanted to know what lie Gorr was told about Tesla needing to use hydrogen forklifts. http://youtu.be/TEReFPI4jSc?t=1m @1:04 and @1:12 You can clearly see how Tesla would rather use battery power over hydrogen fuel cells to move equipment around the factory. The Chassis automated robot "mover" @1:12 looks as though it NEEDs to be a low profile machine with no room for hydrogen tanks.
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Chris M, Gorr is quite correct, not only the EPA, but a host of government authorities, state, federal and local determine work place emissions. Part of those regulations are devoted to forklift and other vehicles.
    • Load More Comments