Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be in showrooms sooner than planned, the Japan Times reporting that production will commence in mid-December with the sedan following "by the end of this year." No reason was given for the new timeline; Toyota has been saying all along that we'd see it in 2015.

The company is said to be "considering" production volume of "dozens of... vehicles per month" at a "likely" price of eight million yen, which is $78,030 US. That is well in line with the numbers thrown around last year, when the target was somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000. Then late last year, during our first drive of the FCHV mule, we wrote that "the official quote... [is] that a price of 'less than 10 million yen is ideal.'"

That alleged $78K is a sizable sum to be one of the early adopters on the hydrogen fuel cell wagon train, but with things moving around so much – and with Toyota publicly citing hydrogen fuel cells as the future – there's plenty of reason to be cautious about that number.


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
  • 162 Comments
      David
      • 6 Months Ago
      Tesla is subsidizing electric recharge; is Toyota going to assist in hydrogen refueling stations?
        Dave
        • 6 Months Ago
        @David
        "Supercharging is included in every Model S with an 85 kWh battery, and can be added to any 60 kWh Model S for $2,000, or $2,500 if enabled after delivery." http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
      Marco Polo
      • 6 Months Ago
      Each time an article appears about HFCV technology appears, the same group of naysayers, feel obliged to vent their bigotry and fear of this technology. Most HFCV opponents, seem at cross purposes,contradictory, and illogical but remain firmly united in their hatred of HFCV progress. This is sad, because both EV and HFCV technology still need considerable development to be considered sufficiently economically viable (without government subsidies and regulatory assistance) to replace fossil fuels of a global scale. It's the potential for HFCV technology to be applied to everything from the humble forklift, to cars and light commercials, and heavy trucks, buses and agricultural machinery, (even shipping ! ) as well as stationary use, that make it a very worthwhile technology to explore it's potential. Environmentalists, are attracted to HFCV potential because of it's potential to replace a very wide range of transport, with Zero Emission technology. Buses and Trucks, farm machinery etc, experimental units are already operating with HFCV technology in each of these categories. . Economists are attracted to HFCV technology, because of the massive investment and economic activity created by the production, distribution and refuelling infrastructure required. Governments are attracted to HFCV technology, because it's not disruptive to the tax base. (in fact will increase government revenues). Taxpayers are attracted to HFCV technology, because the stakeholders will pay for it's ultimate development, not taxpayers. Far from being a dead end technology, HFC /H2 has the potential to revolutionise whole industries, quickly and on a global scale. Opponents should familiarise themselves with such projects as the "MV Hydrogen Challenger," a 216 ft, coastal tanker refitted for mobile hydrogen production. Fitted with a vertical axis wind turbine for the electrolysis of water to fill the hydrogen storage tanks, the total storage and transportation capacity is 42,000 cubic ft. Stationed in the German Bight near Helgoland (where the most wind is), once it has a full cargo, it docks in Bremerhaven from where the produced hydrogen is unloaded and delivered to market. Other projects include utilising HFC technology in submarines to allow silent running, and the successful Zemships (Zero Emissions Ships) project. The Zemships project began in 2004 with the development of a 100 passenger hydrogen-power fuel cell ship. Since then HFC technology has been installed on a dozen more canal and river cruisers, and more recently on larger vessels, including the 1000 tonne whale watching vessel, MV Altmark. “I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. Two years later we ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions. --”Wilbur Wright (1908)
        rlog100
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        "Economists are attracted to HFCV technology, because of the massive investment and economic activity created by the production, distribution and refuelling infrastructure required. " Building Infrastructure except for those immediately involved is a net drain. The only benefit it brings is if (and that's a big if) the new 'whatever' brings some form of efficiency to the economy which is great than the loss consumed by building it. Or, if the work would go outside the country. Unto itself, it is a drain on those who get stuck with the bill. Its no better than makework which doesn't work. I don't know why people tout it, other than it builds up their own personal pockets.
          Marco Polo
          • 6 Months Ago
          @rlog100
          @ rlog100 Unfortunately, it would appear that you don't really understand how a modern economy works. Building new infrastructure on a massive scale is exactly what every economy needs to not only create wealth through economic activity, but more importantly creates a wide distribution of wealth throughout the community. One of the greatest problems of the 'new' economy, is that IP wealth is largely untaxable, international, and represents very little redistribution . (Google, and Apple are a good examples)
      CoolWaters
      • 6 Months Ago
      The VOLT has destroyed the need for a hydrogen car. The game is over Toyota. SOLAR power directly to EV's is now the solution. Even China agrees: http://www.the9billion.com/2014/05/21/china-aims-to-triple-its-solar-power-capacity-within-3-years/ Chinese Solar will be cheaper then Coal in just 2 years, not 5, TWO. At that point we don't need Tarsand, Coal OR Fracking Pollution and cancer, we can go direct to solar. No need for a massive infrastructure build out, we're already plugged in.
      Matthew
      • 6 Months Ago
      Congratulations to Toyota and Hyundai for putting FCEVs in their dealer showrooms before the 2015 model year is out. Honda has also promised to be part of the FCEV rollout in 2015. GM has been testing FCEVs on American streets for the better part of a decade. Since 2009, GM has been joined by at one stage or another by BMW, Mercedez-Benz (2 experimental models), Mazda, Fiat, Audi, Nissan, and Volkswagen. Ford is quiet, but is part of an alliance with Daimler and Nissan for FCEV research. Let us hope that that the Americans and Germans join the Japanese and Koreans in putting FCEVs into dealer showrooms.
        skierpage
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Matthew
        Honda has leased the FCX Clarity for years with negligible success. I don't think they have any new plans for 2015.
      CoolWaters
      • 6 Months Ago
      Time to consider a BOYCOTT of Toytoa.
        Dave D
        • 6 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        I'm not a hydrogen fan, but why would we boycott Toyota? They can ship FCVs if they want to and unless they're personally caught lobbying with CARB against EVs, I have nothing against them. So I'm not sure where you're coming from and I'm a total EV fanboy.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dave D
          LOL @ Dave D.
          Dave D
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dave D
          Wow, sorry there...for a minute I lost my mind and "broke ranks" and asked a simple question. LMAO! I know of no instance where Toyota lobbied against BEVs, but if you guys do, then please share the link or other evidence and I will gladly join ranks and call for a boycott. Until then, you're just a bunch of a-holes over reacting and then wondering why people hate us for being fanatical EV fanboys. You know...you can go overboard and hurt your own cause. I hate CARB more than most and rant about them every chance I get because I see clear indications that they do damage to EVs consistently. But until you guys show me that Toyota is actually responsible for what CARB is doing, I'm not interested in being part of your kangaroo court.
      korblalak
      • 6 Months Ago
      These things only exist to secure the fuel monopoly. So tired of this! Shame on Toyota and Hyundai for pushing this bs.
      2 wheeled menace
      • 6 Months Ago
      $78,030 and the fuel isn't much less expensive than gasoline? hydrogen hopefuls, now is your chance.. Perhaps they should start shooting 'who killed the hydrogen car' in advance..
      Tweaker
      • 6 Months Ago
      Yea, I want to be addicted to another cartel too.
        Spec
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Tweaker
        Yeah, that is a very good argument. I really like being able to break free from the filling station dependence and the fact that I can generate my own 'fuel' on my roof with solar PV.
      CoolWaters
      • 6 Months Ago
      If Toyota continues to push this maybe it's time for an IMPORT TAX. Because, we don't want another Oil Monopoly Shoved Down Our Throats, just because the Toyota CEO is getting BRIBES from Exxon.
      danfred311
      • 6 Months Ago
      Is dozens per month mass production? Wasn't it supposed to be mass production by 2015? That's production though. Sales will probably be in the ones per month. Maybe even zero ones :) Dose idiots.
        nsxrules
        • 6 Months Ago
        @danfred311
        They never said mass production. They said production
      Marco Polo
      • 6 Months Ago
      @ Jon, Living most of my time in Australia, I'm asleep when American are posting so I hope you'll forgive me for posting this clarification, late. Let me start by saying, I'm certainly not "anti-EV " ! For the last 17 years I have been the principal shareholder and active director of a company that sells, builds, services, rents, leases specialist EV's. l drive an EV, and I actively promote EV technology for fleet vehicles, both in the South Pacific and the UK. But my primary motivation is the environment. In the current economic climate, interest in alternate energy has lost a good deal of popularity with taxpayers on a global scale. This is largely due to idealistic over-hype during the "green boom" . All kinds of once highly touted new "green" alternatives, have proved to be either expensive failures, or like the US ethanol industry, more environmentally harmful than fossil fuels. The public has become disillusioned, with expensive, heavily taxpayer subsidised industries, and schemes based on alarmist ideology , with little, or no economic benefit. ABG readers often forget that it's a big world outside their own backyard, and if any real progress is to be made, practical priorities must be recognised and achieved. Technology isn't like a football game, it's not just a matter of picking a side, and "being loyal". ! Each year the world buys about 90 million new vehicles, out of a global fleet of 1.1 billion.( But it's the old vehicles that need replacing, since they are the most pollutant). The world EV fleet, is less than 0.025% ! Even this tiny percentage consists almost exclusively of affluent buyers of private vehicles, who would otherwise have bought the least pollutant ICE models (or LPG/CNG) . Since most nations (including the US ) still heavily dependant on fossil fuels to generate electricity, the world EV fleet has at best a token, but in reality, a negligible effect on overall emissions. It may make the individual feel virtuous, but in reality it's pretty meaningless. HFCV technology, has the potential to completely revolutionise the "fuelling" emission of much of the planets transport vehicles. Unlike EV's it doesn't need passionate advocates, or political sacrifice. If the HFCV technology stakeholder become confidant that the time is economically right to convert from gasoline/diesel to H2, (as an electricity carrier) the government(s) will encourage them to do so. The "stakeholders" have the power, capital investment, and logistical resources to accomplish the task. In as little as 20 years those stakeholders could convert 40-60% of new vehicles sold to HFCV, including heavy transport. This have a significant impact on global emissions. But nothing is guaranteed, a 'breakthrough' in EV ESD capacity, may render HFCV technology obsolete, or confined to only niche products. IMHO, what's really important, is that the environment becomes the ultimate winner.
        Jon
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        Hi Marco. I appreciate your comments. You laid down your "stake" in the game so I will lay down mine. My interest is also in a clean energy future, no matter what technology takes us there. I actually used to be a big time supported/dreamer of a hydrogen future (long before i frequented abg). Then I went to college. After getting a masters in mechanical engineering and studying alternative fuel vehicles for three years I now believe BEVs are the future. Funny how that happens. I am not a "loyalist". I did not "pick a side" and cling to it. I simply look at the facts and make logical conclusions. Yes no one knows what the future holds but we can still make reasonable choices based on what we know now. I am not categorically opposed to hydrogen fuel cells. I would love for research in that area to continue. And it will. I just haven't seen much to suggest it holds promise as a fuel for passenger vehicles, mainly (but not exclusively) because we still don't have a proven way to manufacture it on a mass scale from renewable energy. It is actually hydrogen supporters that tend to be loyalist rooting for their favorite side. All I keep hearing is "imagine, in 10-20 years we just might have a breakthrough in clean H2 production." Then they suggest in anticipation of that we should start building a mass network of fueling stations and buying H2 cars. Sounds like a great way to ensure a century of dirty methane based H2 happily supplied by the petroleum and gas industry. Joe already responded to your post point by point so I am not going to repeat the same things. I just want to point out how much you contradict yourself in support for hydrogen. You complain that electricity mostly comes from fossil fuel and suggest H2 will revolutionize emissions. How exactly will that happen when nearly all commercially available H2 comes from fossil fuel? We already know how we can clean up the power grid with renewables and we already are. It will not happen overnight but it is happening. Is renewable hydrogen production making any headway? I have explained in detail in other post why producing hydrogen *from electricity* will never make sense. Until we have a way to produce H2 directly from a renewable source with no polluting byproducts the clean H2 future is an empty promise. Can we at least have a reasonable debate without calling each other loyalists and bigots? I am not "afraid" of hydrogen technology. I am bothered that the fossil fuel industry has duped so many people into believing that hydrogen is "clean". No, grid electricity is not 100% clean either but well-to-wheel studies have proven that it is cleaner than both H2 and gasoline (at least in the US and several industrialized nations) and only getting cleaner by the day. H2 is hardly better than gasoline.
        Snowdog
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        @"Unlike EV's it doesn't need passionate advocates..." Total nonsense. Not having them, is not the same as not needing them. The amount of advocates is representative of the fan numbers of each technology, and that is some indication of the numbers of potential customers. The reality is there is effectively NO consumer interest in FCVs. Something that will become blatantly obvious even to our fringe FCV fans when someone actually tries to sell a FCV and it flops hard.
        Joeviocoe
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        --" I'm certainly not "anti-EV "" Your history of comments do make people wonder. At this point, mere declarations do not convince. --"director of a company that sells, builds, services, rents, leases specialist EV's. l drive an EV, and I actively promote EV technology for fleet vehicles" I've asked before (with no reply)... So does the mass adoption of EVs by mainstream automakers negatively affect your business plan of being one of only a handful of 'specialty EV makers'?? --"The public has become disillusioned, with expensive, heavily taxpayer subsidised industries, and schemes based on alarmist ideology , with little, or no economic benefit." As much as you rail against Ethanol for this... why are you not so critical of FCVs which will be equally dependent on Fossil Fuels (Natural Gas)? And that the entire US H2 infrastructure is being subsidized by taxpayers at a huge expense? --"The world EV fleet, is less than 0.025% ! " The automobile fleet was also 0.025% of the Horse driven Carriage fleet only a century ago. Climbing a mountain still involves many small steps. Just a few years ago.. that percentage was 0.0025%... so if you look at the exponential rate of growth.. that should tell you how meaningless numbers like those really are. --"Even this tiny percentage consists almost exclusively of affluent buyers of private vehicles, who would otherwise have bought the least pollutant ICE models" Maybe in Australia.. but not in the US... Leaf buyers are not considered "affluent", but middle class. Tesla buyers are certainly not the type to buy " the least pollutant ICE models ". --"HFCV technology, has the potential to completely revolutionise the "fuelling" emission of much of the planets transport vehicles. " EVs are way ahead of FCVs in that goal... and showing no signs of abating. Hydrogen advocates love to exaggerate the "future potential" of FCVs (given optimistic public demand low costs) and reciprocally give the most pessimistic outlook on BEVs (just as your quote, 0.025%) and constantly ignore the many advances happening "in the real world" with EVs, (instead of laboratory claims). --"Unlike EV's it doesn't need passionate advocates, or political sacrifice." Ha... they are requiring plenty of political sacrifice. And have plenty of passionate advocates. But their advocates sit behind large desks and stand to make a lot of money with the continued paradigm of keeping the public addicted to a centralized fueling source. --"The "stakeholders" have the power, capital investment, and logistical resources to accomplish the task." Wrong. The stakeholders are simply lobbying governments to use taxpayer money to provide capital investment. The true stakeholders are California taxpayers (not you), and we are having our taxes spent on H2 stations we didn't ask for.
          Marco Polo
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe Joe, you just don't get it do you? Some people are capable of remain unbiased. It's not heresy to admit that the only places that EV sell is where the government has provided heavy incentives. To write countries such as Australia, UK, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Chile, Germany, Hungary, Canada off as third world countries is absurd. Even in France, EV sales have been disappointing. That's not to say, that EV's have no future, but that the product obviously has limitations and restrictions, and is still very much a ''work in progress". HFCV's are not designed to compete with EV's. They are being developed to replace ICE vehicles. HFCV's potentially have the same range, re-filling time, and operation as ICE, with Zero emission, and lower running costs. This is a massive marketing advantage over a gasoline/diesel vehicle. The consumer is just buying a new car, powered by a new more environmental, more economical fuel, but with the same old familiarity. That will be the selling pitch. The only question remains is if (and when) the stakeholders decide to commit 100% to a roll out. While the world is still enjoying relatively cheap energy from oil, there isn't much incentive for the stakeholder to due any more than keep the experimental/development stage simmering. You may not like the reality, but if the H2 producers, Auto-makers and Governments decide that the time is right, they an and will force the market. These huge corporations, supported by governments, will turn their vast resources and expertise to the project and will accomplish a massive roll out in very quick time. There will be no opposition, as they already control 99.9% of the existing market. But so far, although Toyota etc are interested, the most motivated stakeholders are governments, since they have the most to lose. But I'm simply relating the facts that exist, it doesn't matter what I want to happen, The forces ranged behind HFCV's are far too powerful. What would make these corporations reconsider, would be a major development in EV ESD capacity.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "anti advocate"... lol.. okay sure. We both have bias, but we both try to make reasoned arguments anyway.... so lets get back to the reasons shall we, instead of trying to make things personal. 2) "are quite capable of creating the infrastructure beyond the embryonic stage without taxpayer assistance" No, the bulk of the H2 infrastructure is taxpayer driven. And the Hydrogen Lobbyist continue to ask for more, without any signs that they are ready or willing to take on the costs. We have seen decades of posturing so far. And although they have money to build... they also refuse to spend their own money. It is called privatizing the reward, and socializing the risk. H2 infrastructure is extremely risky because FCVs are barely appealing compared to gasoline cars. And no company is willing to put up the money themselves... they will rather pay a small fraction to do the R&D, Marketing and Lobbying to get taxpayer money. 3) "EV acceptance is not really taking off." Now you are twisting the definition of "affluent" to post hoc your statement that only affluent people can afford an EV. No... the middle class are the ones buying cars. And they are buying more and more EVs every year. 4) --" in countries where there is no heavy government involvement, sales remain negligible" You are backpedalling the old claims of EV haters... you cannot say such a thing in the US or other countries which actually have automotive industry... so now you are saying EVs are not selling in 3rd world countries, and therefore "acceptance is not really taking off." You are going from "nobody wants EVs", to "nobody outside the industrial world wants EVs" Duh, where were your expectations? Did you really think that the entire world (every country) could accept EV technology at the same time and within a few short years?? You are seriously constructing a 400 foot tall straw man. Actually, acceptance IS taking off... as evident everywhere. Just because it wasn't an overnight revolution, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Looking back just 5 years... EVs are becoming accepted more and more. The acceptance is exponentially growing... and like any exponential, it starts small. 5) "There're very few heavy vehicles capable of operating on battery power." Yet, there are more Electric heavy duty vehicles built every year, than Fuel Cell. There are obvious limitations to what kind of vehicle an EV can be... but then FCVs would still compete with PHEVs, CNG, LPG, Biofuels, etc. For heavy duty fleets, they don't have to be "Zero" emissions, but lower emissions... and most of all.. the most cost effective solutions. 6) Straw Man alert. Corporations making money is great... but don't expect people to like having that money come from taxes. Corporations should EARN that money by providing products and services... not Lobbying CARB for extra hand outs.
          Marco Polo
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @ Joeviocoe Joe, you're certainly a determined anti-HFCV advocate ! But once again I'll try to explain it to you. To be a realist, you have to be able to put aside your bias, and see things from every angle. This is the process of reasoning, not ideology. But to deal with your first issues. 1) For me, the advent of mass manufactured EVs is a cause for celebration ! It certainly doesn't adversely affect our business, in fact it would assist acceptance. 2) If the 'entire US (or global) H2 infrastructure was funded by the taxpayer, I would be very alarmed ! But that's not the case ! True the government should be an eager stakeholder, since the switch from gasoline/diesel to H2, maintains a several very important streams of tax revenue. But in reality, the other stakeholders are quite capable of creating the infrastructure beyond the embryonic stage without taxpayer assistance. 3) This may come as a shock to you, but the US "middle class'' is considered by most countries as very affluent. 4) Sadly, EV acceptance is not really taking off. Although more models are being produced, (which is encouraging), in countries where there is no heavy government involvement, sales remain negligible. To argue that with only modest improvements, EV's will sell even 20 million vehicles in the next twenty years, is unsupportable. 5) " EVs are way ahead of FCVs in that goal........." Now you're just being silly ! There're very few heavy vehicles capable of operating on battery power. Range and refuelling speeds are beyond the current EV ESD capacity. HFCV's have the convienience of ICE vehicles while retaining the advantages of a zero emission vehicle. 6) Um, ...I realise that you hate the idea of corporations making money, but what do you think the electricity companies are in business to do ? 7) California is just one of 50 states within the US, it's policies are it's own business. The US is just one nation in the world. If the stakeholders decide to roll out H2 infrastructure, I would expect it to be a global investment in order to maximise scale. 8) Your last paragraph betrays your passion to have "picked the right side" . Actually, like Dave Mart, Edge, LTAW and others, I don't really care which technology succeeds. I only care that a technology capable of lowering emissions, gains mass acceptance. I would be delighted if EV technology develops to the point where it can replace gasoline/diesel on a mass scale, but I'm not so fanatical that I would deny the virtues of other technologies, including HFCV's.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          7) " If the stakeholders decide to roll out H2 infrastructure, I would expect it to be a global investment in order to maximise scale. " Your expectations defy reality. California is the target market for FCVs.. precisely because they spend so much taxpayer money on Hydrogen infrastructure.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          8) "I'm not so fanatical that I would deny the virtues of other technologies," B.S.... anyone who has read your comments consistently knows that is EXACTLY what you do. And what you Really believe. You constantly post on the root thread long diatribes about how EVs are limited and will not be able to handle demand much beyond the current buyers. And you often start or end each lecture by saying that you are a huge fan of EVs... as if to convince a reader who will only every read that one part. I am very Bullish on EVs, and believe FCVs will only play a limited niche role (in small fleets which mostly own/operate their own H2 fueling)... and I admit that I see FCVs as a distraction to grab public money. I at least own up to it. Why don't you own up do your obvious one-sided views?
        Joeviocoe
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        --"a 'breakthrough' in EV ESD capacity, may render HFCV technology obsolete" Once again... no "breakthrough" is needed. Only the consistent and steady improvement we are already seeing. But this phrase is your "escape hatch" for the inevitable backtracking of Hydrogen Advocates, as to why FCVs never made it.. You will blame it on some Battery advancement that happened very slowly over a decade, but you will feign surprise as if it "came out of the blue" as a "breakthrough".
      CoolWaters
      • 6 Months Ago
      Hydrogen = More Fracking, More This: http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Scientists-Tests-prove-fracking-to-blame-for-flaming-Texas-wells-262115241.html
        Dave
        • 6 Months Ago
        @CoolWaters
        natural gas is also the fastest growing source of electricity in the USA.
          lad
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dave
          NatGas is replacing coal in power plants as an interim measure while the wind, solar, sea turbines and battery storage(clean energy) plants are being built out.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dave
          Wind is growing faster over the long term. Gas had one year when they grew faster
    • Load More Comments