Are Fuel Cell Vehicles Too Expensive For Mass Production by 2015?

 

 Nearly every major automaker has at least toyed with the idea of introducing a fuel cell powered vehicle sometime in the future.  Both Honda and GM have introduced fuel cell vehicles, but on a limited basis for testing purposes.  The technology is proven, as drivers of the Honda FCX Clarity GM Fuel Cell powered vehicles have praised the overall refinement of the fuel cell vehicles.  However, cost has not been openly discussed.

Many believe that fuel cells will eventually find their way into numerous commercial vehicles including uses in vehicles such as transit buses and garbage trucks, but few believe that we will see widespread use of fuel cell in passenger vehicles due to the costs associated with a hydrogen fuel cell system.

Recently, Kenichiro Ota, a professor at the Yokohama National University, stated that,"By the time FCVs are commercially available in 2015, they will be cheaper than a Rolls-Royce, but it will be difficult to price them down to the level of a Corolla."

The quote by Ota appeared in an article in UPI Asia discussing Japanese leadership in  fuel cell  research.  Though his quote may not be spot on in terms of overall costs, manufacturers have given us little to go on.   Both Honda and GM simply state that they have reduced costs over the previous generation fuel cell and assure us that at a mass produced level, fuel cell costs would come down even more.

Further re-enforcing the idea of high costs are the current lease rate of a Toyota FCV and the estimated value of a fuel cell vehicle.  According to the UPI Asia article, "Only a handful of automakers are currently leasing fuel-cell vehicles, or FCVs, called the ultimate eco-cars because of their zero emissions, by way of experiment. These include Japan’s three major automakers – Toyota, Nissan and Honda – the German auto giant Daimler, and the U.S. auto giant General Motors. Less than 100 fuel-cell vehicles are on the road in Japan, and a few hundred in the world.  One obstacle is the high price of such cars. An FCV is currently valued at around US$1.1 million. Toyota leases its FCV for US$9,400 a month, or US$110,000 a year."

Maybe Ota is right, maybe a fuel cell is and will be too expensive for use in everyday vehicles.  Perhaps their high costs will only justify their use in large commercial vehicles.  Right now its still to early to know.

Source:  UPI Asia





 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (16)
  1. As I have stated often, fuel cells' first / best applications are long haul trucking, trains, maritime and aviation. I prefer hydraulic hybrids for garbage and delivery trucks, due to low up front costs and maintenance. BEV's have a weight problem, as well as a rapid recharge problem, which the fuel cell doesn't.
    Fuel cell designs are improving rapidly, and no manufacturer wants to spill the beans on their costs this many years ahead of production. Tale heart in knowing that they wouldn't be planning production unless they had reached a cost threshold which the market would bear.
    You forgot to mention Suzuki using GM's fuel cell stack.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. Are Fuel Cells Too Expensive?
    ... um, yes. Even by 2020, IMHO.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. Then you still believe in hydrogen hoax? None of these guys ever intended for FCV to be viable in 2050 let alone 2015. Long haul trucking?-Not going to happen. Trains???-100% electrified system is far superior. Marine?-For on board power maybe-for propulsion-forget it. Planes-instead of wasting H2 trying to replicate the current fleet, build airships again(useing helium). No one could afford a ticket on a h2 powered plane anyhow. H2 is a waste of time and more importantly energy, GM and all those guys know it to. The fact there FCV are up to 1000%+ more costly than the most expensive BEV is almost beside the point, considering how complex, un-reliable and inefficent they are.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. DC / Jackson, your info is out of date. The majors would not introduce these vehicle unless there was a way to make money.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. Planes-instead of wasting H2 trying to replicate the current fleet, build airships again(useing helium).
    That would be an extraordinary misuse of our dwindling helium resources. Helium takes billions of years to form from rare big bang elements. Once it leaks out of balloons into the atmosphere.
    http://www.physorg.com/news118328522.html
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. HFCV"s are still in the early stages of developement virtually hand made, yet size and cost have come down during these R&D years.It is like any other product when it reaches the mass production stage costs are reduced dramatically.
    I hope DC does not go to the race track as he is no good at picking winners. I think he has invested in the old technology and is now having a panic attack or he can't see through the big oil smoke screen blown along by the winds of change!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. @omnimoeish - Just where do you think helium comes from now? The atmosphere as a byproduct of air separation.
    @DC - The H2 hoax is only to do with the present methods of H2 generation - generally from hyrdocarbons or very expensive electrolosis.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. The laws of physics govern H2's inherent flaws as a motor vehicle fuel, not personal opinions. No techical breakthrough will ever change the fact-note *fact*, that H2 is an energy sink, and always will be. GM pushes FCV for 2 reasons, the US govt handed out billions to the oil-auto cartel to produce concepts that were never intended to work. Corporations love free taxpayer money. Second, FCV are a form of high-tech, high price greenwash. Intended to divert attention away from the fact that EV's work NOW, are vastly simpler and could, in fact be mass-produced easily. Could be, but are not. Since 6 seems to like gambling metaphors so much. FCV are like the rabbit at the dog races. The oil-cartel dangles it out for gullible govt's and public. So yea 6, you can run as fast as you want, your never going to catch that FC rabbit. The "winds of change" 6 speaks of so glowinly are blowing smoke in his eyes, blinding him to the truth of the Hydrogen hoax.
    I guess in 6's world a FCV that "might" cost as much as a Rolls-Royce(someday?) is somehow better than a EV that costs ~50k-100k today,of course, an is EV is 3-4x more efficent w2w to boot. The FCV as a concept, is solely about mainting the current, un-sustainable status-quo. If GM was serious about clean transport, they never would have sold their battery technology to a....get ready for it...OIL company(chevron) back in the 1990's now would they?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. DC, again, that's obsolete information. There are methods of electrolysis that are more efficient and have commercialized. The number one benefit that H2 has is rapid refill, which no battery offers cheaply, while maintaining a long life.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. I will continue to state that we do ourselves a major diservice when the two main tecnologies which share a common goal of cleaner electric drive keep beating each other up. Especially when both have major problems that in both cases can (and most liklely will be) solved. Creating hydrogen may not be the most efficient process but if done with renewable energy sorces that is less on an issue and even now its cheaper that gas. Freightliner and others are experimenting with prototype long haul trucks and according to some reports getting 40 percent fuel savings and about the same in repair savings. In that industry this could add up fast. When people start complaining that fuel cells and batterys are just too expensive remember all those people going out today and buying their $400 HDTV's that just a few years ago cost $12,000. It hasn't been that many years since I heard people say they would never have a cell phone. After all who wants something you have to charge every day and besides they (were) expensive. Now many people are not enven having their homes wired for "conventional" phones. New technology is always qwriky and expensive. It always gets cheaper and better.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. DC. Hold on a minute when we are talking 'electrics' I think we have our wires crossed. I am all for electric cars we just disagree on the best way to produce the electrons.Take for example the fork lift industry they are pulling batteries out of their vehicles and replacing them with fuel cells, Why?
    We are living in an electronic age, our new drive by wire cars will be powered by a combination of fuel cells, super capacitors and dare I say batteries. Let us all enjoy the exciting, clean new age of motoring and not quibble over where the electrons are coming from.
    Mike H founder HYDROGENHEADS.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. Surprising how people will always come forward stating how they are convinced that hydrogen is in fact the future where all laws of physics and quite a few nobel price winning physicists (among them the US energy secretary Steven Chu) state the opposite. For a basic scientific argument against hydrogen click the link to the famous New Atlantis article I associated with my screen name above the article. Maybe the people who feel the need to defend the hydrogen hoax were taken in by big oil sponsered media? I know one commedian who knows that for sure. Watch his amusing anti hydrogen rant on YouTube (start at minute 5:20):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AQAjyY6hMc&feature=player_embedded
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. Strange how an article about electric vehicles can bring the skeptics out of the woodwork.Do they log on to other sites and write about the Holocaust hoax,We walked on the moon hoax,climate change hoax and the list goes on.A sad lot they must think life is one big HOAX
    Never mind they must have a ball on April Fools Day
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  14. Wow...so doubting the future of hydrogen is like denying the Holocaust...who knew...I guess one could expect reactions like this when challenging a believe system that isn't firmly rooted in science. Lack of real arguments and all. On the other hand there are plenty of arguments against hydrogen (again: read the new atlantis article; link attached to my screen name). Funny: even energy secretary Steven Chu noticed a religious aspect to the faith in a hydrogen future when he mentioned that it takes in fact four miracles for hydrogen to become reality whereas saints only need three...Oh and April fools day for hydrogen will be in 2015 in fact. So far GM, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Daimler have promised (at least for those who missed the fine print in their statement) that 2015 will be the big breakthrough for hydrogen. Anybody who knows the first thing about hydrogen knows there will be no such thing come 2015 but I'm afraid this little joke of Big Oil and the car corporations will be on all mankind.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  15. Chris O,
    Your link to The Hydrogen Hoax starts off great, and in my opinion provides sufficient arguments to dump hydrogen as a fuel altogther. But the article starts to get weak with The Trouble With FCVs with outdated info where great progress is being made, and falls apart completely with The Solution of corn ethanol suggesting that importing sugar cane ethanol (much better than using a valuable food such as corn) from foreign countries is preferable to importing oil from foreign countries. If you take into account all the energy costs of growing corn including fuel for tractors, manufacturing fertilizer, and insectisides, ethanol is almost energy neutral (that is there is zero energy benifit). Add environmental dammage by insectisides, and the only reason it is cost competive at the pump is by government subsidies, you realize corn ethanol is a non-starter as well.
    Sugarcane and switchgrass ethanol is marginally better and does not compete with our food chain.
    The best solution by far is the battery electric vehicle, one acre of solar cells produces more miles than 100 acres of corn. There are several break-through battery developments that will make BEVs pratical within 5 years. Until then early adopters can pave the way for the rest of us.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  16. The New atlantis report is not a bad,here is more concise report(imo) for H2\economy issues.
    http://www.efcf.com/reports See report E21
    Little if any "breakthroughs" have been made to render any of these reports "obsolete". Just because GM or a FC manufacture claims-note claims they have made a weight reduction here or a small improvment in costs there, means nothing against the fact FCV are and will continue to be inherently expensive, complicated and in-efficent. Again, we must not lose sight of the real function of FCV's, to draw media attention and capital funding(mostly from US taxpayers), away from proven EV's and keep people and govt's convinced there is little need to improve fuel efficeny in the current fleet, much less replace them with alternatives. FCV are pure politcal theatre, little more.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Find Green Cars

Go!


 
© 2011 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC.