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
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!
By Jason M. Hendler Posted: 11/26/2009 4:01am PST
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.
By Jackson Posted: 11/26/2009 9:40am PST
... um, yes. Even by 2020, IMHO.
By DC Posted: 11/26/2009 11:12am PST
By Jason M. Hendler Posted: 11/26/2009 2:05pm PST
By omnimoeish Posted: 11/26/2009 4:23pm PST
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
By Mike Halpin Posted: 11/26/2009 7:10pm PST
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!
By russ Posted: 11/26/2009 10:30pm PST
@DC - The H2 hoax is only to do with the present methods of H2 generation - generally from hyrdocarbons or very expensive electrolosis.
By DC Posted: 11/27/2009 1:59am PST
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?
By Jason M. Hendler Posted: 11/27/2009 5:04am PST
By David Posted: 11/27/2009 5:31am PST
By Mike Halpin Posted: 11/27/2009 9:16am PST
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.
By Chris O Posted: 11/28/2009 9:08am PST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AQAjyY6hMc&feature=player_embedded
By Mike Halpin Posted: 11/28/2009 12:49pm PST
Never mind they must have a ball on April Fools Day
By Chris O Posted: 11/28/2009 2:25pm PST
By Roy Posted: 11/29/2009 10:59am PST
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.
By DC Posted: 11/29/2009 1:11pm PST
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.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!