1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Slew of new mirai articles

Discussion in 'Fuel Cell Vehicles' started by austingreen, Dec 15, 2014.

  1. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    UCS calculation was based on:

    The power plant efficiencies reflect the current mix of natural gas power plants (80 percent efficient combined-cycle generation units).

    What efficiency did NREL study used?
     
  2. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,080
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Denise, are you comparing the Volt or Ford PHEVs in all electric mode or using their gas mix? The problem with the PIP on the west coast is the 62mph EV speed limit. You just can't really drive that slow out here and that's where a large majority of the PIPs are used, on the freeway (HOV stickers).

    I understand the efficiency arguments well. You've driven those into me. I'm just asking in terms of actual emissions using something other than the EPAs estimated EV to gas ratio. :)
     
  3. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,603
    8,034
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    Toyota's hydrogen car will be an absolute minimum ZEV compliance car. That's why the hydrogen lobby paid tons of money for record high ZEV credits. Because they have no intentions on building these compliance cars in any quantity. Thus, it's likely to never go outside CA. So why on earth would you compare Volt electricity to the national average - instead of California's high cost for electricity? Why not calculate/base the hydrogen car's waste/efficiency on hydrogen distilled from water strictly via electricity? After all, fracked natural gas won't be too long for this world ... and switching to methane from garbage can't possibly provide enough fuel for the hydrogen car industry. If we are going to skew real world likelihood, then, 'what's good-for the goose is good-for the gander. Nevertheless - the latter skew is likely to be much more close to reality.
    .
     
  4. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Denise? :)

    EPA emission (g/mi) rating is for a mix of gas and electric. For Volt, it is 66% EV and 34% gas. For Ford Energi, it is 45.1% EV and 54.9% gas. For PiP, it is 29% EV and 71% gas.

    Those ratios were based on statistics, so YMMV. For me, my PiP is doing about 60% EV ratio.

    There is a reason for that. Emission from EV driving above that speed exceeds that of gas. So PiP would start to blend.

    As the grid emission gets lower, I am sure it'll make more sense to drive EV at higher speed. We saw about 10% decrease in the grid mix in the past 4 years. Next gen PiP may be designed with higher EV speed.

    Next Gen ICE (HV operation) is supposed to improve by 10% as well. But EV efficiency could improve 10% as well, with the new SiC inverter. I don't know if SiC would make it into production, so we'll have to see what Toyota does with their balancing act.

    For my 60% EV ratio, it doesn't matter how/when/what speed EV and HV gets used. All I care is the end result of both fuels. If the results are good, there is synergy. If one fuel drags another one down, you have antergy.

    I don't do much blended operation but John does. His PiP data/results also show synergy.

    Both Ford Energi models and Volt result in antergy. It is easier to see with Energi models since there is a hybrid version available to compare.

    That's one way to produce hydrogen, probably the worse and most expensive way.

    Electricity could be generated from hydrogen also, which is worse than generating it straight from natural gas.

    So, when you selectively use the worse case to make certain technology look bad, you don't look good.

    The best way to generate hydrogen is from natural gas with 80% efficiency (how it is done today). Generating electricity from natural gas is about 50% efficient. You can see why hydrogen is better and without refueling speed bottleneck.

    Another good way to produce hydrogen is from renewable sources when there is low demand and it doesn't make sense to shutdown coal and NG power plants.

    RAV4 EV using today's California (zip: 94122) electricity would emit 180 g/mi. Tucson FCV is projected to emit 173 g/mi. CA grid can get cleaner by end of 2015 also. It'll be a close call.

    By the end of 2015, California is projected to produce 46 percent of its hydrogen fuel from renewable sources, which would render the Tucson FCEV’s emissions equal to that of a 63-mpg gasoline car (173 g/mi).

    *The EPA rating for the Hyundai Tucson FCEV is 49 miles/kilogram hydrogen.
    **California law (California State Senate 2006) requires a minimum of 33 percent renewable hydrogen content.
    ***The Air Resources Board projects renewable hydrogen content in California for 2015 will be 46% (CARB 2014).

    http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/How-Clean-Are-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cells-Fact-Sheet.pdf

    All of those have short range and long refuel time. They have said for those reasons EVs do not meet their mass market customer expectation.
     
    #64 usbseawolf2000, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2014
    F8L and inferno like this.
  5. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,590
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    As mentioned, they never expanded availability of the PPI when the initial claim was to go nationwide. There was even a June 2011 date on the website for that. No announcement on whether the next gen PPI will be nationwide, but it comes out a full year after the next Prius, so it is early yet.

    The one BEV they sold was contracted out to Tesla, and was only released in California. Yes, some were sold, like the PPI, to people outside that state, but Toyota stopped that with the final ones available. It was years until the government credits were rolled into the leases, while others did so from the start, keeping the rates high for it. Despite being part of the Chademo group, the RAV4 EV never had that for an option. Toyota ended the partnership with Tesla without any announced plans for another plug in, but instead hyping their Mirai. Which does have a Chademo outlet, just not for charging the battery.

    Their in house BEV was stillborn. The eQ has the worse EV range of any compliance BEV while still being pricy. Toyota realized it would flop after seeing wht the competitors would be, and only sold the hundred or so made to fleets. IMHO the car was designed to conclusions made in Japan about BEVs when the batteries were lead-acid and NiMH.

    To a degree, that could also be said of the PPI. Not knocking the car's overall efficiency or cleaniness, but that was something achieved by DIY and kit modders since the gen2 Prius. The PPI does it better, but only in a couple of steps. Not in leaps of performance or price. In hindsight, the PPI appears to be something to just have to compete with those kits and the Volt. I think Toyota would have been happy ignoring its customers' calls for a plug in if there wasn't any outside threats.

    I am disdainful of other manufacturers with compliance only plug ins, but those are few. Nissan and Tesla are the only companies committed to BEVs, but the others are doing more than meeting the minimum. The MiEV is nationwide. Mitsubishi itself was doing poorly. The Spark EV never got out of Ca and Oregon, but GM has the Volt and wider availability plans for the Sonic EV. The Focus EV can be bought outside Ca if you really want it, otherwise there are the Energis. The i3 and smart ED are expanding across the nation.

    FCA's CEO has publicly admitted the Fiat 500e is compliance only. Honda let the Fit EV program end, because they can meet the CARB quota with their FCV.

    Finally, there are the recent anti-plug ads from Lexus. I said, guess a couple of years ago, that Toyota has no interest in selling a car with a plug, and that impression hasn't changed.

    What about getting it to the car? I know there are transmission and charging losses with a BEV. How do they compare to the losses incurred from compressing and liquidfying the hydrogen, and then trucking it to the station, where it will need to be compressed again? Or with onsite natural gas reforming, which is less efficient with no possibility of CO2 sequestering, and compressing?

    Refueling speed is a red herring. For daily use, I and likely most others go to a gas station once a week. Compared to plugging in and unplugging everyday, the time at the gas station probably isn't much more out of the week. It just has the hassle of pulling in, getting out of the car, getting out the wallet, standing there while pumping the gas, getting back into the car, and pulling back into traffic instead of a single action before or after getting in the car.

    For people where a BEV range doesn't meet their daily needs, or don't want to wait for a quick charge on a trip, a FCV's refueling speed is an attraction, but it is something also shared by plug in hybrids.

    That is the real question for you. What do FCVs offer that make them better than PHVs for the majority?
     
    #65 Trollbait, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2014
    Zythryn likes this.
  6. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,603
    8,034
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    I'm sorry - but a quote from CARB as an authority . . . . . CARB - the fine folks who - when GM (et al) demanded carb kill the electric car some 10 years ago .... that's just another way of saying the "facts" are what ever the FC lobby pays them to say. CARB is another cheerleader for the FC industry. Quote someone who doesn't have a paycheck in the result, please.
    .
     
    #66 hill, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
    austingreen likes this.
  7. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Here is a fairly lengthy discussion, some of it quite religious (ignore that)
    About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (They're Not Clean)
    With a link to the 2001 NREL study
    http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~sgille/mae124_s06/27637.pdf

    Bottom line is all we can do is guess until infrastructure is built. There is leakage of natural gas going from the wellhead to the SMR site, then transport and compression. These can vary widely and large SMR sites can be 50% more efficient than small ones. Do you build pipelines? Liquify and truck? Produce on site? UCS is quite optimistic compared to the sites already built in california as according to the DOE they produce much higher ghg, but when we build more perhaps smaller SMR sites will get closer to the efficiency of large ones. In 2018 we should find out how many fuel cell cars were actually sold or leased in california throught 2017, and how much ghg they generated from the infrastructure. Until then we can only guess, but the numbers will be closer to 5000 than 50,000 so CFCP and CARB need to revise those slides to anticipate reality of recent hyunda, toyota, and honda announcements.

    I am happy to use the optimistic UCS numbers for natural gas assuming this $220M tax payer chunk of money will improve the small sites efficiency. I think then you need to take MITs criticim fairly. If you are going to grow from 100 publically funded stations to thousands of privately funded stations, people are going to build them cheap not efficient. That means electricity is going to come from the grid, and the bulk of hydrogen is going to come natural gas. People are not going to build $15/kg hydrogen stations with renewables if they can build cheaper ones, unless the government will mandate it and pays for it in the US.

    The same assumptions should be made for electricity used for fuel cells and plug-ins. Using UCS assumptions for natural gas generated hydrogen, hydrogen vehicles produce about the same amount of ghg as an equivellant hybrid (mirai to gen IV prius, tucscon fuel cell to prius v, etc). If we account for projected renewables built these fcv will do better, but.... not nearly as well as if we buillt renewables for plug-in vehicles.

    [/QUOTE]

    Now hill, we all know that CARB would like to pass a national tax and use it to build hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hyrdrogen stations. They were able to get that tax through for the first 100 in california. I expect cost over runs, and many of these stations to close for lack of cars, but they have gotten california drivers to pay for that level of newable hydrogen.

    The question is as MIT Techology review has put it, once taxpayers stop paying many thousands per fuel cell vehicle for renewable hydrogen, what will it be made from. The obvious answer in north america is natural gas for the big stations and grid electricity from the small ones. We can get costs and efficiencies from the california experiment though. Let it run. Numbers will be much worse than CARB and CFCP which CARB is a leading member project as they always are. I would say california voters need to get the government to end the conflict of interest, but I doubt that would happen. THey seem happy to pay for Mary Nichols pay back to the fuel cell lobby.
     
    #67 austingreen, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2014
  8. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    I think trucking it to the stations would be the short term route. Pipelining (at low pressure) is the longterm plan.

    Compressing it to 10,000 psi takes significantly less energy (5%?) than battery charging loss (15%).

    Battery also has self-discharge and vampire drain. In Tesla's case, it could be as high as 4 kWh per day. That's more than my PiP full charge.

    They don't need to change their habit. Just go to the same gas station and pump/pay hydrogen and go.

    There is no need to plug/unplug, hang EVSE on the wall every day. If you charge it outdoor, you need to walk some distance to hang the EVSE. It defeats the purpose of having the SmartKey feature. Wireless charging would relief but that takes to the next point.

    There is no need to buy extra equipment to refuel. No charger to buy (faster charger is optional/extra) and pay the electrician to install the dedicated outlet (required).

    You don't need real estate to refuel. That means, no need to have garage, drive way, proper electricity service (200Amp) at home to handle charging.

    There is no noisy and vibrating gas engine. It drives like an EV. There is no need to maintain the gas engine.

    You get the advantages of both gas and EV and it is the best choice to commercialize for the mass market.

    Thanks for the link but Jeff was referring to a recent study. Is 2001 the most recent?
     
    #68 usbseawolf2000, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2014
    john1701a and Sergiospl like this.
  9. Jeff N

    Jeff N The answer is 0042

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    2,382
    1,304
    0
    Location:
    California, USA
    Vehicle:
    2011 Chevy Volt
    I was referring to this updated NREL study from 2013:

    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60528.pdf

    I was referring to this updated NREL study from 2013:

    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60528.pdf
     
    #69 Jeff N, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2014
    usbseawolf2000 likes this.
  10. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    +1
    Thanks I didn't know they had updated it. Nice to know.
    I really liked graph ES1, that shows costs of each production method and related ghg.
     
    #70 austingreen, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
  11. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Why would FC industry lobby CARB to reduce fossil fuel in the hydrogen?

    Look, I am not going to change your mind made up 20 years ago.
     
  12. Jeff N

    Jeff N The answer is 0042

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    2,382
    1,304
    0
    Location:
    California, USA
    Vehicle:
    2011 Chevy Volt
    When you look at the graphs in the executive summary you see that a vehicle getting about 68 miles per kg of hydrogen from NG would emit about 250g per mile CO2-eq. The standard Prius has a total EPA emission estimate of 218 and the PiP has 220 on US average electricity. The Volt gets 250 on US average electricity. The Mirai will probably get rated a bit under 68 mpgge based on what we know today.

    Note that the "hybrid electric vehicle" shown for comparison on those graphs is associated with 350g per mile of emissions so it not a Prius! It likely represents a hybridized version of the average conventional car.

    I've only really read the executive summary. I plan to read the full 268 pages during the holidays.
     
    #72 Jeff N, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
  13. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    250 g/mi if the source is all NG. 65 g/mi if it is wind.

    A blend of 46% wind and 54% NG would be:

    0.46 x 65 + 0.54 x 250 = 165 g/mi
     
  14. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Yep, but that would be much more expensive to build, and cost of the cars and fuel are a problem with fuel cell vehicles. So the question that has to be answered is is it worth the money to drop from the gen IV prius to the mirai? The answer in the US of course for the next decade is no, these cars will only trickle. The technology needed to substantially improve these costs is possible in the future, but this will be a slow slog. Remember the gen V prius and tesla 3, leaf 3, volt 3, i3 gen 2, etc will be around when the second gen mirai is realeased. Fuel cell vehicles are not trying to beat the cars from 2004 anymore.

    Let's assume the mirai is 65 miles/kg, and that it takes 57 kwh to make 1 kg of hydrogen (from nrel document much more efficient than today). Over a 15000 mile year that would be 15000/65 =230 kg of hydrogen, 46% of that is 106kg or 177 GGE of electricity (numbers rounded here, not in calculation). If this was used in a 90 mpge plug-in (265mile tesla s is 89mpge, i3 is 124 mpge, mercedes b-cell 84 mpge, mercedes f-cell 48 miles/kg h2) you would be able to go 15,900 miles not touching any of that natural gas or the electity used to compress the hydrogen from the natural gas. This should not be a surprise to anyone that plug-ins are much more efficient with renewables than producing hydrogen, compressing it, fueling, then converting it back. Now given the sky high prices of the fuel cell vehicles and the lack of fueling, we already have over 100,000 plug-ins running around california and less than 300 fcv. By 2017 Toyota's new high prediction is 10,000 fuel cell vehicles, and the current sales estimates make it much lower. That means not much of this renewable electricity will be wasted in conversion process, but one easy way to more cheaply add renewables to fcv would be to add a bigger battery and a plug. We may see that from other makers, and that will put less strain on creating hydogen stations.

    The key Figure from NREL ES1 for Japan though is the sequestered coal based hydrogen coming in at 13 cents/mile. They don't have access to our vast oil resources or natural gas, so that number looks awfully good. US taxpayers and envioronmentalsts would balk at building this infrastructure, but Japan has been rapidly adding coal since fukashima, and there is a way to replace oil with coal plus ccs they may go for it.
     
    #74 austingreen, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
  15. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,590
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    I don't think the Mirai will be much more efficient than the old Clarity. The car went on sale this week in Japan, and if it greatly surpassed the Honda FCV's japan cycle results, I think we would have heard about it. Autobloggreen is estimating it at 60mpge. 2016 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Vehicle likely to get 60 MPGe

    Came across this in California's SB 1505 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hydprod/sb_1505_bill_20060930_chaptered.pdf, "The bill would also require the state board to adopt regulations that are to apply in any year immediately following a 12-month period in which the mass of hydrogen fuel dispensed in California for transportation purposes exceeds 3,500 metric tons...production and direct use of hydrogen fuels for motor vehicles...contributes to a reduced dependence on petroleum, as well as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutant emissions, and toxic air contaminant emissions, and would require these regulations to meet minimum requirements, as specified."

    While the state run hydrogen highway stations have to meet the 33.3% renewable requirement for hydrogen, commercial or private ones don't until there about 14,000 FCV on the road(60mpge, 15k miles/year). Furthermore, if it appears that the 33.3% can't be met, the state board can reduce the requirement by up to 10 percentage points. They can also give individual hydrogen producers that don't meet that renewable requirement a 5 year wavier up to two times for a total of 10 years.
    Low pressure is relative. Interstate natural gas pipe lines operate at 200 to 1500psi. The hydrogen will have to come in at a flow rate to not starve a stations compressors. That means big pipes or higher pressures. Like gasoline, the final leg will be by truck.

    Those with a plug in now don't seem to miss needing to go to a gas station now. If they arrive when the station filling tank is low, it will take longer to fill their FCV than getting a fill with gasoline.
    They are already plugging and unplugging their smart phone. Doing it for the car isn't a major task. Even when every car has it, SmartKey will still be a luxury feature. It is a minor feature, and if that alone keeps someone away from a plug in, that someone will likely want self opening doors on their car. If they want to pay for wireless charging fine, I personally think it is an unnecessary drain on charging efficiency.
    Factoring the lower cost per mile of electric, the cost of a charger still leaves the PH owner ahead of a FCV. The hydrogen will likely cost the same or more per mile as a comparable gasoline car. It will be even higher when renewablely made. Besides, until PHVs start having ranges comparable to today's BEVs, a EVSE unit is unneeded for most to fully charge overnight. In which case, any needed electrical work will be only to instal a dedicated outlet of 20 amps for the car. many new homes use 20amps for the entire home instead of 15, and some locals require wiring for an EVSE in the code.
    Good point about the FCV working for those without charging access at home.
    A fuel stack isn't as quiet as pure electric. Some require air compressors. The stack and tanks also have their maintenance requirements. That info isn't being made readily public, but we know that CNG tanks have a shelf life, requiring regular inspection, and that in one FCV bus test program the fuel cell bus ended up costing more that a diesel one to operate.

    I think fuel cells can serve roll in transportation in the future. So keep researching and improving them, but pushing to commercialize them now is foolish at this point. The cheapest are at luxury car levels without all the perks of other luxury cars. Cost of fuel stacks will come down with production, but the production levels appear to be compliance only levels, which isn't a large pressure for cost cutting in production. By the time the fuel stack comes down to cost for mass consumer levels, methanol, NG, or another fuel type may make high pressure hydrogen stations obsolete. The millions CARB is spending on those stations can help out on many alternate fuel projects.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  16. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    so you agree we are not going to get that 70 or 80 mpge car that some of those old graphs were assuming. For the rest of this let's use 65mpge which is possible but probably high, and 55 mpg for the gen IV prius to be released around the same time and 100 mpge for an average plug-in (goes from 84mpge for mercedes b-cell -124 for i3, with the next gen volt likely around 100).

    Well we have this neat new nrel report where we use 5.7 kwh of electricity to produce and compress hydrogen for distributed natural gas, given a better than toyota conversion rate of 50% conversion and 73% efficient on natural gas without the electricity we get 59% well to wheel natural gas to compressed hydrogen. Yep first assumption is much more efficient than we expect for distributed production, centralized production is even worse when transportation is accounted for. We can multiply out 59% x 65 mpge = 38.35 well to wheel mpge. For that gen IV prius lets use the charts 84% x 55 mpg = 46.2 or 20% more efficient well to wheels. How about using US average 42% ccgt electricity natural gas to the wall 42%x100 mpg = 42 mpge well to wheel or about 10% more efficient on natural gas. But wait there is more people are choosing renewables to run their plug-ins and plug-ins are much more efficient than fcv on renewable electricity. That was really the biggest dishonest part assuming plug-ins and fuel cells would not use partial electricity as their feedstocks. So hype that with today's mpg estimates for future prius and mirai seem to show a much different picture. I don't think I even need to go into how bad their ice description is.

    Look they released that chart when they were trying to sell governments for subsidies for fuel cells, you expect a little exageration, but the chart was well beyond any real possibilities. Now that real numbers are coming out can't we just flush it and stop the hype that hydrogen is so much more efficient than plug-ins? I mean toyota should at least admit they need some breakthroughs to catch up to plug-in efficiency with hydrogen. Sure they may get there, but fuel cells are less efficient not more efficient than plug-ins ATBE. That NREL report is assuming 15% penetration of 10,000 psi hydrogen with stations built to service 300 fcv/day, lower penetration means less efficiency.
     
    #76 austingreen, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2014
    hill and Zythryn like this.
  17. Sergiospl

    Sergiospl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    3,938
    1,351
    28
    Location:
    Florida
    Vehicle:
    2011 Prius
    Model:
    Two
  18. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    The number are everywhere. We have NREL report suggested 68 MPGe for 2009 Toyota prototype (FCHV-adv?). So, the production version after 5 years should do better. I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the high 30's. Most likely it'll be 60 MPGe (EPA) since they said the range is 300 miles with 5 gallon equivalent hydrogen.

    The well-to-wheel comparison was for Japan as fuel efficiency was measured under Japanese cycle. It'll be interesting to see the actual EPA fuel economy and emission numbers.

    It is rated 650 km (402 miles) range under JC08 cycle. So, it does get 80 MPGe under Japanese cycle.

    If we look at how much Leaf JC08 range drop under EPA cycle, Mirai range will be below 300 miles. Perhaps, FCV range is not as sensitive as BEV.
     
    #78 usbseawolf2000, Dec 18, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  19. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Of course if you wanted to build a really quiet submarine, a fuel-cell makes a nice power source:
    Source: US & Japan to develop fuel-cell powered sub – report — RT News

    Bob Wilson
     
    usbseawolf2000 likes this.
  20. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,994
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    The chart is accurate. My previous post addressed the Tank-to-Wheels of FCV 59% claim under Japanese cycle, which it compared Prius and BEV under the same cycle.

    Toyota used Well-to-Tank as 65% for 10,000 psi (67% for 5,000 psi). This is the same as what's used in the most recent NREL report, if you divide output by input (see below).
    NREL H2 WTW.jpg
    UCS probably used the latest technology to be deployed in 2015. This DOE document describes 79% efficiency (see below). This is the recent breakthrough that wasn't in NREL 2013 report. It should when they do another update of the report.

    DOE H2 WTW.jpg