Mirai production begins @ 3/day

Not only that . . . . but 700 units for the entire planet - one year's production - hot demand. If that's not creative journalism, then I can't imagine what is.
.

 

Oh its not creative journalism, its the toyota press releases. The article was not bad when you read it through.

Originally journalists were guestimating from toyota leaks that toyota would build 1000 for the first year, then a 5000 car batch. Toyota then stated 700 cars not 1000 for 2015 -the first year - with 200 for the US, 400 for Japan, and 100 for the rest of the world. In that release it stated 3000 for 2015-2017 for the US, which was lower than expectations.

Subsequent press releases announced because of overwhelming demand they were increasing production to 2000 in 2016 and 3000 in 2017. That does line up exactly with the original leaks of 5000 for the second batch. If you subtract the US portion that leaves only 2700 for japan and the rest of the world. Toyota isn't really increasing production for 2000 lease orders in Japan, its all spin. When you understand that these are all hand built, it makes perfect sense for toyota to go slow. They are likely losing tens of thousands on every unit, and Japanese leases to their government friends are patient. They need to make sure that these are quality cars, and want to get those CARB credits. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. If they produced fast and there is any quality problem, it could be another fisker karma.

Toyota needs to bring down costs, and that is going to come from R&D, not by producing more cars. The 3000 target matches up well to their carb requirements, and they need to sell enough in Japan to keep the government behind them so they can keep up R&D spending for a possible set of breakthroughs. As the article mentioned though, plug-in advances could kill those plans.

 

Who cares? Why do you care? Look, I am not an executive at an automobile company nor a lobyist for one. You are talking to me like you are talking to Toyota. FCV incentives are ALL manufacturers, not just Toyota. Why don't you go ask GM why they are not focusing on FCV instead of the Volt, to get more incentives?

From a car buyer point of view, all I care is, how I can reduce my carbon footprint for the least amount of money yet still have an enjoyable, reliable, practical ride.

I criticized the plugin incentive because it affected me. PiP should've cost less if the right/fair criteria were put in place. I won't even calculate how much incentive Volt has in it from battery R&D, manufacturing, bail out, buyer incentives. The last time I did, it cost more than the cost of gas it could displace (with electricity).

It is true that Toyota can also do a PHEV with 16 kWh of battery to exploit the incentive. They have stated that they decided to do what they SHOULD rather than what they COULD. That means, focusing on lower emission and increase well-to-wheel efficiency with Mirai as well as other HSD implementations (Prius, PiP, etc).

Again, why do you care? You are in Texas. CARB is in California.

Ok, so you are anti-Toyota. Why are you here on a Toyota Prius forum driving your political agenda onto Prius owners?

PriusChat was not used to be like this, filled with political driven posts. It was all about discussions full of engineering, low emission, practicality and how quite and cool to drive in a Prius. Things changed around when you joined, also happens to be the Volt launch period. Coincidence?

 

It is intentional. Prius started out the same way. Allow a smooth launch and do not hamper it with your underlying political agenda.

Toyota says it wants to take it slow for several reasons.

Engineers want a glitch-free rollout of what is a technically challenging car -- the three Mirias produced daily are handbuilt by 13 handpicked workers. And they also want to avoid overcommitting on volume for a product that has not yet been market-tested.​

 

This is not Toyota's stated goal, nor are they working towards that.
As far as exploiting incentives, that seems to be exactly what they are doing with FCVs.
Extremely limited production, in extremely small areas.

If they were truly working towards the goal of lower emmissions fleet wide, they would expand plugins.
If they were working towards lower emmissions of individual vehicles, they would expand plugins, but only sell them to the 64% of the population (as of 2012) whose emissions would be better with an EV than a Prius, or to buyers that proved they had a solar array.

As for well to wheel efficiency, that goes down for FCVs when you use renewable sources. So lowering GHG emmissions and increasing well to wheel efficiency are at odds with each other with FCVs.
With EVs, when you improve one, you improve the other.

 

Launch states will be very limited due to refueling infrastructure. Plugin advocates hampering the roll out doesn't help either. East coast is supposed to get H2 stations so I hope to see a few Mirai around here soon.

I think Toyota said 2020 (next gen FCV) is when they plan to go mass production. They projected to reduce the cost by 90%, we'll see.

Do you know any off-grid plugin owners? I don't.

If they connect to the grid, that plugin is using average electricity from that region.

PiP is the cleanest PHEV and it is only 10% lower than a regular 50 MPG Prius. It is lower in some states but higher in some. PiP was launched in the 13 states with cleanest electricity. I applaud Toyota for not rolling them out in states with "dirty" electricity.

From that perspective, Toyota is doing what they said they should - focusing on the results.

Yes, for now but H2 is a better energy storage than the battery for excess renewable energy.

I look toward nature and H2 is the way to go. Plants do photosynthesis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen with the sunlight. They consume hydrogen and we breath oxygen. It is very efficient and plants in nature has deemed it as the best approach for million of years. Nothing in nature convert sunlight into electricity.

Now, there is a way to mimic photosynthesis to produce hydrogen. I can dream of roof top solar panels that produce hydrogen from water (for home electricity and heating thru co-generation or to power FCV) and oxygen for the family. Then, GHG emission and WTW efficiency will not be at odd. It will be the ultimate eco-car.

 

hmm... I care because I don't think fuel cells need more incentives, and I don't think people should be crying over the federal commercialization fuel cell subsidies ending. You were one of those saying poor toyota. Well even without the expired fuel cell subsidies, fuel cells still have much higher incentives than plug-ins. How much is enough?

Yes I do believe that the fuel cell lobby has gotten incentives too high for all fuel cell vehicles. They have consistently over promised and under delivered. These current incentives are based on the promise of 53,000 fcv by 2017, estimated just in 2012. Toyota now thinks it will only contribute 3000 cars, and even if honda and hyundai do the same we are only at 9000.. So don't act as if it unfair that the federal comercialization subsidies have ended. Federal R&D spending for fuel cell vehicles is still extremely high, and the DOE has moved funds from more promising technologies.

Yes GM could collect and act short term. They already spent $2.5B in R&D on fuel cell vehicles, and that is part of the reason tax payers had to bail them out. The volt is what they consider their future technology. That is why they abandoned their fuel cell lobbying efforts. In the medium term, the next 15 years, fuel cells don't look like they will do much in the US. This may be different in Japan and that is why GM is partnering with Honda on this. In the US toyota is leading the lobbying effort, the misleading advertising and press releases, etc.

So please don't argue the country should be raising incentives even higher for fuel cells. Yes all car companies can invest in commercialization.

Hydrogen vehicles in the next 10 years are probably one the most expensive way to reduce ghg. With little infrastructure and high prices to produce hydrogen, it is a sure thing that they will not be practical for more than a tiny percent of the population.

I am a prius owner and owned a lexus beforehand. If I really was anti-toyota, do you think I would buy either of those cars. How in the world can criticism of a multinational corporations lobbying efforts turn into you thinking I hate their cars. I think the mirai is an experiment that toyota can afford to do on its own without even more US taxpayer money. You seem to think its the future. That is fine it's a disagreement. I simply think that hydrogen hype needs to be confronted, and not supported with even more tax dollars. As I have said let the experiment go forward, there may be breakthroughs, but the odds are these tax dollars are wasted, don't give the fuel cell lobby any more until they actually deliver on something.

Don't believe the hydrogen hype! Look at toyota's own numbers in performance, sales projections, and prices.
The Biggest Problem With The Toyota Mirai? It's Boring - Gas 2

 

Because after decades of FCV research they don't think the technology is ready for their major markets(North America and China). GM does have a partnership with Honda, and possibly more FCV related patents than Toyota, so they haven't completely abandoned them.

For Toyota, FCVs have an appeal for their home market, and converting coal or natural gas to hydrogen instead of burning it for electricity instead of paying the mark up they get for petroleum maybe better for Japan.

Your criteria simply weren't the incentives criteria; which was to promote battery tech. The hybrid incentives could have simply been to promote the tech, and just happened to also promote better emissions and fuel economy as a bonus. Any improvements to large pack batteries from the plugin incentive also helped hybrids and FCVs.

The PPI should have just cost less. A larger lithium traction pack was the only substantial difference between it and the liftback. Toyota had the means to sell it for less, and also offer it nationwide as initially intended, if they believed in their product.

And they have learned what they should do won't necessarily sell in North America.

Because CARB as part of the FCV lobby pushes for federal funding of FCV commercialization

Keep that paranoia in check. I have been here for as long as you, and don't support the US pushing FCVs at this time. My opinion of the Volt changed when reasonable owners of the car came here to share their experience. I remember some here weren't very welcoming.

How are they hampering the roll out? I haven't heard of any mass sit ins at hydrogen stations.

And have the plummeting PPI sales for their 'moral' high ground. I and others have pointed out that the PPI had the potential of beating Volt and Leaf sales if it was available nationwide. Since Toyota isn't an energy company looking to clean up those states grids, they shouldn't have cared about those extra emissions in trying to get traction in the market place for their new product. Sales wouldn't displace too many liftbacks to have a big effect on the overall emissions, and they might have dropped if it got people out of a guzzler into the PPI or another Toyota hybrid. It would have helped increase awareness of their plugins and electric emissions; which may have lead to a larger push in cleaning up the grid.

Focusing on FCVs mean there can't even be a debate about whether or not it is a good idea to sell in a region with dirty grids. No hydrogen infrastructure, they simply can't.

Perhaps when paired with a stationary fuel cell. For car fuel, the costs of getting the hydrogen to the vehicles needs to be considered.

And they can expand upon that lab process to make isopropanol directly. Retrofitting ICE cars and building a rubbing alcohol infrastructure will be more bang for the buck than getting everyone to switch over to FCVs and building an hydrogen infrastructure.

 

+1

Yep the lack of fueling infrastructure will absolutely make sure that the numbers are small. I don't think any plug-in advocate has hampered the roll out though. Tesla and Musk actually supported the 68 hydrogen stations. In fact the fuel cell lobby raising zev credits from 7 to 9, means that toyota is likely to ship fewer fcv, as it can meet the CARB mandate for 2017 with only 3000 in the whole country with most if not all of them leased in California. There is less incentive to produce anymore, likely reducing the number of fcv on US roads. The roadblock to the fuel cell lobbies rosey scenario, versus reality is the high cost of these cars and the high cost of fueling infrastructure,not plug-in advocates.

I hope they can do it, but we have had most of these promises fall through. Even if they can drop the cost that much there still need to be breakthroughs in the cost of hydrogen fueling for sales to be high. That is why toyota is only promising tens of thousands a year some time in the 2020s.

 

Just a nit but electrons from solar light do occur in nature when it falls on a metal. Just it isn't a practical source of electrical power. The effect was described in one of Einstein's early papers.

Bob Wilson

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm in the same basic camp as austingreen and Trollbait.

I note that USB's past arguments against the Volt -- too expensive, weighs the same as an SUV -- seem to have been forgotten now that he's touting Toyota's FCV.

Neither of those criticisms bother me excessively about a first gen Mirai rollout since I expect them to soon be resolved, at least somewhat.

I'm more concerned about the infrastructure costs and the potential for FCV to dilute focus and support for plugin vehicles which seem much more likely to succeed at the near and intermediate term goal of affordably enabling major carbon emission reductions.

I suspect FCV may have a useful role to play in some fleet scenarios where refueling stations can be ideally located with high and predictable utilization. I suspect solid-oxide fuel cells may be useful in supporting rural fast DC charging stations.

I just don't think it makes sense to begin rolling out FCV general purpose passenger vehicles at this time. There are still too many unsolved problems or situations in which the combination of full hybrids, plugin hybrids, and EVs provide an equivalent or better solution at lower cost, with less risk, and without the high infrastructure costs. Plugins also allow for more efficient use of renewables.

 

The push back against FCV's may have been lessened if CARB hadn't lowered BEV credits while raising FCV ones, or if Toyota chose not to run anti-plug advertising through Lexus.

Fuel cells may work out in the future as range extenders for a plugin. They already have an all electric drive and a battery, and use of grid energy means the initial hydrogen station network doesn't have to be as extensive. In the case of the US though, it is best wait until the technology settles. For example; the initial stations in California and the Honda Clarity used a 35MPa(5000psi) standard for the tanks. Currently, the new ones being built are for 70MPa. In Japan, and Mirai, use 82MPa in stations built since 2004. Instead of building a piecemeal network now, that will need to be upgraded later, it will cost less to wait for this technology to mature a bit.

There is also other fuel types that may make it to the market before a FCV becomes affordable for the masses. Metal hydride doesn't require the extreme pressures as with a hydrogen tank. It also has a swappable cell or disc potential that would allow FCV's to be used in areas without existing infrastructure for stations; the stations would only be really needed along major highway coridoors at first. Then onboard reformers for natural gas or an alcohol would make any hydrogen infrastructure obsolete.

 

Sounds like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

 

I know why I care - because that hundred thousand dollar cost for e/car comes from my Cali taxes ...

 

+1

Even worse, its as if the sledge hammer lobby was asking for government money to deliver the hammers, while actively advertising against nut crackers.

 

We can see the effect of CARBs single focus first on BEV then on FCV technology to solve its pollution and ghg problems, from this blast from the past from 2007.
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/ep_907lbep.pdf
Undoubtedly the 2003 mandate change, and CARBs lobbying of the federal government (Freedom Car) slowed plug-in development. The federal government though in 2007 reversed course and decided to subsidize both battery research and plug-in commercialization. with the Energy Independence and Security Act. It is hard to believe that the California Fuel Cell Partnership does not at least have a partial goal of derailing plug-in progress, but with this act and subsequent increasing of subsidies and drastic reduction in battery prices, I don't think the lobby can do any more real damage. When the lobby continues it's misleading statements though its important to confront it with facts.

Right now these fleet scenarios often use cng or lng and modified ices to run them. If the hydrogen is made from natural gas you won't really reduce ghg or criteria pollutants by switching to more expensive fuel cells + 10,000 psi hydrogen. You can of course make the hydrogen renewably, but it probably is cheaper making the methane from renewable methods (biogas).

Solid Oxide fuel cells are proving cost effective for small power plants, with better efficiency than ocgt for burning natural gas that can overcome its higher costs. Apple and Google along with other california companies are using them to get out of PG&Es high power prices, and to operate buildings on other grids to produce lower ghg than the grid. Grid tied Batteries or capacitors are much better to deliver short bursts of power. PEM fuel cells are quite effective on fork lifts though, where low mileage mean fuel costs don't matter and the stacks are small enough to be cost effective.

 

My impression is that FC with NG H2 not higher carbon than a non-hybrid ICE burning CNG or LNG and is perhaps a bit better. I'll have to go look up the numbers again.

I can imagine fleet scenarios that require quick recharging where EVs would have to compete with battery swapping that might not be reliable enough when frequently used. I'm not advocating fuel cells here but just not categorically ruling out their usefulness in some situations.

Right. I was imagining DC supercharging in areas without good high capacity grid connections. You could outfit such a site with a propane or diesel tank hooked to a conventional generator in low traffic areas or perhaps a solid oxide FC in higher traffic areas for increased efficiency.

Right now there are few supercharge stations so they can be located where grid connections are good. With many more cars in the future I can see the desire for locations with poor grid. Another solution is station battery backup that slowly charges from a poor grid connection and then fast charges the occasional car that plugs in.

 

.... welcome to one of my favorite ironies - the way I see it - if batteries continue to get better and better as they seem to be doing, then fuel cell cars will make less and less sense. If fuel cell cars get better and better then we build a trillion dollar infrastructure for them and use way more natural gas (because straight Electrical / hydrogen distillation is too inefficient). So much for reducing the use of non-renewables.
.

 

Ok, I just checked on fueleconomy.gov:

2014 Honda Civic
Grams CO2 Tailpipe + upstream = total

NG: 218 + 88 = 306
Hybrid:196 + 46 = 242

A FC civic running on H2 from NG would probably be 200-250 or about 20% lower carbon emissions than NG. A hybridized NG would probably be as good or better but then you have both NG and H2 tanks plus a hybrid battery which may not be volumetrically practical.

That's among the reasons why I question the practicality of using FC as a range extender in a plugin vehicle anytime soon. When used for only 10-30% of the miles it's likely far cheaper and more practical to use a cheap ICE with liquid fuel which magically becomes a hybridized ICE when added to a plugin vehicle.

 

I was assuming bigger vehicles, pick up trucks, delivery trucks and vans, et for CNG otherwise you aren't going to beat a hybrid for ghg, won't save much in fuel costs, and don't need to really worry about harmful pollutants. With these bigger vehicles it makes sense to make the engine for natural gas, while IIRC the civic simply is a gasoline engine with a few specific natural gas parts. The big push for natural gas over diesel in cities like LA and Houston is reducing the unhealthy pollutants.
Fuel Fix » Smaller companies join move to natural gas vehicles

When fuel is that cheap its tough to justify the cost of making these trucks hybrids. But you could ofcourse purchase biogas instead of natural gas for less than the cost of hydrogen to run the fleet of trucks. This is the game that California is playing using 33% renewable hydrogen so fcv have lower ghg footprints than hybrids. Now CNG busses produce less ghg than busses that run on hydrogen that is produced from natural gas, liquefied, and then trucked into the fueling station. You can reduce this by producing the hydrogen onsight, but then you need to have a large fleet to justify the costs. California trucks in their hydrogen for fleets. Austin makes the hydrogen on sight and compresses it with renewable electricity, but it is a university project and they are doing research on reducing the cost of making hydrogen. If you need to liquify the hydrogen to get to your fleet, then you have added a lot of ghg per mile ;-) or you need to use renewable electricity With low CO2 assumptions for production and liquification, no bleed off, PG&E clean grid, no cost of trucking we get 261 for a 60 mile/kg fcv add 20% for delivery and bleed off and you get 314 a little higher than the civic cng and a lot higher than the prius . That was my fleet assumption, grid electricity to liquify trucked in diesel trucks used in bigger vehicles .

It does make a lot more sense for the testing though. Using it as a range extender requires many fewer hydrogen stations. They need some serious breakthroughs to bring prices down to an ice range extender.