Mirai production begins @ 3/day

What I get from this thread is that many people are against hydrogen because "it is too hard to do and cost too much".

FCV works better for Mirai size vehicle that need longer driving range and fast refuel time.

EVs have advantages for shorter range but it'll be more like a second car.

This was Toyota's vision communicated in 2010. Five years later they announced FC propulsion system fit in a car. I doubt they'll abundant plans to do larger FCVs.

 

Mostly due to cycling the pack deeper. Energy density improvement was small.

I was actually referring to national average and mentioned renewable hydrogen in the mix. If 5% of all H2 are from renewable, It would boost Mirai emission level to 62 MPG equivalent gas car.

In the mean time, Volt national average would remain at about 47 MPG. Why are we wasting all the energy/money on plugging it in if it hasn't achieve the standard the 50 MPG Prius set? Just because?

 

Try re-reading and don't get defensive.
Most would agree, that FCV are well suited to large vehicles. Trucks, large SUVs, etc.
The refueling issues are most easily addressed by first testing on large fleets with central refueling stations.

For passenger vehicles, EVs are much more convenient, more efficient, less expensive to run.
The Mirai is a compact, isn't it? 4 passenger sedan. It would make much more sense, in the U.S. market, for their first FCV to be a large, or at least mid sized SUV.

For the market in Japan, this is probably very different as the infrastructure is much, much easier.

From a pure carbon reduction strategy, EVs are better than FCVs.
Both are better than gas.

 

FCV is very exciting to me as a future breakthru area. I very much like some of the new technology coming out of the FCV programs, and it is enormous amount of new technology basically. I am skeptical that autos is the best applicaton, but it's too early to say I know lots of stuff was looked at, not sure where its heading. If I gotta be sending my personal tax dollars to Califormia to build out a ZEV structure, and I do with my FORM 1040 subsidy payments for CA green cars and solar wind etc, I am at least pleased a small portion of my subsidies go to progress FCV.

 

You are assuming optimistic Mirai mpgge efficiency which has not been announced yet.

The UF-adjusted "47 mpg" CO2 equivalent for the 2016 Volt is assuming 2010 US average grid emissions. These emissions are already better today, in reality, and will be getting continually better over the coming years. The actual 2016 Volt on 2016 US national average grid would be over 50 mpg equivalent CO2 emissions (UF-adjusted assuming 30% gasoline miles) if the grid fell from 1.4 to 1.3 lbs per kWh. Of course, it is much better in regions with lower-carbon electricity or when customers choose to lower their emissions through solar or optional
renewable utility rate options.

The 2016 Volt battery improvements are not primarily from deeper SOC cycling. The cells have gone from about 142 Wh per kg to near 185 Wh per kg between the 2011 and 2016 model years which is about a 28% improvement (the Prius Plugin cells are reportedly 112 Wh per kg). EPA efficiency has gone from 95 MPGe to 102 MPGe. So, the deeper cycling depth from 65% in 2011 to maybe 73% in 2016 accounts for only a modest part of the EV range improvement.

The UCS position papers compare FCVs with conventional gasoline cars which is misleading since FCVs are hybrids. Fully hybridizing a vehicle like the Hyundai Tucson gasoline vehicle would bring similar CO2 emission benefits versus the FCV version of the car, particularly when using H2 from natural gas.

For example, here's a quote from a companion UCS document:

A 30-50% mpg improvement from full hybridization using an efficiency-oriented hybrid powertrain design is typical.

Some 95% of H2 is made from
NG today because that's what is economically the most cost effective. You can regulate and force the inclusion of renewable sources from trash dump methane capture (which would otherwise be used to generate grid electricity). You could also mandate that gasoline contain 15% cellulosic ethanol.

If FCV truly succeeds into a mainstream vehicle choice then I'm doubtful that efficient sources of renewable H2 can be scaled up. I worry that the renewable mandates will be scaled back or dropped or lots of renewable electricity will be inefficiently used to split water instead of going to the grid.

As a reminder, this the overview chart from the NREL study:

 

Using default profile in GREET 2014, I got these for WTW. I couldn't do a PHEV to simulate the Volt so I did an EV using US Mix.

FCV Well-to-Wheel emission - 207 g/mi. That's as clean as 54 MPG gas car.


EV Well-to-Wheel emission: 286 g/mi

 

We already have a fuel for that; petrol.

As more cars (upto 300 miles) become EV pollution caused from petrol will significantly reduce anyway. Why built $billions or $trillions of infrastructure for a reducing number of long range vehicles?

It's just about tax. A Government want to tax fuel use and hydrogen allows that. BEVs are much too complicated to tax and nobody wants to be taxed by miles or distance. Maybe BEVs and tolls are the answer?

It's a free market (ha ha, ok it's meant to be), so let us see if the Mirai sells in the numbers reflective of the first Prius from 2001.

 

The whole point is to avoid using petro. An alternative that is domestic, refuels just as fast, cleaner and provides better driving and maintenance experience.

BEV and PHEV do provide some of those benefits in "either or" scenarios. However, FCV provides them all.

 

I thought the point was to reduce their use to reduce pollution and reliance on dodgy countries for fuel (not Canada ). If 30% of cars become BEV, then the US will be self sufficient in petrol and emissions will be significantly reduced.

Hydrogen is just complicating it.

 

It isn't hard, but it is expensive. For FCV's to have any impact on the nation's emissions, the West Coast and Eastern Seaboard would need to have infrastructure and refueling stations. If the country does so, and spends the millions that it will take, will we get any return in methanol powered FVC's come to market? Much of the anti-fuel cell sentiment expressed here isn't really anti-fuel cell, it is anti-hydrogen or commercialization at this time.

Why rush to roll them out in the US when the current fueling standards may be obsolete by the time the cars come down enough in price to be mainstream? Japan is already switching over to 82MPa for hydrogen stations. The US is quite large in land mass, and the costs of building the hydrogen infrastructure will be high. The cheapest route will be onsite NG reforming, which leads to the concern of FCV's just switching one fossil fuel for another.

Since the investment will much larger for the US than Japan, why the rush to do it now? Let Japan and Germany pay the costs of perfecting it, then the US adopt what will be best for it. It also gives research into other fuels and hydrogen production more time.Same with renewable replacements for gasoline and diesel. Hybrids, PHV's and BEV's can reduce the petroleum use in the interm.

As to info directly related to the Mirai, "...hydrogen about 4.3kg required mileage about 650km," - Google Translate

That's almost 94mpge on JC08. If the reduction on EPA is the same as the Prius, it will be 61.1mpge.
The article also mentions hydrogen is 1100 yen/kg, about $9.

 

I think ev advocates are as "can do" as the hydrogen community - but that's not what bugs ev advocates - it's the out right dishonesty. Take any sentence in that article ;

That's not only untrue that ev's may use fossil fuel as their electricity source - for all practical purposes hydrogen cars must exclusively use fossil fuel as a source. You don't even have to consider the dishonesty of "no CO2". But I certainly DO look forward to eventually reading an unbiased/balanced read.
.

 

They are talking about oil. You are talking about fossil fuel. Oil is one type of fossil fuel.

You are being dishonest. H2 doesn't have to come from fossil fuel. It can be generated from many different sources, just like electricity could.

 

Hybrids can reduce 30% consumption and it is not costing tax payer any money. The best bang for the buck.

BEVs can lower emission in some states. The problem is, it would increase emission in some other state and they are being rolled out all state blindly.

Toyota does not roll out blindly abd they are being criticized for doing the right thing.

BEVs have limitations and FCVs don't. At current condition, FCV can be cleaner than BEV using US average mix.

 

+1

Excellent. If they can pull off the tech advancements. DOE estimates in 2016 in quantities of 500,000/yr manufacturers could drive down the fuel cell and tanks to close to the cost of the materials, or about $6000 for a car like the mirai with 114kw stack. DOE's estimate for 20,000 cars a year is around $35,000 for the same parts. Toyota engineers re excellent at reducing manufacturing costs, so it definitely is feasible for them to figure out how to drop manufacturing costs. If they do it, that is when the US government should get behind commercialization. At these prices fuel cells are in a pre-commercial test phase.

Absolutely agree it is too early to pick technology winners and losers. I do have problems with this statement though.

It is acting as if both need to be winners both may be or neither. Now the federal government happens to be doing the right thing today - providing R&D funds for hydrogen development to speed possible breakthroughs that could make 10,000 psi hydrogen viable. Providing R&D funds for metal hydrides and direct methanol fuel cells that may make 10,000 psi hydrogen completely unnecessary for fuel cell cars. Providing R&D funds for batteries and biogas. Providing commercialization funds for plug-ins and solar which are viable but not popular. Raised cafe standards that provide incentives for all efficient vehicles especially hybrids and plug-ins. The only thing missing is an open fuel standard so biofuels and methanol (derived from natural gas and/or biogas) could power the fleet. This seems to be an all of the above strategy even though it still provides a lot more funds per likely outcome for fcv.

The california ZEV mandate though seems laser focused on FCV valuing them much more than similar cars. For example say you have 2 prius phvs, 3 volts, Those 5 cars will likely travel at least as many electric miles as 3 bevs. If you are comparing to 30 mpg vehicles in the class they will reduce oil use, unhealthy pollution, and ghg more than 3 fcv. Those 3 fcv according to the CARB scheme get 27 zev credits, the 3 bevs 10 zev (assuming one tesla, 2 shorter range), and the phevs get 0 zev credits. Toyota thinks with 68 fuel stations there will enough convenience to lease 10,000 fcv. or about 150 fcv per station, if each station is subsidized by $2M (close to that for the first 59 now planned), there is a fuelling subsidy of around $13,000 per car, plus a state tax credit of $5000 and the zev credits probably worth $18000. Those 5 phvs as a package get about $35,000 federal and state subsidies (79% federal), about the same as a fcv counting only state not federal contribution. If fuel cell advocates simply want a level playing field why are fcv subsidized so much more than plug-ins.. Will we learn much more than from the clarity? I understand if you make it a level playing field we will have hundreds instead of thousands of fcv on US roads, but I think Japan will be fine providing a testing grounds. Will we learn much more from thousands of fcv than hundreds or than we learned from the clarity? I say let the current experiment happen, but when the fcv bonuses end in 2018, CARB needs to also give zev credits to phevs, if it really is interested in reducing ghg and tailpipe pollution instead of mainly lobbying for the Fuel cell lobby (CFCP).

Green Car Congress: California Air Resources Board Pushes for Restoration of DOE Funding for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles; Tackles the Four Miracles
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60528.pdf

 

It could be made from other sources but the economics that it will come from natural gas without regulations to force the use of those other sources. Which will add to the cost per kg. At $10/kg, it is close to 3 times the cost of gasoline in California, and the Mirai may do a little better than twice what a 4cylinder Camry gets in fuel economy, and 50% better than the hybrid.

Cleaner electricity does cost more, but it likely isn't nearly to the rate that renewable hydrogen goes up. Plus, it is cheaper to wire it into the grid than hydrogen pipelines or trucks.

That is just one of their cop outs. The PPI was scheduled to go nationwide about year after first introduction. That date was pushed back to wait to release it with the other next year models. Then it was to wait for next gen Prius that was expected in a year. Then that got pushed back a year, and the next PHV by another year. Dirty grid is just a BS excuse, and doesn't stop them from offering the PPI across Japan.


Oil Peak: Japan Energy Report

Electricity Overview | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

So, of Japan's electric grid mix, 83% comes from carbon emitting fossil fuels, while the US average is 67.6%. Some regions are higher, but some regions use dirtier gasoline. Much of the gas made from tar sands ends up in the Midwest. Shouldn't Toyota stop selling ICE cars there because the fuel is dirtier?

There is a push to clean up the US grid now, and it is improving. By not selling in all the regions of the US, Toyota is choosing to not compete in the growing market of plugins. Which is strange if they really think BEV's will compliment FCV's. Their own admission is that FCV's are at least a decade from starting to go mainstream, and yet they bowed out of the market class that is growing now.

 

....it's a free market within the parameters set by the gov't. Almost every sentence Congress writes is about the rules they want to set up about how the "free" market will work in the US.

Yes and don't forget the commerical H2 process is called SMR (Steam Methane Reforming). Half the H2 yield comes from the Water, and the other half comes from our cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas. Look at it this way, SMR is cheaper way to make H2 out of water, at the expense of a little fossil fuel use.

 

Plugin incentive advocate want to talk about level playing field?

FCV is a better technology with less restrictions and wider audience (potential for more electric miles).

As pointed out, the cost of battery has come down. If anything, there should be less incentive for plugins.

 

Let's see I said let the higher subsidies continue and let the test go on, but when they expire (zev bonus expires in 2018, hydrogen fueling bonus ends 2024) level the playing field. If it is much better technology that appeals to a wider audience, why does it continue to miss milestones and need higher incentives for more than 15 years?

CARB claimed it was a better technology in 2003. That is why it set up much higher Fuel cells incentives and R&D because they had more of a chance for higher sales. It picked its winner, just as it picked bev in 1990. Back then we were going to have 25,0000 on the road by now, as I posted links, but by 2007 it was clear this wasn't going to happen. In 2014 california increased incentives as it was clear the goal of 50,000 fuel cells by 2017 was not going to be met. As you saw from my post the incentive for each fcv is about the same as for 5 phevs. The R&D spending is orders of magnitude higher. So with all this potential and subsidies perhaps fuel cell vehicles actually have the technical challenges that people talk about. If they didn't then they definitely would not need so much higher R&D and commercialization subsidies than these technologies no one wants;-) Did you read the links at the bottom? One document was current NREL thinking about what hydrogen will cost and how much ghg in the future if 15% of cars run on hydrogen and stations are cookie cutter.

Yep battery prices are coming down rapidly, meaning the subsidies have been working. With lower battery costs, the federal tax credit for bevs an phevs should end. It definitely will in the near future for Nissan, Tesla, and GM. I'm not sure how fast the other car companies should be given to catch up.

Now in terms of ZEV, I would think california would not continue to favor fcv so much over bevs and phevs. All it does is reward cars with lower environmental benefit. Leveling that playing field is long over due. When FCEVs get to the commercial stage (tens of thousands a year in the US) would be the time that per vehicle incentives may actually work to reduce costs to get higher market share.