Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

[Firetruck41]

I suspect 10x is too high, but 5-7 times might be in the right ballpark while the volumes remain small. If we assume that a station costs $3 million... but there's obviously a considerable way to go before these stations can be profitable, even at current fuel prices. In order to help bring the cost down as well as provide the necessary capacity to meet the automaker's sales forecasts, the next round of funding will encourage stations with larger capacities. .

You did awesome on the math, which is just another thorn in the ass of hydrogen.

As to automaker's hydrogen sales forecasts, I can find those going back decades with rosy numbers. We would be swimming in H2 cars by now, if any of those predictions came true.

Sure, and exactly the same is true for PEVs. Remember the 300k LEAFs/year by 2013? was it, or the 60k Volt sales forecast in their second year on sale, or the 1 million PEVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2015? I'm sure I could probably dig around in boxes from the '90s and find similar claims about the impending dominance of the EV1; I _know_ I could find such claims about BEVs in general from the '70s, in the wake of the first oil shock. I don't remember them, but I imagine Ecotality, 350Green and other failed charging providers had similar forecasts. I take all such forecasts with a mountain of salt.

Not exactly the same, I mean, since the 2011 Leaf, we can talk about EVs sold in the US in fractions of a million, but since the 2008 Clarity, we can talk about FCEVs sold in the US in fractions of what, a thousand?

 

[smkettner]

Sure, and exactly the same is true for PEVs. Remember the 300k LEAFs/year by 2013? was it, or the 60k Volt sales forecast in their second year on sale, or the 1 million PEVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2015? I'm sure I could probably dig around in boxes from the '90s and find similar claims about the impending dominance of the EV1; I _know_ I could find such claims about BEVs in general from the '70s, in the wake of the first oil shock. I don't remember them, but I imagine Ecotality, 350Green and other failed charging providers had similar forecasts. I take all such forecasts with a mountain of salt.

You are correct. However IMHO Nissan set the EV world back five+ years with the very poor battery in the first vehicles. Short on range and did not last. Too many sad and disappointed drivers. Bolt and Model 3 have the chance to get the movement going again. It is like starting over.

In contrast Mirai and the rest of the FC gang they seem to be doing everything right with no major issues with the vehicles.

 

[GRA]

You did awesome on the math, which is just another thorn in the ass of hydrogen.

As to automaker's hydrogen sales forecasts, I can find those going back decades with rosy numbers. We would be swimming in H2 cars by now, if any of those predictions came true.

Sure, and exactly the same is true for PEVs. Remember the 300k LEAFs/year by 2013? was it, or the 60k Volt sales forecast in their second year on sale, or the 1 million PEVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2015? I'm sure I could probably dig around in boxes from the '90s and find similar claims about the impending dominance of the EV1; I _know_ I could find such claims about BEVs in general from the '70s, in the wake of the first oil shock. I don't remember them, but I imagine Ecotality, 350Green and other failed charging providers had similar forecasts. I take all such forecasts with a mountain of salt.

Not exactly the same, I mean, since the 2011 Leaf, we can talk about EVs sold in the US in fractions of a million, but since the 2008 Clarity, we can talk about FCEVs sold in the US in fractions of what, a thousand?

See:

40 Years Later: Electric Cars and the OPEC Oil Embargo

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/40-years-later-electric-cars-and-the-opec-oil-embargo/

I remember the claims made at the time for BEVs, and it's only taken a slight bit longer than forecast then.

 

[Firetruck41]

In contrast Mirai and the rest of the FC gang they seem to be doing everything right with no major issues with the vehicles.

Doesn't matter how great the vehicle is, if it runs on unicorn farts... those are rather hard to come by...

 

[Firetruck41]

Sure, and exactly the same is true for PEVs. Remember the 300k LEAFs/year by 2013? was it, or the 60k Volt sales forecast in their second year on sale, or the 1 million PEVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2015? I'm sure I could probably dig around in boxes from the '90s and find similar claims about the impending dominance of the EV1; I _know_ I could find such claims about BEVs in general from the '70s, in the wake of the first oil shock. I don't remember them, but I imagine Ecotality, 350Green and other failed charging providers had similar forecasts. I take all such forecasts with a mountain of salt.

Not exactly the same, I mean, since the 2011 Leaf, we can talk about EVs sold in the US in fractions of a million, but since the 2008 Clarity, we can talk about FCEVs sold in the US in fractions of what, a thousand?

See:

40 Years Later: Electric Cars and the OPEC Oil Embargo

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/40-years-later-electric-cars-and-the-opec-oil-embargo/

I remember the claims made at the time for BEVs, and it's only taken a slight bit longer than forecast then.

And we should all have flying cars by now... but we DO have ~400k? BEVs, used regularly in the US...

 

[GRA]

See:

40 Years Later: Electric Cars and the OPEC Oil Embargo

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/40-years-later-electric-cars-and-the-opec-oil-embargo/

I remember the claims made at the time for BEVs, and it's only taken a slight bit longer than forecast then.

And we should all have flying cars by now... but we DO have ~400k? BEVs, used regularly in the US...

I'm still waiting for my jetpack. I mean, where the hell is it? :? It would have made the trip to elementary school sooo much easier! :lol:

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Fuel cell vehicle breaks 24-hour electric mileage record with True Zero hydrogen-fuel network in California

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/09/20160917-tz.html

Driving a fuel-cell-electric Toyota Mirai, the founders of True Zero completed a scenic drive throughout California, covering 1,438 miles (2,314 km) in a 24-hour period, thus breaking the official Guinness World Record for electric miles driven in 24 hours. . . .

The mileage mark is expected to become an official record once documentation is submitted and reviewed. . . .

The drive, which started in Long Beach, spanned from sea level to 7200 feet, passed through six of the seven largest cities in California, and crossed the state’s boundary into Reno. True Zero’s hydrogen charging stations in Long Beach; Harris Ranch/Coalinga; Truckee; Mill Valley; Saratoga; and Santa Barbara were used to refuel the cars during the drive, as was a hydrogen charger in Sacramento operated by Linde. . . .

Some more details from the True Zero press release:

[True Zero CEO Joel] Ewanick set off at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday on the initial leg from here to Sacramento where he was relieved by Dr. Shane Stephens, True Zero's Chief Development Officer. Dr. Tim Brown, the company's Chief Operations Officer, took over the wheel in San Jose for the final section.

So, I-5 to Sac, then I-80 to Reno and back to the Bay Area, probably I-580/U.S. 101 to Mill Valley, then 101 to Saratoga and on to Santa Barbara. I think my personal best distance for 'one day' was 1,006 miles coming back from Carbondale, Colorado in my '88 Subaru, but that was over 27 hours (including a 3 hour nap plus stops for food/gas and sadly, 1 fatal deer collision), driving solo.

Now they've just got to add some H2 stations around Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon, and at least one on I-5 north of Sacramento (Red Bluff for choice, covers Lassen and Shasta), and I'd be pretty much set as far as critical in-state H2 infrastructure for road trips. Then all they'd need to do is get the price of the cars and fuel down, and offer a small AWD CUV or wagon like the Tucson, but preferably with more range (although if the station network is dense enough, its range would suffice). That's probably going to take another 5-10 years, so we'll see if BEVs can get there first.

 

[RegGuheert]

Now they've just got to add some H2 stations around Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon, and at least one on I-5 north of Sacramento (Red Bluff for choice, covers Lassen and Shasta), and I'd be pretty much set as far as critical in-state H2 infrastructure for road trips. Then all they'd need to do is get the price of the cars and fuel down, and offer a small AWD CUV or wagon like the Tucson, but preferably with more range (although if the station network is dense enough, its range would suffice). That's probably going to take another 5-10 years, so we'll see if BEVs can get there first.

Tesla has that fully covered TODAY with their supercharger network and a Model X. But even though that existing solution costs less to build than what you are pining for, it will cost the consumer more since the levels of subsidy are MUCH lower.

 

[lorenfb]

Now they've just got to add some H2 stations around Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon, and at least one on I-5 north of Sacramento (Red Bluff for choice, covers Lassen and Shasta), and I'd be pretty much set as far as critical in-state H2 infrastructure for road trips. Then all they'd need to do is get the price of the cars and fuel down, and offer a small AWD CUV or wagon like the Tucson, but preferably with more range (although if the station network is dense enough, its range would suffice). That's probably going to take another 5-10 years, so we'll see if BEVs can get there first.

Tesla has that fully covered TODAY with their supercharger network and a Model X. But even though that existing solution costs less to build than what you are pining for, it will cost the consumer more since the levels of subsidy are MUCH lower.

Again, the re-fueling time has been overlooked and what's needed to support multiple arrivals based
on peak periods, i.e. remember the Poisson distribution and re-fueling times for a worst case analysis
of a typical re-fueling facility for each type of EV.

Although my recent trip stop at the Harris Ranch (200 miles from LAX on the I5) at 6:30 AM and again at
3:30 PM indicated this anecdotal info:

Which will be more cost-effective in the long-run for the consumer and society?

Obviously there aren't near the number of FCEVs vs Teslas on the road, but as the number of FCEVs increase,
the number of H2 distribution units (as pictured) will never need to be as many as for BEVs, e.g. Teslas.

 

[WetEV]

Then all they'd need to do is get the price of the cars and fuel down,

BEVs are near the price of gasoline cars already. Fuel for BEVs is cheaper than gasoline already. Hydrogen is 5 to 7 times higher.

1,438 miles (2,314 km) in a 24-hour period ... we'll see if BEVs can get there first.

For less money than hydrogen fueling stations, battery swap stations (expensive and impractical, but cheaper than Hydrogen) would allow this record to be shattered by a current Model S. Put the path over a route that Hydrogen can't easily follow, such as Seattle, WA to Sioux Falls, SD. With mostly 80 MPH speed limits, rather than the mostly 70 MPH speed limits in California.

Looks to me like with seven battery swaps, plus a 20 minute Supercharger session for the TV cameras, about 2,800 km (1700 miles) is doable. Average speed of 70.1 MPH. Or 118 km/h.

With Superchargers, looks like about 2,030 km in 24 hours is doable. Spokane, WA to Sioux Falls, SD. Or about 1,260 miles. At the Google average speed. EV Trip Planner.

Of course, the best way from Seattle to Sioux Falls is probably Delta, for the best connections. Amtrak doesn't go there.

So maybe this is a more interesting example.

Seattle WA to Grand Forks:
1,482.5 mi, ND, 5 hr 30 minutes on Delta
20 hr 54 min by gasoline car (or the stunt of battery swap BEVs)
30 hr 22 min by Amtrak
40 hr 58 min with Superchargers (have to go through Baxter)
Sometime next decade at the very earliest for Hydrogen

 

[RegGuheert]

Which will be more cost-effective in the long-run for the consumer and society?

BEVs are cheaper (by every measure) than H2 FCVs by a wide margin.

Obviously there aren't near the number of FCEVs vs Teslas on the road, but as the number of FCEVs increase, the number of H2 distribution units (as pictured) will never need to be as many as for BEVs, e.g. Teslas.

No, the opposite is true. BEVs normally charge at home. Quick chargers are only needed for long trips. Since quick charging takes roughly 10X as long as refueling an H2 FCV, then if BEVs use the quick chargers fewer than 1 in 10 trips, then fewer quick charge stalls will be needed than H2 FCV stations. (In our case, we use QC fewer than 1 in 100 charges.)

Given the additional fact that a quick-charge station costs on the order of 2% the cost of an H2 FCV station, the savings are massive. Finally, the fuel for the BEVs is also significantly cheaper per mile driven.

As I have said many times, we need to ensure that H2 FCVs DO NOT get deployed for ANY application unless they are either the ONLY choice or offer some benefit over all competitors.

 

[GRA]

Now they've just got to add some H2 stations around Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon, and at least one on I-5 north of Sacramento (Red Bluff for choice, covers Lassen and Shasta), and I'd be pretty much set as far as critical in-state H2 infrastructure for road trips. Then all they'd need to do is get the price of the cars and fuel down, and offer a small AWD CUV or wagon like the Tucson, but preferably with more range (although if the station network is dense enough, its range would suffice). That's probably going to take another 5-10 years, so we'll see if BEVs can get there first.

Tesla has that fully covered TODAY with their supercharger network and a Model X. But even though that existing solution costs less to build than what you are pining for, it will cost the consumer more since the levels of subsidy are MUCH lower.

They're getting there, but they're well short of being fully covered: they still haven't started Groveland on 120 or anything on S.R. 140 (Merced and Mariposa/El Portal), they need one in Visalia, Lee Vining is still needed in addition to Mammoth Lakes as well as several others on 395, such as Bridgeport, Big Pine/Bishop, and Olancha. Corning is less than ideal, and they really should move that to Red Bluff and add one in Redding, plus maybe one in Manzanita Lake for Lassen loop trippers, and they still don't have one in South Lake Tahoe. Oh, and they're four years in to SC deployment versus about 1 year for full retail H2 stations, and a Model X P100D costs how much - over $100k? And the Model X is much too big, and has those heavy, slow, unreliable, and unnecessary doors. Just the latest, via IEVS:

Tesla Model X Falcon Doors Can Impact Front Doors On Slope When Closing – Video

http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-x-falcon-doors-present-problem-close-hill-video/

 

[GRA]

Then all they'd need to do is get the price of the cars and fuel down,

BEVs are near the price of gasoline cars already. Fuel for BEVs is cheaper than gasoline already. Hydrogen is 5 to 7 times higher.

No, they're not "near the price of gasoline cars" when looking at the same range, as has been endlessly pointed out. Sub-$40k BEVs with 200+ mile range will get them closer, but my '88 Subaru mentioned previously cost me around $14k, and the Forester was just under $24,350, both cash out the door. The first was good for 350 miles in all but awful weather, the latter for 400 same, both with a reserve. There's any number of gas cars that can do the same or better, for under $20k.

1,438 miles (2,314 km) in a 24-hour period ... we'll see if BEVs can get there first.

For less money than hydrogen fueling stations, battery swap stations (expensive and impractical, but cheaper than Hydrogen) would allow this record to be shattered by a current Model S. Put the path over a route that Hydrogen can't easily follow, such as Seattle, WA to Sioux Falls, SD. With mostly 80 MPH speed limits, rather than the mostly 70 MPH speed limits in California.

ISTR that Tesla's battery swap station cost them $1.5 million to convert, and that doesn't include the cost of the packs on hand or the attendant's wages.

Put H2 stations along the same route, and 3-5 minute fills (the True Zero press release touts "four minutes") at greater distances apart, and they'll do the same. It all depends on infrastructure.

Looks to me like with seven battery swaps, plus a 20 minute Supercharger session for the TV cameras, about 2,800 km (1700 miles) is doable. Average speed of 70.1 MPH. Or 118 km/h.

With Superchargers, looks like about 2,030 km in 24 hours is doable. Spokane, WA to Sioux Falls, SD. Or about 1,260 miles. At the Google average speed. EV Trip Planner.

Of course, the best way from Seattle to Sioux Falls is probably Delta, for the best connections. Amtrak doesn't go there.

So maybe this is a more interesting example.

Seattle WA to Grand Forks:
1,482.5 mi, ND, 5 hr 30 minutes on Delta
20 hr 54 min by gasoline car (or the stunt of battery swap BEVs)
30 hr 22 min by Amtrak
40 hr 58 min with Superchargers (have to go through Baxter)
Sometime next decade at the very earliest for Hydrogen

Good, we actually agree that anyone who can afford an FCEV or a BEV with comparable range can afford to fly, and their time's valuable enough that it makes no sense to do otherwise for business beyond a few hours driving time. Let's see what was actually achieved here:

1,438 miles / 24 hours = 59.92 mph average achieved, including all stops. The press release states "The existing Guinness World Record for electric car miles driven in 24-hours is 2142.317 kilometers or 1,331 miles." It also says they spent some time talking to reporters. With a greater density of stations placed at more frequent intervals (also applies to gas stations and charging stations), more ideal legs could be made, and the time would undoubtedly come down/average speed go up.

Long Beach - Harris Ranch: 218 miles (over the Grapevine)
Harris Ranch - W. Sacramento: 186 miles
W. Sacramento - Reno - Truckee: 169 miles (sea level over Donner Pass @ 7,200' - guessing they fueled on the way back from Reno - I would)
Truckee - Mill Valley: 187 miles
Mill Valley - Saratoga: 58 miles (whether they took I-280 or U.S. 101. This stop is needed to make the next, longest leg)
Saratoga - Santa Barbara: 279 miles

As this only totals 1,097 miles they must have done some more driving around somewhere, possibly by taking longer routes.

 

[lorenfb]

BEVs are cheaper (by every measure) than H2 FCVs by a wide margin.

That's the case presently, so? And how is it that your forecasting model is any better than any of the automotive
OEMs hedging with FCEV development?

Finally, the fuel for the BEVs is also significantly cheaper per mile driven.

Again, you have assumed that the competitive environment between BEVs and FCEVs has reached
a state of equilibrium, which is not the case. As an example; you are assured that there will not be a
H2 technology for FCEVs, where the drive-train of a BEV has "X" times the needed battery capacity
of a FCEV, that will be less costly, right?

if BEVs use the quick chargers fewer than 1 in 10 trips, then fewer quick charge stalls will be needed than H2 FCV stations. (In our case, we use QC fewer than 1 in 100 charges.

You have assumed this early adoption phase of BEV usage will continue as consumers transition away from ICEV.
Also, to compare west coast driving needs to those in high density east coast metros is a non sequitur.

Finally, the fuel for the BEVs is also significantly cheaper per mile driven.

Presently yes, so what? You continue to argue from the present day situation as most do without any real tangible
insight into the future of the EV marketplace.

As I have said many times, we need to ensure that H2 FCVs DO NOT get deployed for ANY application unless they are either the ONLY choice or offer some benefit over all competitors.

We? So, irrespective of market forces and consumer preferences, there needs to be an external market determinant, right? Please!

 

[Firetruck41]

BEVs are cheaper (by every measure) than H2 FCVs by a wide margin.

That's the case presently, so? And how is it that your forecasting model is any better than any of the automotive
OEMs hedging with FCEV development?

I wouldn't be in any hurry to hold up OEMs as masters of market forecasting. Just look at the Fiat 500L, Chrysler 200, Jeep Compass, Pontiac Aztec, Dodge Avenger, Cadillac ELR, Honda Crosstour, Nissan Murano crosscabriolet...

 

[WetEV]

Put H2 stations along the same route

At $2 million per location? Almost as silly of stunt as $1.5 million battery swap stations. Irony is so lost on the web.

Seattle WA to Grand Forks:
1,482.5 mi, ND, 5 hr 30 minutes on Delta
20 hr 54 min by gasoline car (or the stunt of battery swap BEVs)
30 hr 22 min by Amtrak
40 hr 58 min with Superchargers (have to go through Baxter)
Sometime next decade at the very earliest for Hydrogen

Good, we actually agree that anyone who can afford an FCEV or a BEV with comparable range can afford to fly, and their time's valuable enough that it makes no sense to do otherwise for business beyond a few hours driving time.

Well, actually we don't agree. Good sales technique, however. Do go on with your hyping of hydrogen. This stunt isn't even close to the average usage of cars in the USA. Of course, you know that.

The average trip of a car is 13.6 miles from home. Hydrogen and battery swaps are both wildly expensive and inconvenient. Why not charge at home?

Oh, and range isn't everything, or sailing ships would still be ruling the waves.

 

[lorenfb]

The average trip of a car is 13.6 miles from home. Hydrogen and battery swaps are both wildly expensive and inconvenient. Why not charge at home?

Oh, and range isn't everything, or sailing ships would still be ruling the waves.

You continually overlook the rather poor acceptance of BEVs by consumers. It seems like such a simple decision;
1. One, on average, only needs a daily round trip range of about 27 miles.
2. One can easily "re-fuel" by charging at home.
3. Electricity is relatively inexpensive.

Given that, why based on your logic is the consumer "so naive" in their not transitioning to BEVs?

 

[wwhitney]

Given that, why based on your logic is the consumer "so naive" in their not transitioning to BEVs?

Inertia, lack of consumer awareness (advertising), consumers aren't necessarily rational, weaker than optimal economic incentives due to the mispricing of CO2, etc.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[WetEV]

You continually overlook the rather poor acceptance of BEVs by consumers.

BEV sales rate are a little under 1%.

I disagree that this is "rather poor acceptance", but about what should be expected. People don't change habits overnight. There is risk in change, and some are more risk adverse than other. Risk avoidance has a point, after all. Risk is real.

Even a constant rate of sales at this level will push BEVs into new households for the next decade or more.

What fraction of light bulbs in peoples homes are LEDs, for example? And that should go much faster than the auto market. And yes, some bulbs will never get replaced: oven lights for example.

There are reasons to switch, but they are marginal, not decisive.

 

[GRA]

Put H2 stations along the same route

At $2 million per location? Almost as silly of stunt as $1.5 million battery swap stations. Irony is so lost on the web.

No, no, it's like coppery, only a darker color so it's harder to see. If they can afford to build 100 H2 stations in California, they can afford to build the 6 that it would take to reach Denver and the 100-125 mile radius around it (Winnemuca, Wells, SLC, Crescent Junction, Glenwood Springs, Denver) via I-80, or the 5 to reach Seattle likewise via I-5 (Red Bluff/Redding, Ashland/Medford/Grant's Pass, Eugene, Portland, Seattle). Seattle to Spokane just needs three, in Ellensburg/Moses Lake/Ritzville, Spokane), and so on across Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, although there's absolutely no need to do that now. Assuming that FCEVs have adequate sales in California and the Northeast and renewable H2 starts dropping in price, then the obvious next step remains the I-5 and I-95 corridors on each coast, opening up more potential markets along the way.

Seattle WA to Grand Forks:
1,482.5 mi, ND, 5 hr 30 minutes on Delta
20 hr 54 min by gasoline car (or the stunt of battery swap BEVs)
30 hr 22 min by Amtrak
40 hr 58 min with Superchargers (have to go through Baxter)
Sometime next decade at the very earliest for Hydrogen

Good, we actually agree that anyone who can afford an FCEV or a BEV with comparable range can afford to fly, and their time's valuable enough that it makes no sense to do otherwise for business beyond a few hours driving time.

Well, actually we don't agree. Good sales technique, however. Do go on with your hyping of hydrogen. This stunt isn't even close to the average usage of cars in the USA. Of course, you know that.

The average trip of a car is 13.6 miles from home. Hydrogen and battery swaps are both wildly expensive and inconvenient. Why not charge at home?

Oh, and range isn't everything, or sailing ships would still be ruling the waves.

Why not charge at home? Wet, you seem incapable of acknowledging that not everyone can. I'm happy to acknowledge that anyone who does have convenient, low-cost charging at home and/or work, and can afford a BEV that meets their needs is a good prospect for one. For all of us who don't fit that description, but who might want to drive a ZEV, can afford it and it fits our needs, an FCEV is the only choice.

Range isn't everything? Certainly, but for anyone who takes frequent road trips it's a major requirement, one that's currently not quite matched by far more expensive BEVs. All those who don't care about emissions or having the latest tech toy will just stick with even longer-ranged ICEs.

As to this being a stunt, sure - all record attempts are stunts. What it does demonstrate is that some of the major road trip routes in the state are as easy to do in an FCEV as they are in an ICE, in the same amount of time, AND that where you choose to eat/sleep isn't determined by where you stop to refuel, just like gas/diesel. In short, anyone who's used to an ICE can make the transition almost seamlessly, and that's why people like me believe they have a decent chance, always assuming that prices can be brought down sufficiently.