Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

[GRA]

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.

Good, now extend this line of thought and apply it to why many people will find FCEVs an easier transition than BEVs.

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.

Uh huh, which is true of all AFVs regardless of fuel source, environmental reasons aside. Tesla, OTOH, is selling cachet and performance, but what happens when they lose much of their 'cool factor', as inevitably happens with all fads? They'll still have a performance advantage, but BMW, Audi, Porsche and others are perfectly capable of matching them now that they're actually trying, so that advantage has a limited shelf life, ending by 2020 at the latest.

 

[WetEV]

renewable H2 starts dropping in price,

Just a 10x or so reduction in cost... Sure, smaller (5x reduction) for hydrogen from natural gas, but that's not renewable. Plus more reductions in station cost. Plus more reductions in fuel cell costs. Then fuel cells would be even with gasoline. And hydrogen might to catch on a little bit, slowly, at the edges. Kinda like BEVs have been for the past six years.

A 10x reduction in battery cost per kWh would be earth shaking. It would make BEVs with huge batteries cheaper to buy than gasoline cars. Without subsidies.

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?

Why not charge at home? Wet, you seem incapable of acknowledging that not everyone can.

Sure, not everyone can. So what? A problem for the future.

Right now, BEV market share can double, double again, double yet again, double another time, double yet another time, and still not run out of people that can charge at home. Even if nothing changes. And by then, things will change.

To get to most vehicles are BEVs, need to double market share a little more than 7 times. Only the about the last doubling would be limited by people currently unable to charge at home or work. I'd be happy to see the BEV market double twice a decade. So this is 30 years or thereabouts into the future. Maybe less, maybe more. Depends on things I don't have a clue on how will work out, starting with the future price of oil/gasoline.

I suspect that FCEVs are mostly going to be valuable as development platforms for other uses, such as general aviation, static power generation, and probably more. Probably worth doing, but not for general use transportation.

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.

FCEVs, without subsidies, look to be very expensive. A Tesla plus a few of own personal Supercharger stations might well be cheaper in the long run. Or maybe two Tesla's with one on a personal L2 station stashed half way...

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

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.

In the very last doubling of BEVs, this is yet another issue that will need to be faced. How to meet the wants and desires of the minority that takes frequent road trips. I suspect BEVs might come closer 30 years from now than they do today.

 

[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.

Good, now extend this line of thought and apply it to why many people will find FCEVs an easier transition than BEVs.

Don't forget the much higher costs of FCEVs. Not to mention some unique risks to FCEVs.

Tesla, OTOH, is selling cachet and performance, but what happens when they lose much of their 'cool factor', as inevitably happens with all fads? They'll still have a performance advantage, but BMW, Audi, Porsche and others are perfectly capable of matching them now that they're actually trying, so that advantage has a limited shelf life, ending by 2020 at the latest.

BMW, Audi, Porsche and others are going to match Tesla in the BEV space? Cool, I never would have guessed that. Musk wins by losing.

Next thing you know, we might hear some wild rumor that GM is going to try to beat Nissan with a much longer range affordable BEV.

 

[RegGuheert]

The average trip of a car is 13.6 miles from home.

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

Actually, you have imagined that there is poor acceptance of BEVs by consumers. In actuality, BEVs have ramped up significantly faster than gasoline-electric hybrids did thirteen years prior. Specifically, worldwide sales of the Nissan LEAF has outpaced those of the Toyota Prius during its ramp-up by a significant margin. The difference is that the Toyota Prius was the dominant hybrid electric vehicle at that time. The ramp of BEVs is not a one-pony race, however. Cumulative global sales of the Tesla Model S may eventually catch up to the LEAF, even though it went on sale much later. There are many other competitors in the race, as well. The bottom line is that BEVs have outpaced hybrids by a 3X to 4X margin. And this is all true while PHEVs have enjoyed a similar ramp in worldwide popularity during the exact same period as BEVs were growing sales.

My observation is that many people I know are VERY interested in purchasing a BEV. However, the range of the current crop (that is affordable) is insufficient for their needs. That will all change when the Chevy Bolt ships with a 238-mile EPA range in a couple of months. Expect sales of BEVs to accelerate even more rapidly from that point onward.

 

[sparky]

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

Uh huh, which is true of all AFVs regardless of fuel source, environmental reasons aside. Tesla, OTOH, is selling cachet and performance, but what happens when they lose much of their 'cool factor', as inevitably happens with all fads? They'll still have a performance advantage, but BMW, Audi, Porsche and others are perfectly capable of matching them now that they're actually trying, so that advantage has a limited shelf life, ending by 2020 at the latest.

BMW, Audi Porsche etc all sell on cachet and performance. They're were just as faddish until the current crop of Tesla models. Now they're scrambling.
The trouble with FCVs is they'll never achieve faddishness since they offer so little enjoyment for the $ compared to a decent oil-burner. Some here continually overlook the dismal acceptance of FCVs and the lack of excitement generated by any future offerings. They remain "penalty cars".
I see no market "pull" for FCVs, only "push" from some manufacturers and CARB.

 

[WetEV]

The trouble with FCVs is they'll never achieve faddishness since they offer so little enjoyment for the $ compared to a decent oil-burner. Some here continually overlook the dismal acceptance of FCVs and the lack of excitement generated by any future offerings. They remain "penalty cars".
I see no market "pull" for FCVs, only "push" from some manufacturers and CARB.

This might change, if the price for hydrogen wasn't so high. Or if the price of gasoline was much much higher. Both of which seem unlikely for decades.

Still, FCEVs would lose to BEVs for commuting and most around town driving due to higher costs and less convenience.

 

[lorenfb]

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.

Given that the "BEV sales rate are a little under 1%." and compounding over ten years would indicate that by
2026, BEVs sales volume would have only expanded by 10%. That's a very very poor penetration of the overall
consumer transportation market. The key factor affecting this growth rate, besides gas prices, is future battery
costs. So unless battery costs significantly decline and/or gas prices significantly increase, BEVs will
experience a poor growth rate. Therefore, the FCEV has more long term potential given that it's in its infancy
stage of growth with more achievable critical factors, i.e. reduced H2 fuel costs, infrastructure development,
& fuel cell cost reduction. Those factors are potentially more realistic than a dependence on significant future
battery cost reductions and/or major increases in gas prices.

 

[edatoakrun]

Fire sale...

Monthly lease payments cut by ~$150:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/21/toyota-mirai-lease-rate-dropped-349-month/

 

[GRA]

Uh huh, which is true of all AFVs regardless of fuel source, environmental reasons aside. Tesla, OTOH, is selling cachet and performance, but what happens when they lose much of their 'cool factor', as inevitably happens with all fads? They'll still have a performance advantage, but BMW, Audi, Porsche and others are perfectly capable of matching them now that they're actually trying, so that advantage has a limited shelf life, ending by 2020 at the latest.

BMW, Audi Porsche etc all sell on cachet and performance. They're were just as faddish until the current crop of Tesla models. Now they're scrambling.[./quote]Exactly my point. What happens when Tesla is no longer the exciting new kid on the block, offering something that no one else does? They're already starting to be looked at more critically, with the design goofs and quality issues on the Model X and the safety issues with Autopilot, and once the other manufacturers offer competing products Tesla's biggest remaining advantage is gone.

The trouble with FCVs is they'll never achieve faddishness since they offer so little enjoyment for the $ compared to a decent oil-burner. Some here continually overlook the dismal acceptance of FCVs and the lack of excitement generated by any future offerings. They remain "penalty cars".
I see no market "pull" for FCVs, only "push" from some manufacturers and CARB.

You say "they'll never achieve faddishness because they offer so little enjoyment for the $". They certainly don't offer the same level of performance now, but that's a design choice, not one mandated by the tech. Personally, I think Toyota should have aimed at the higher-end Lexus crowd (much as Tesla did) instead of the better-off end of the Prius/Camry group for their first serial production FCEV, but that was their call. I think Hyundai made a better decision by going with a CUV, although the Tucson's cell stack is 1/2 to one full generation behind Toyota's (and Honda's), limiting the range and performance a bit, but they introduced it here before there were enough full commercial H2 stations to adequately support it in the initial core areas, which hurt them, and they haven't advertised it at all since AFAIA. Still, they're pushing ahead with the next gen, which should improve on the Tucson for range and likely, performance.

 

[GRA]

Fire sale...

Monthly lease payments cut by ~$150:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/21/toyota-mirai-lease-rate-dropped-349-month/

Wow! That's starting to be an great deal when you include free fuel, and should really boost numbers: $2,499 + ($349 x 36) = $15,063 for three years of driving or $5,021/yr including free maintenance and 7 days of free rentals (for those road trips where H2 stations aren't available), when AAA says the typical car currently costs $8,558/year for everything (including insurance, depreciation etc. which isn't included in the Mirai cost). I wonder what they cost to insure? Maybe Toyota has figured out a way to increase production substantially beyond the 3k/year they said they were restricted to a while back, because at that price I won't be at all surprised if they can sustain the 370/month sales rate (or increase it) they achieved last month. Maybe this is a push to boost sales before the end of the year when the current $8k fed. tax credit expires.

Of course, they're losing even more thousands per car now, but they've always been willing to take a long-term view, even if it costs them a bundle in the short-term. I'm looking forward to seeing the effect of this on the next few month's sales (lease) numbers.

 

[RegGuheert]

Fire sale...

Monthly lease payments cut by ~$150:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/21/toyota-mirai-lease-rate-dropped-349-month/

Wow! That's starting to be an great deal when you include free fuel, and should really boost numbers. Maybe Toyota has figured out a way to increase production substantially beyond the 3k/year they said they were restricted to a while back, because at that price I won't be at all surprised if they can sustain the 370/month sales rate (or increase it) they achieved last month.

With no evidence to support that imagined idea, we'll all consider it just that: imaginary.

Maybe this is a push to boost sales before the end of the year when the current $8k fed. tax credit expires.

Almost certainly that is the reason. In other words, damned few people want a Toyota Mirai for $500/month, even with fuel and maintenance provided.

 

[GRA]

Fire sale...

Monthly lease payments cut by ~$150:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/21/toyota-mirai-lease-rate-dropped-349-month/

Wow! That's starting to be an great deal when you include free fuel, and should really boost numbers. Maybe Toyota has figured out a way to increase production substantially beyond the 3k/year they said they were restricted to a while back, because at that price I won't be at all surprised if they can sustain the 370/month sales rate (or increase it) they achieved last month.

With no evidence to support that imagined idea, we'll all consider it just that: imaginary.

Sure, it's pure supposition, but they're selling the Mirai in many countries, and 3k/year would seem to be tough to spread around if they're able to sell 300+/month here for the next several months.

Maybe this is a push to boost sales before the end of the year when the current $8k fed. tax credit expires.

Almost certainly that is the reason. In other words, damned few people want a Toyota Mirai for $500/month, even with fuel and maintenance provided.

Up to 371 of them wanted one last month, an over 600% increase from the preceding month, although we don't know how many of those were fleet versus private sales. OTOH, Tesla is also offering massive incentives this month to boost Q3 numbers. Does no one want their cars either?

 

[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.

Given that the "BEV sales rate are a little under 1%." and compounding over ten years would indicate that by
2026, BEVs sales volume would have only expanded by 10%. That's a very very poor penetration of the overall
consumer transportation market. The key factor affecting this growth rate, besides gas prices, is future battery
costs. So unless battery costs significantly decline and/or gas prices significantly increase, BEVs will
experience a poor growth rate. Therefore, the FCEV has more long term potential given that it's in its infancy
stage of growth with more achievable critical factors, i.e. reduced H2 fuel costs, infrastructure development,
& fuel cell cost reduction. Those factors are potentially more realistic than a dependence on significant future
battery cost reductions and/or major increases in gas prices.

Maybe I should have said market share, same thing. Sales rate = fraction of SomeKindofCarSold/TotalNumberOfCarsSold

The growth rate is not 1%. Hard to expect a consistent growth rate. Hybrid cars have not had one.

Battery costs have declined significantly, and may continue to do so for a while. We seem to be in a pause just before a list of new cars with about 60kWh batteries and 300+ km range get released. Bolt, Leaf2, VW rumor, Model 3, and so on. At about the same price as the Leaf first sold for.

FCEV has a big cost problem, and while subsidies can paper over such a problem for a few cars, the FCEV is less competitive today than the BEV was in 1999. Unlike the BEV, however, there are multiple cost problems to solve. Fuel cost is much higher than alternatives. Fuel cells are expensive, but might get cheaper and use less Platinum. Fueling stations are expensive.

The big problem with FCEVs is the fuel cost problem. Unless the fuel cost problem is solved fuel cell powered cars will be rare.

Gasoline prices are hard to predict. While I expect the trend is up, I expect wild swings.

 

[edatoakrun]

Fire sale...

Monthly lease payments cut by ~$150:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/21/toyota-mirai-lease-rate-dropped-349-month/

Wow! That's starting to be an great deal...

Thank CARB, which still awards more than $30k worth of ZEV credits to Toyota for each one of these POS they can unload:

Good story on CARB's dysfunctional ZEV credit market, with interesting report of current market values of credits.

No wonder you can lease a new LEAF so cheaply, and why most all the compliance BEVs are even cheaper...

California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Program Is Stuck in Neutral

Toyota’s zero-emission vehicle sales in California this year amount to a drop of hydrogen in an ocean of gasoline.

The world’s largest automaker has so far sold about 270 hydrogen fuel cell cars in the state, where it delivered nearly 400,000 gas-powered vehicles last year, according to an Edmunds.com analysis of IHS Markit data. Toyota ( tm ) does not currently sell an electric vehicle.

And yet the automaker will have no trouble meeting California’s zero-emission vehicle mandates — because it can satisfy those obligations with state-awarded environmental credits instead of current zero-emission vehicle sales...

the Toyota Mirai and the Honda Clarity will pay off handsomely in credits — nine of them for each sale, compared to four credits the state now gives a Tesla Model S or the three it gives a Nissan Leaf.

The credits are currently worth about $3,000 to $4,000 each, according to a source with knowledge of the private credit-trading market among automakers. But they are worth far more to Toyota and Honda as a mechanism to satisfy state mandates while continuing to sell hundreds of thousands of gasoline-powered vehicles each year in California, the nation’s biggest auto market...http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/california-zero-emission-vehicle-sales/

CARB ZEV credits for rapid refueling, gone in 2018?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19907&start=40

 

[GRA]

Fire sale...

Monthly lease payments cut by ~$150:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/21/toyota-mirai-lease-rate-dropped-349-month/

Wow! That's starting to be an great deal...

Thank CARB, which still awards more than $30k worth of ZEV credits to Toyota for each one of these POS they can unload:

While I'm no fan of the credit system, I do thank CARB for all the PEVs and FCEVs that are available for people to buy or lease, because without CARB there simply wouldn't be any.

 

[edatoakrun]

...The big problem with FCEVs is the fuel cost problem. Unless the fuel cost problem is solved fuel cell powered cars will be rare...

Honda licked this problem, with its Clarity.

Give the buyer the option to get rid of the fuel cell and add batteries, allowing these electric vehicles to use cheap and widely available electricity as fuel.

Brilliant!

 

[GetOffYourGas]

...The big problem with FCEVs is the fuel cost problem. Unless the fuel cost problem is solved fuel cell powered cars will be rare...

Honda licked this problem, with its Clarity.

Give the buyer the option to get rid of the fuel cell and add batteries, allowing these electric vehicles to use cheap and widely available electricity as fuel.

Brilliant!

Too bad the electric version is years away. But they'll sell the fuel cell Clarity this year, and the PHEV probably next year.

 

[RegGuheert]

Toilet Power: Toyota is using sewage sludge to power its new electric car:

Currently, the Fukuoka plant produces 300 kilograms of hydrogen per day, enough to fuel 65 Mirai vehicles, Tanaka says.

You can tell Tanaka is not in marketing. 300 kilograms/day is enough to continuously fuel a fleet of about 400 Toyota Mirais.

If you follow the link, you will also see a cool picture of the underside of the Mirai at the top of the page.

 

[GRA]

Toilet Power: Toyota is using sewage sludge to power its new electric car:

Currently, the Fukuoka plant produces 300 kilograms of hydrogen per day, enough to fuel 65 Mirai vehicles, Tanaka says.

You can tell Tanaka is not in marketing. 300 kilograms/day is enough to continuously fuel a fleet of about 400 Toyota Mirais.

If you follow the link, you will also see a cool picture of the underside of the Mirai at the top of the page.

Nice photo. What they mean is that they can fuel 65 Mirais per day with about a 4.5 kg. fill (65 x 4.5 = 292.5), which is probably what most people will take once they can count on multiple H2 stations, assuming they keep about 0.5 kg. as a reserve.

 

[RegGuheert]

Toilet Power: Toyota is using sewage sludge to power its new electric car:

Currently, the Fukuoka plant produces 300 kilograms of hydrogen per day, enough to fuel 65 Mirai vehicles, Tanaka says.

You can tell Tanaka is not in marketing. 300 kilograms/day is enough to continuously fuel a fleet of about 400 Toyota Mirais.

If you follow the link, you will also see a cool picture of the underside of the Mirai at the top of the page.

Nice photo. What they mean is that they can fuel 65 Mirais per day with about a 4.5 kg. fill (65 x 4.5 = 292.5), which is probably what most people will take once they can count of multiple H2 stations, assuming they keep about 0.5 kg. as a reserve.

I get what they mean. That doesn't change my point. What is important is how big of a fleet can be supported, not how many cars can be fueled per day.