GRA
Posts: 9510
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:37 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:I'm glad we reached an understanding about our respective positions. As you've pointed out, we disagree on some of it.

As for the other questions ...



Nuclear had its role when it was first discovered. With the alternatives that we have now, I would ban the construction of any new plants, and let the existing ones run until their fuel have been spent, and then shut them down as well. The fuel is radioactive already, so might as well make use of them before burying them for the next 10k years.

Much like your false dichotomy of gasoline versus H2, it's not a choice between coal and nuclear. There are other options.

If you're asking which I'd choose if I HAD to choose between coal and nuclear, then I would choose coal. Nuclear takes a huge investment in time, material, and capital to get started. Coal would be more of a stop-gap measure until a third, more beneficial choice is available.

Based on how you phrased your question, I guess we disagree here as well.


No, judging by the bold I think we agree. My question was which of the two existing generation sources should Germany have chosen to keep running more of the time while they switched to renewables, not which they should build more of. What they chose to do was increase the use of existing coal plants while closing the existing nukes, not build more coal plants, c.f. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14/germany-is-burning-too-much-coal

We didn't agree. The nuclear power plants that Germany closed were over 30 years old and were due to be refueled anyway. Germany's doing exactly what I advocated (shut them down after their fuel was spent, despite the fact that the plant itself was still servicable). They just don't have enough wind/solar/hydro to compensate for the drop in output, so they had no choice but to rely on extending their coal plants - a stopgap measure until more renewable power or batteries are deployed.

Okay. Many of Germany's nukes were shut down well before they reached end of life or needed refueling - see the summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

To me, even if they needed refueling, the small additional quantity of spent fuel from refueling existing plants is far less of a hazard than the pollution from increased coal emissions, especially when that coal is the dirtiest variety. That was the choice that Germany made, when they knew they would need either nukes or coal to to bridge the gap to renewables, and coal-generated electricity has increased.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Great, you've just pointed out why the choice should be between ICE, PHEV, and BEV. I've tried to write out the litany of reasons why H2 isn't a contender in any of the scenarios, but I already have an idea of what your response would be. Suffice it to say that all my reasons support my case that the benefits do not justify the risks, and you would disagree, feeling that the benefits are worth the risks. So we'll just have to agree to disagree here as well.

Fair enough, I would just point out that neither ICE or PHEV are ZEV, which is the desired endpoint, but PHEVs are the obvious transition technology. BTW, care to guess which is the only commonly used transportation energy source that doesn't require hazardous placards sometimes (gasoline is Flammable Liquid; liquid or compressed H2 or CH4 is Flammable Gas, and Li-ion batteries are Misc. [Class 9]; see https://www.general-data.com/about/blog/hazard-class-9-hazard-class-labels-explained? Although it's classified as Combustible Liquid, because of its high flashpoint diesel fuel sometimes doesn't require placarding if not transported in bulk (checking, the current limit seems to be under 120 gallons). If I've followed your logic correctly, because it's the safest energy storage from the standpoint of fire or explosion, we should ignore its much larger negative health effects due to air or water pollution and use it in preference to all other transportation energy sources. I doubt that's what you're advocating, but it does follow.

Those placards are only used when transporting them as cargo, not as a primary means of propulsion. So no, you didn't follow my logic correctly. The fuels relative safety during transport has ZERO bearing on the fuels safety during use, so it would never be factored into what I advocate.

If it's safe enough to transport in quantities of less than 120 gallons, then it's certainly safe enough to use in much smaller quantities. After all, that''s why the U.S. military switched from gasoline to diesel after WW2 for ground transport and combat vehicles, and the switch from AvGas to jet fuel similarly reduced the risk of fuel fires and explosions on a/c carriers (which isn't to say they can't happen, but it usually takes some sort of explosion to set them off). Conventional submarines had long since switched from gas to diesel for the same reason (better range is also a factor, but the improved safety was the major motivation).

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Exactly. There's a filling station near where they work, but not where they live, so weekend trips are tedious or out of the question. Additionally, one left her job, so she now has to drive out of her way to the dealership just to refuel. If it weren't for the smooth electric motor and free fuel, they would've turned the cars in already.

Yeah, that's the risk you take when the infrastructure's still nascent. Will any of the under construction or newly awarded stations make a difference, or are the cars going back to Toyota before they could help (I assume they leased rather than bought, given the uncertainties)?
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:45 pm

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
No, judging by the bold I think we agree. My question was which of the two existing generation sources should Germany have chosen to keep running more of the time while they switched to renewables, not which they should build more of. What they chose to do was increase the use of existing coal plants while closing the existing nukes, not build more coal plants, c.f. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-14/germany-is-burning-too-much-coal

We didn't agree. The nuclear power plants that Germany closed were over 30 years old and were due to be refueled anyway. Germany's doing exactly what I advocated (shut them down after their fuel was spent, despite the fact that the plant itself was still servicable). They just don't have enough wind/solar/hydro to compensate for the drop in output, so they had no choice but to rely on extending their coal plants - a stopgap measure until more renewable power or batteries are deployed.

Okay. Many of Germany's nukes were shut down well before they reached end of life or needed refueling - see the summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

To me, even if they needed refueling, the small additional quantity of spent fuel from refueling existing plants is far less of a hazard than the pollution from increased coal emissions, especially when that coal is the dirtiest variety. That was the choice that Germany made, when they knew they would need either nukes or coal to to bridge the gap to renewables, and coal-generated electricity has increased.


Your link does not support your claim that they were shut down before needing refueling. But that doesn't matter. The fact that you think refueling the nukes were preferable to extending coal already shows that we disagreed.


GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:Fair enough, I would just point out that neither ICE or PHEV are ZEV, which is the desired endpoint, but PHEVs are the obvious transition technology. BTW, care to guess which is the only commonly used transportation energy source that doesn't require hazardous placards sometimes (gasoline is Flammable Liquid; liquid or compressed H2 or CH4 is Flammable Gas, and Li-ion batteries are Misc. [Class 9]; see https://www.general-data.com/about/blog/hazard-class-9-hazard-class-labels-explained? Although it's classified as Combustible Liquid, because of its high flashpoint diesel fuel sometimes doesn't require placarding if not transported in bulk (checking, the current limit seems to be under 120 gallons). If I've followed your logic correctly, because it's the safest energy storage from the standpoint of fire or explosion, we should ignore its much larger negative health effects due to air or water pollution and use it in preference to all other transportation energy sources. I doubt that's what you're advocating, but it does follow.

Those placards are only used when transporting them as cargo, not as a primary means of propulsion. So no, you didn't follow my logic correctly. The fuels relative safety during transport has ZERO bearing on the fuels safety during use, so it would never be factored into what I advocate.

If it's safe enough to transport in quantities of less than 120 gallons, then it's certainly safe enough to use in much smaller quantities. After all, that''s why the U.S. military switched from gasoline to diesel after WW2 for ground transport and combat vehicles, and the switch from AvGas to jet fuel similarly reduced the risk of fuel fires and explosions on a/c carriers (which isn't to say they can't happen, but it usually takes some sort of explosion to set them off). Conventional submarines had long since switched from gas to diesel for the same reason (better range is also a factor, but the improved safety was the major motivation).


Are you really going to continue with this?! Try shipping 1 gallon of diesel by air (or even 2 fluid oz's of it as a carry-on), and see how far you can do so? While small quantities of lithium batteries are now being permitted. The transportability of a fuel is a red-herring on its safe usage.


GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Exactly. There's a filling station near where they work, but not where they live, so weekend trips are tedious or out of the question. Additionally, one left her job, so she now has to drive out of her way to the dealership just to refuel. If it weren't for the smooth electric motor and free fuel, they would've turned the cars in already.

Yeah, that's the risk you take when the infrastructure's still nascent. Will any of the under construction or newly awarded stations make a difference, or are the cars going back to Toyota before they could help (I assume they leased rather than bought, given the uncertainties)?


Yes, they were leased. And yes, they're going back. The stations aren't proliferating enough to make a difference. The fact that I can drive to further destinations in my 107-mile leaf than they can in their 300-mile FCEV is annoying to them. Although I mentioned it, I didn't impress upon them enough of how convenient waking up with a full charge really was. I'll try to remember to do so this year.

Besides, Honda's releasing their PHEV Clarity soon. Although they wouldn't consider a tesla (anti-selling by their "friends" at the toyota dealership), a Honda isn't out of the question.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333

GRA
Posts: 9510
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:57 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:We didn't agree. The nuclear power plants that Germany closed were over 30 years old and were due to be refueled anyway. Germany's doing exactly what I advocated (shut them down after their fuel was spent, despite the fact that the plant itself was still servicable). They just don't have enough wind/solar/hydro to compensate for the drop in output, so they had no choice but to rely on extending their coal plants - a stopgap measure until more renewable power or batteries are deployed.

Okay. Many of Germany's nukes were shut down well before they reached end of life or needed refueling - see the summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

To me, even if they needed refueling, the small additional quantity of spent fuel from refueling existing plants is far less of a hazard than the pollution from increased coal emissions, especially when that coal is the dirtiest variety. That was the choice that Germany made, when they knew they would need either nukes or coal to to bridge the gap to renewables, and coal-generated electricity has increased.

Your link does not support your claim that they were shut down before needing refueling. But that doesn't matter. The fact that you think refueling the nukes were preferable to extending coal already shows that we disagreed.

Okay.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Those placards are only used when transporting them as cargo, not as a primary means of propulsion. So no, you didn't follow my logic correctly. The fuels relative safety during transport has ZERO bearing on the fuels safety during use, so it would never be factored into what I advocate.

If it's safe enough to transport in quantities of less than 120 gallons, then it's certainly safe enough to use in much smaller quantities. After all, that''s why the U.S. military switched from gasoline to diesel after WW2 for ground transport and combat vehicles, and the switch from AvGas to jet fuel similarly reduced the risk of fuel fires and explosions on a/c carriers (which isn't to say they can't happen, but it usually takes some sort of explosion to set them off). Conventional submarines had long since switched from gas to diesel for the same reason (better range is also a factor, but the improved safety was the major motivation).

Are you really going to continue with this?! Try shipping 1 gallon of diesel by air (or even 2 fluid oz's of it as a carry-on), and see how far you can do so? While small quantities of lithium batteries are now being permitted. The transportability of a fuel is a red-herring on its safe usage.

What do you think jet fuel is? https://generalaviationnews.com/2011/03/17/jet-a-versus-diesel-fuel/

Most military vehicles can use either diesel or JP-8, which is the universal U.S. military fuel (note, the navy still uses JP-5 when their a/c are on-board ship, owing to its higher flashpoint, and JP-8 on land, as the latter's cheaper). Every long haul tractor on the road is hauling around 2-300 gallions of diesel, and of course the EU was favoring diesel over gas for a couple of decades, with a majority of LDVs using it. Their recent switch against diesel isn't due to it being more hazardous when it comes to fire/explosion hazard.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Exactly. There's a filling station near where they work, but not where they live, so weekend trips are tedious or out of the question. Additionally, one left her job, so she now has to drive out of her way to the dealership just to refuel. If it weren't for the smooth electric motor and free fuel, they would've turned the cars in already.

Yeah, that's the risk you take when the infrastructure's still nascent. Will any of the under construction or newly awarded stations make a difference, or are the cars going back to Toyota before they could help (I assume they leased rather than bought, given the uncertainties)?

Yes, they were leased. And yes, they're going back. The stations aren't proliferating enough to make a difference. The fact that I can drive to further destinations in my 107-mile leaf than they can in their 300-mile FCEV is annoying to them. Although I mentioned it, I didn't impress upon them enough of how convenient waking up with a full charge really was. I'll try to remember to do so this year.

Besides, Honda's releasing their PHEV Clarity soon. Although they wouldn't consider a tesla (anti-selling by their "friends" at the toyota dealership), a Honda isn't out of the question.

Clarity PHEV's already available - I saw a bunch at the dealer earlier this month, and they sold/leased close to 600 in January.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9510
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:47 pm

February Mirai sales per IEVS: 166 (110 in 2/17), vs. 243 for the once-again available Clarity FCEV.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9510
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:39 pm

Via GCC:
London Met Police to field 11 Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/03/20180314-met.html

. . . The first of 11 Toyota Mirai FCVs cars have been delivered to the Met with support from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (FCHJU) grants program and are equipped to work as both marked and unmarked vehicles for overt and covert response, as well as general purpose use.

The Mirai will have access to five hydrogen filling stations across the capital—a number that’s set to increase in the future. On a tank of fuel, each car will be able to cover approximately 300 miles (483 km). . . .

    . . . Since late 2015 we have been actively looking at ways to hybridize and electrify our fleet as well as exploring other new technologies such as hydrogen. This is enabling us to make great strides towards our ambition of procuring 550 vehicles as zero or ultra-low emission by 2020.

    —Met Commander Neil Jerome
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9510
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:36 pm

March U.S. Mirai sales per IEVS: 83 (down from 166 last month) vs. 121 for the Clarity FCEV.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:39 pm

GRA wrote:March U.S. Mirai sales per IEVS: 83 (down from 166 last month) vs. 121 for the Clarity FCEV.
Just like Honda with the H2 FCV Clarity, Toyota sold exactly half as many Mirais as last month.

It's good to see the numbers moving in the right direction for these things!
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

JasonA
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 10:16 am
Delivery Date: 04 May 2013
Location: Sylmar, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:04 am

RegGuheert wrote:It's good to see the numbers moving in the right direction for these things!
You mean DOWN?? :lol:

So this thread is 4 years old now and I know I have some pretty legendary arguments in here somewhere as well as Tony and a few others. There has always been "those" people saying H2 is right around the corner ready to KILL THE ELECTRIC CAR!! :lol:

Well... here we are 2018 now people, how many new H2 vehicles AND stations are there compared to EV's now?

Funny, My MS & MX are loving all the SpC stations and build out (even new CHAdeMO stuff around), neighbor got a deal on a Fugly Mirai and is like :? This fueling sucks! LOL.

Ahhh... that H2 life! :lol:
2012 10kw Dual LQ cooled Brusa powered Leaf "Astro"
13kw Enphase System,SolarWorld Panels, QuickMountPV- ALL USA!!
2014 Rav4 "SuperRav"with JdeMO (CHAdeMO)
2015 MS-70D

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:32 pm

JasonA wrote:...neighbor got a deal on a Fugly Mirai and is like :? This fueling sucks! LOL.
I think it's funny that your neighbor hates the one and only "draw" of H2 FCVs! :lol:
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 9510
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:04 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
JasonA wrote:...neighbor got a deal on a Fugly Mirai and is like :? This fueling sucks! LOL.
I think it's funny that your neighbor hates the one and only "draw" of H2 FCVs! :lol:

If correct, it certainly shows that they didn't evaluate their needs and desires well before buying.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”