GRA
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:08 pm

<snip>
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You can't mix death tolls in other industries and expect that to fly as an apropos analogy, that's bad logic. On its own merits, H2 does NOTHING to alleviate the auto accident and opiod deaths, nor would it do anything to resolve the pipeline deaths. The air pollution deaths caused by automobiles are in dense urban environments, where they're better solved by BEV's (lower costs and at higher energy efficiencies). Once the superfluous info is removed, you'll see that there's VERY LITTLE benefit that H2 provides (zero emission long-range travel) for its cost.

On the contrary, I'm giving examples of about worrying about the real massive but diffuse risks, rather than concentrating on rare but spectacular ones that are essentially in the noise as fa as death tolls, and thus should fall way down the priority list. There've probably been a few thousand people killed by NG or H2 explosions (far more have died of gasoline fires) in the last century world-wide, but for the sake of argument let's round it up to 10,000, and furthermore assume that over the next 50 years we'll shift completely to H2 and that over that time frame the total dead from those accidents will increase to 100k. Put that up against 5,000,000 dying worldwide each year from air pollution, or the ~600k Americans who die every year from heart disease, and you tell me which are the greater risks, and where we should be putting our money and attention.

We agree that for anyone who can take advantage of them, BEVs are the best choice in urban areas. But since many people in urban areas simply can't take advantage of them owing to having no where to charge (did you see that 56% of Los Angeles residents live in MUDs, or 67% of San Franciscans, i.e. not some third world cities where MUDs are the norm, and detached single family homes are uncommon), and won't for decades even if we build charging infrastructure in all new housing and business construction from now on, then some other form of ZEV will need to take up the slack. At the moment, only FCEVs using H2 can do that. Whether BEV or FCEV, ZEVs will need to be combined with AVs to reduce the total number of motor vehicles, along with mass transit, walking and biking. We seem to agree that coal is the worst fossil fuel and needs to be got rid of first, but where's the worst air pollution in the world? India and China, both heavily dependent on coal-fired electricity, so BEVs aren't a panacea. If anything, until they can radically clean up their grids it would probably be better for them to use more oil and NG rather than less, if it means they can replace burning coal.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:And long-haul trucking will soon be knocked over as a kingpin of the fuel cell argument. Nikola Motors has YET to produce their truck in volume. If they don't hurry soon, then Tesla will kill their market in 2019 when the semi is expected to be released - a truck that's both lower-cost to operate, and cleaner than diesel.

Seeing as how neither company has yet produced a production vehicle, we can expect Tesla to be late, and the announced capabilities of their semis are poorly suited to long haul trucking, there's a ways to go before either tech can make a significant impact. P&D, port drayage, distribution, shuttle and short haul will be the metier for both of them until the infrastructure's built (and the BEV's capabilities improve).
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
Gold Member
Posts: 367
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 18, 2018 10:14 pm

GRA wrote:<snip>
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You can't mix death tolls in other industries and expect that to fly as an apropos analogy, that's bad logic. On its own merits, H2 does NOTHING to alleviate the auto accident and opiod deaths, nor would it do anything to resolve the pipeline deaths. The air pollution deaths caused by automobiles are in dense urban environments, where they're better solved by BEV's (lower costs and at higher energy efficiencies). Once the superfluous info is removed, you'll see that there's VERY LITTLE benefit that H2 provides (zero emission long-range travel) for its cost.

On the contrary, I'm giving examples of about worrying about the real massive but diffuse risks, rather than concentrating on rare but spectacular ones that are essentially in the noise as fa as death tolls, and thus should fall way down the priority list. There've probably been a few thousand people killed by NG or H2 explosions (far more have died of gasoline fires) in the last century world-wide, but for the sake of argument let's round it up to 10,000, and furthermore assume that over the next 50 years we'll shift completely to H2 and that over that time frame the total dead from those accidents will increase to 100k. Put that up against 5,000,000 dying worldwide each year from air pollution, or the ~600k Americans who die every year from heart disease, and you tell me which are the greater risks, and where we should be putting our money and attention.


That's a HUGELY flawed assumption you've made there. Compressed H2 and [high pressure] CNG death totals are only "rare", because they aren't as widely deployed as gasoline. You've taken the total death toll of a low-utilization fuel and compared it with a high-utilization fuel and have incorrectly drawn safety comparisons off of that. Increasing the deployment frequency will have a corresponding increase in death toll.

GRA wrote:We agree that for anyone who can take advantage of them, BEVs are the best choice in urban areas. But since many people in urban areas simply can't take advantage of them owing to having no where to charge (did you see that 56% of Los Angeles residents live in MUDs, or 67% of San Franciscans, i.e. not some third world cities where MUDs are the norm, and detached single family homes are uncommon), and won't for decades even if we build charging infrastructure in all new housing and business construction from now on, then some other form of ZEV will need to take up the slack. At the moment, only FCEVs using H2 can do that. Whether BEV or FCEV, ZEVs will need to be combined with AVs to reduce the total number of motor vehicles, along with mass transit, walking and biking. We seem to agree that coal is the worst fossil fuel and needs to be got rid of first, but where's the worst air pollution in the world? India and China, both heavily dependent on coal-fired electricity, so BEVs aren't a panacea. If anything, until they can radically clean up their grids it would probably be better for them to use more oil and NG rather than less, if it means they can replace burning coal.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:And long-haul trucking will soon be knocked over as a kingpin of the fuel cell argument. Nikola Motors has YET to produce their truck in volume. If they don't hurry soon, then Tesla will kill their market in 2019 when the semi is expected to be released - a truck that's both lower-cost to operate, and cleaner than diesel.

Seeing as how neither company has yet produced a production vehicle, we can expect Tesla to be late, and the announced capabilities of their semis are poorly suited to long haul trucking, there's a ways to go before either tech can make a significant impact. P&D, port drayage, distribution, shuttle and short haul will be the metier for both of them until the infrastructure's built (and the BEV's capabilities improve).


Then you haven't been paying attention. BYD already has long-range buses, port drayage tractors, AND short haul tractors ON the market NOW. Those markets have already been won by BEV. I only brought up Tesla and Nikola motors for long-haul trucking, as that's not set yet. Believe me, the benefits of H2 are miniscule compared to their risks.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Sep '17 - 13k mi / 359
.....
Jan '18 - 18.9k mi / 326
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333 ?!?!

GRA
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:46 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:<snip>
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:You can't mix death tolls in other industries and expect that to fly as an apropos analogy, that's bad logic. On its own merits, H2 does NOTHING to alleviate the auto accident and opiod deaths, nor would it do anything to resolve the pipeline deaths. The air pollution deaths caused by automobiles are in dense urban environments, where they're better solved by BEV's (lower costs and at higher energy efficiencies). Once the superfluous info is removed, you'll see that there's VERY LITTLE benefit that H2 provides (zero emission long-range travel) for its cost.

On the contrary, I'm giving examples of about worrying about the real massive but diffuse risks, rather than concentrating on rare but spectacular ones that are essentially in the noise as fa as death tolls, and thus should fall way down the priority list. There've probably been a few thousand people killed by NG or H2 explosions (far more have died of gasoline fires) in the last century world-wide, but for the sake of argument let's round it up to 10,000, and furthermore assume that over the next 50 years we'll shift completely to H2 and that over that time frame the total dead from those accidents will increase to 100k. Put that up against 5,000,000 dying worldwide each year from air pollution, or the ~600k Americans who die every year from heart disease, and you tell me which are the greater risks, and where we should be putting our money and attention.

That's a HUGELY flawed assumption you've made there. Compressed H2 and [high pressure] CNG death totals are only "rare", because they aren't as widely deployed as gasoline. You've taken the total death toll of a low-utilization fuel and compared it with a high-utilization fuel and have incorrectly drawn safety comparisons off of that. Increasing the deployment frequency will have a corresponding increase in death toll.

Why do you think I arbitrarily boosted the total to 100k, a number that's an order of magnitude higher than the total that's occurred with CNG and H2 for over a century? But let's put that up against the number of car fires every year in the U.S. involving gas and diesel, which is over 200k (number of deaths is far less). That sort of risk is judged acceptable now, so unless compressed H2 proves to be more dangerous it will be too - after all, no one died or was even injured in Diamond Bar, so it's not as if it's guaranteed that hydrogen leaks will prove any more dangerous than admittedly dangerous fossil-fuel fires. Unlike the liquid fuels, H2 will rise instead of pool and will be quickly dispersed below flammable or explosive concentrations. We simply don't have adequate numbers of deployed FCEVs yet, but as of now FCEVs aren't bursting into flame at the slightest provocation, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Of course, if they can develop and commercialize adsorption (metal hydride) or nanotube H2 storage at much lower pressures that would be preferable from a safety standpoint and maybe for cost and energy as well (depending on how expensive such storage is, and the currently much greater weight about 60 lb. of material per lb. of H2 stored, that has to be hauled around), but there's no guarantee that will happen any more than there's a guarantee that H2 and FCEV prices will be brought down enough to be profitable.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:And long-haul trucking will soon be knocked over as a kingpin of the fuel cell argument. Nikola Motors has YET to produce their truck in volume. If they don't hurry soon, then Tesla will kill their market in 2019 when the semi is expected to be released - a truck that's both lower-cost to operate, and cleaner than diesel.

Seeing as how neither company has yet produced a production vehicle, we can expect Tesla to be late, and the announced capabilities of their semis are poorly suited to long haul trucking, there's a ways to go before either tech can make a significant impact. P&D, port drayage, distribution, shuttle and short haul will be the metier for both of them until the infrastructure's built (and the BEV's capabilities improve).

Then you haven't been paying attention. BYD already has long-range buses, port drayage tractors, AND short haul tractors ON the market NOW. Those markets have already been won by BEV. I only brought up Tesla and Nikola motors for long-haul trucking, as that's not set yet. Believe me, the benefits of H2 are miniscule compared to their risks.

I've been paying plenty of attention, and as noted in the AFV Truck thread, both Toyota: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=60#p508184 and Kenworth:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=515861&hilit=truck+port#p515861%20) have FCEV trucks intended for for Port Drayage, and at least the Toyotas will be going into service at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the busiest container port complex in the U.S., this year; other ports are also looking at this. Ballard's also got a deal to have 500 FCEV straight trucks in P&D service in Shanghai this year: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=90#p519299 They're also testing overhead wires with pantographs mounted on top of the tractors along highways in and out of ports as well as BEVs, so there's little that's been 'won' yet - at the moment everyone's in dem/val, gathering cost and performance data. Same goes for buses: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=80#p518520 although we all know there's lots of BEV busses currently running around, with FCEV versions starting from way behind. The same thread also includes links to articles about FCEV trains and materials handling equipment.
Last edited by GRA on Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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: 6178
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 Feb 20, 2018 7:01 pm

GRA wrote:Same goes for buses: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=80#p518520 although we all know there's lots of BEV busses currently running around, with FCEV versions starting from way behind.
History tells a different story. Ballard started deploying full-size city buses in 1998. To my knowledge, no full-size battery-powered buses were deployed before about 2010. In spite of having a very large head start, the H2-powered buses have now fallen far behind battery-electric buses. At this point, I doubt there is much a hydrogen-powered bus can offer that is not surpassed by battery-powered options which are currently available. As a result, there are likely far beyond 100,000 MORE BEV buses on the road today than H2 fuel cell buses.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:34 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Same goes for buses: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=80#p518520 although we all know there's lots of BEV busses currently running around, with FCEV versions starting from way behind.
History tells a different story. Ballard started deploying full-size city buses in 1998. To my knowledge, no full-size battery-powered buses were deployed before about 2010. In spite of having a very large head start, the H2-powered buses have now fallen far behind battery-electric buses. At this point, I doubt there is much a hydrogen-powered bus can offer that is not surpassed by battery-powered options which are currently available. As a result, there are likely far beyond 100,000 MORE BEV buses on the road today than H2 fuel cell buses.

Re way behind I was referring to the numbers deployed, not the date of deployment. It's only in the past few years that FCEV buses have gotten their prices down enough to have any chance of commercialization. The same is true of BEV buses, but they are unquestionably way in the lead as far as currently deployed numbers. We'll see if that changes, although I've always said that if a BEV can do the job at the lowest TCO, it should be the tech of choice (emergency vehicles excepted, which shouldn't be dependent on working power grids).
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
Gold Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:18 am

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:<snip>
On the contrary, I'm giving examples of about worrying about the real massive but diffuse risks, rather than concentrating on rare but spectacular ones that are essentially in the noise as fa as death tolls, and thus should fall way down the priority list. There've probably been a few thousand people killed by NG or H2 explosions (far more have died of gasoline fires) in the last century world-wide, but for the sake of argument let's round it up to 10,000, and furthermore assume that over the next 50 years we'll shift completely to H2 and that over that time frame the total dead from those accidents will increase to 100k. Put that up against 5,000,000 dying worldwide each year from air pollution, or the ~600k Americans who die every year from heart disease, and you tell me which are the greater risks, and where we should be putting our money and attention.

That's a HUGELY flawed assumption you've made there. Compressed H2 and [high pressure] CNG death totals are only "rare", because they aren't as widely deployed as gasoline. You've taken the total death toll of a low-utilization fuel and compared it with a high-utilization fuel and have incorrectly drawn safety comparisons off of that. Increasing the deployment frequency will have a corresponding increase in death toll.

Why do you think I arbitrarily boosted the total to 100k, a number that's an order of magnitude higher than the total that's occurred with CNG and H2 for over a century? But let's put that up against the number of car fires every year in the U.S. involving gas and diesel, which is over 200k (number of deaths is far less). That sort of risk is judged acceptable now, so unless compressed H2 proves to be more dangerous it will be too - after all, no one died or was even injured in Diamond Bar, so it's not as if it's guaranteed that hydrogen leaks will prove any more dangerous than admittedly dangerous fossil-fuel fires. Unlike the liquid fuels, H2 will rise instead of pool and will be quickly dispersed below flammable or explosive concentrations. We simply don't have adequate numbers of deployed FCEVs yet, but as of now FCEVs aren't bursting into flame at the slightest provocation, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Of course, if they can develop and commercialize adsorption (metal hydride) or nanotube H2 storage at much lower pressures that would be preferable from a safety standpoint and maybe for cost and energy as well (depending on how expensive such storage is, and the currently much greater weight about 60 lb. of material per lb. of H2 stored, that has to be hauled around), but there's no guarantee that will happen any more than there's a guarantee that H2 and FCEV prices will be brought down enough to be profitable.


Firstly, considering that CNG & compressed H2 isn't even 0.1% of ICE vehicle deployment, your order of magnitude increase might still be 100x's too low.

But more importantly, an arbitrary increase is statistically garbage. Switching to H2 does NOT solve the thousands of auto deaths due to DUI and other forms of distracted driving. You've been citing death statistics only and conflating the potential reduction of that as a benefit of H2, when it does NOT. In the same breadth, you've acknowledged that high-pressure systems are inherently MORE dangerous than low pressure ones. From that inherent increase of risk alone, one CAN CONCLUDE that there will be more explosive-decompression related deaths than there are now. I have made ZERO claims about the combustibility of H2 as one of the risk factors. I even pointed out how steam at 10,000 psi is equally dangerous.

There will be more collateral damage in an H2 accidents (excluding car crashes) from things like bad pressure valves, CF tanks that weren't inspected, human error servicing the filling stations, human error seating the filling nozzles, etc. These are increases that are NOT present with current fueling tech.

IF a low pressure means of H2 becomes production-ready, then obviously my objections won't apply.

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:Seeing as how neither company has yet produced a production vehicle, we can expect Tesla to be late, and the announced capabilities of their semis are poorly suited to long haul trucking, there's a ways to go before either tech can make a significant impact. P&D, port drayage, distribution, shuttle and short haul will be the metier for both of them until the infrastructure's built (and the BEV's capabilities improve).

Then you haven't been paying attention. BYD already has long-range buses, port drayage tractors, AND short haul tractors ON the market NOW. Those markets have already been won by BEV. I only brought up Tesla and Nikola motors for long-haul trucking, as that's not set yet. Believe me, the benefits of H2 are miniscule compared to their risks.

I've been paying plenty of attention, and as noted in the AFV Truck thread, both Toyota: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=60#p508184 and Kenworth:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=515861&hilit=truck+port#p515861%20) have FCEV trucks intended for for Port Drayage, and at least the Toyotas will be going into service at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the busiest container port complex in the U.S., this year; other ports are also looking at this. Ballard's also got a deal to have 500 FCEV straight trucks in P&D service in Shanghai this year: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=90#p519299 They're also testing overhead wires with pantographs mounted on top of the tractors along highways in and out of ports as well as BEVs, so there's little that's been 'won' yet - at the moment everyone's in dem/val, gathering cost and performance data. Same goes for buses: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=80#p518520 although we all know there's lots of BEV busses currently running around, with FCEV versions starting from way behind. The same thread also includes links to articles about FCEV trains and materials handling equipment.


There were 40,000 BEV trucks delivered in 2017 already: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1812 ... na-battery
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Sep '17 - 13k mi / 359
.....
Jan '18 - 18.9k mi / 326
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333 ?!?!

GRA
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:55 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:That's a HUGELY flawed assumption you've made there. Compressed H2 and [high pressure] CNG death totals are only "rare", because they aren't as widely deployed as gasoline. You've taken the total death toll of a low-utilization fuel and compared it with a high-utilization fuel and have incorrectly drawn safety comparisons off of that. Increasing the deployment frequency will have a corresponding increase in death toll.

Why do you think I arbitrarily boosted the total to 100k, a number that's an order of magnitude higher than the total that's occurred with CNG and H2 for over a century? But let's put that up against the number of car fires every year in the U.S. involving gas and diesel, which is over 200k (number of deaths is far less). That sort of risk is judged acceptable now, so unless compressed H2 proves to be more dangerous it will be too - after all, no one died or was even injured in Diamond Bar, so it's not as if it's guaranteed that hydrogen leaks will prove any more dangerous than admittedly dangerous fossil-fuel fires. Unlike the liquid fuels, H2 will rise instead of pool and will be quickly dispersed below flammable or explosive concentrations. We simply don't have adequate numbers of deployed FCEVs yet, but as of now FCEVs aren't bursting into flame at the slightest provocation, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Of course, if they can develop and commercialize adsorption (metal hydride) or nanotube H2 storage at much lower pressures that would be preferable from a safety standpoint and maybe for cost and energy as well (depending on how expensive such storage is, and the currently much greater weight about 60 lb. of material per lb. of H2 stored, that has to be hauled around), but there's no guarantee that will happen any more than there's a guarantee that H2 and FCEV prices will be brought down enough to be profitable.

Firstly, considering that CNG & compressed H2 isn't even 0.1% of ICE vehicle deployment, your order of magnitude increase might still be 100x's too low.

Actually, it's about 2% worldwide for CNG (world total of ground vehicles ca. 1.2 billion), with some countries well above that. See http://www.iangv.org/current-ngv-stats/

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:But more importantly, an arbitrary increase is statistically garbage. Switching to H2 does NOT solve the thousands of auto deaths due to DUI and other forms of distracted driving. You've been citing death statistics only and conflating the potential reduction of that as a benefit of H2, when it does NOT.

I've done nothing of the sort. What I have done is show the difference between rare but spectacular risks, and massive but diffuse ones, and pointed out that we should be worrying far more about the latter than the former.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:In the same breadth, you've acknowledged that high-pressure systems are inherently MORE dangerous than low pressure ones. From that inherent increase of risk alone, one CAN CONCLUDE that there will be more explosive-decompression related deaths than there are now.

Good, we agree on that, we disagree that the increase is likely to be significant, or will be anywhere near the decrease in deaths due to air pollution.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:I have made ZERO claims about the combustibility of H2 as one of the risk factors. I even pointed out how steam at 10,000 psi is equally dangerous.

IF a low pressure means of H2 becomes production-ready, then obviously my objections won't apply.

And I've never said that high pressure is less risky than low pressure - as you state, I've said just the opposite, and have long pointed out that low pressure H2 storage is the desired alternative, and that lots of entities are working on R&D in that area. What I have also said is that the level of additional risk of high-pressure H2 compared to currently available liquid fossil-fuel options is almost certainly minimal if not negative, and in any case orders of magnitude less than the everyday, non-rare and non-spectacular health risks from air and water pollution due to burning fossil fuels, especially but not limited to coal. You apparently disagree.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:There will be more collateral damage in an H2 accidents (excluding car crashes) from things like bad pressure valves, CF tanks that weren't inspected, human error servicing the filling stations, human error seating the filling nozzles, etc. These are increases that are NOT present with current fueling tech.

And yet, it appears that much of the world has adopted CNG vehicles in a big way despite the risks, so why would H2 be any different? But you claim that I'm conflating risks, so let's talk about a real world weighing of rare but spectacular risks vs. massive but diffuse ones. We both seem to agree that coal is about as bad as it comes as far as fossil fuels. How do you feel about nuclear fission?

The latter's risks fall into the rare but spectacular category, while the former are massive but diffuse. The number of people who die every year from coal pollution (even ignoring annual coal miner deaths) is at least an order of magnitude higher than the total number of people who have died from radiation exposure from all nuclear accidents, and you could probably throw in all A and H bomb tests and more importantly the two wartime A-bombs and not add more than a couple of years to breakeven. After all, more people died in the March '45 Tokyo firebombing using conventional weapons than died in either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings, and probably both combined depending on whose numbers you accept, so it's not as if the level of destruction was unheard of, only that it was new and spectacular. Obviously, mass use of A- or H-bombs would be a whole other matter.

Anyway, given the choice between these two energy sources for generating electricity, which would you choose? Or to bring things into the real world, do you believe that Germany's decision to phase out nukes while increasing the use of coal (especially brown coal) until they could increase their share of renewables and phase out the coal plants was a rational weighing of relative risks, or a decision based on worrying about rare but spectacular risks rather than massive but diffuse ones that are far more dangerous? Which option would you have recommended, and why?

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:Then you haven't been paying attention. BYD already has long-range buses, port drayage tractors, AND short haul tractors ON the market NOW. Those markets have already been won by BEV. I only brought up Tesla and Nikola motors for long-haul trucking, as that's not set yet. Believe me, the benefits of H2 are miniscule compared to their risks.

I've been paying plenty of attention, and as noted in the AFV Truck thread, both Toyota: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=60#p508184 and Kenworth:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=515861&hilit=truck+port#p515861%20) have FCEV trucks intended for for Port Drayage, and at least the Toyotas will be going into service at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the busiest container port complex in the U.S., this year; other ports are also looking at this. Ballard's also got a deal to have 500 FCEV straight trucks in P&D service in Shanghai this year: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=90#p519299 They're also testing overhead wires with pantographs mounted on top of the tractors along highways in and out of ports as well as BEVs, so there's little that's been 'won' yet - at the moment everyone's in dem/val, gathering cost and performance data. Same goes for buses: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&hilit=truck+port&start=80#p518520 although we all know there's lots of BEV busses currently running around, with FCEV versions starting from way behind. The same thread also includes links to articles about FCEV trains and materials handling equipment.

There were 40,000 BEV trucks delivered in 2017 already: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1812 ... na-battery

Terrific, and we both agree that for short range P&D/short range distribution in urban areas when tare weight isn't an issue, BEVs are the likely technology of choice (if they have the lowest TCO). But we're just starting to see competitive FCEVs in the same roles, and until we get long term operating and cost data we won't know just where the break will be given each type's operating advantages and disadvantages. Here's an example of such testing now getting underway in Germany for Mercedes BEV trucks: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=519761#p519761

If the FCEVs can be used for a wider variety of jobs, then even if they cost more to operate on those jobs best suited for BEVs they may still be preferable, at least for smaller fleets.

This has happened in the past, when horses, BEV and ICE trucks were all used by single companies for delivery, from shortest to longest distance. They each had the lowest costs within their useful range, but unless the fleet was large enough it didn't pay to specialize, and ICEs replaced both of the other two. If you're UPS or a similar-sized company, then great, you can use the vehicle best suited for each job and it will be worth it to you to maintain two separate maintenance and parts pathways. If you're a furniture store with three to five trucks, it probably won't be, and you'll opt for the tech that gives you the greatest flexibility and capability, even if much of that is wasted much of the time.

That's exactly why most people own cars that can carry five or more people and travel hundreds of miles between refuelings, even though most of the time there's only one person in them (76% of U.S. commuters drive in SOV) and they travel less than 40 miles a day. That will be one of the major advantages of mobility services, that you can specialize your vehicle choice every day without having to own them, and thus not be hauling around a lot of vehicle all the time when you don't need it. Depending on how much extra people are willing to pay to ride by themselves, we may see a major shift to small single-person vehicles for commuting and errands, which will allow us to add lanes to existing road infrastructure simply by repainting lane lines with narrower spacing. Or maybe we'll see narrow 2-4 person commute vehicles with seats in tandem.
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
Gold Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:04 pm

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 ...

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:There will be more collateral damage in an H2 accidents (excluding car crashes) from things like bad pressure valves, CF tanks that weren't inspected, human error servicing the filling stations, human error seating the filling nozzles, etc. These are increases that are NOT present with current fueling tech.

And yet, it appears that much of the world has adopted CNG vehicles in a big way despite the risks, so why would H2 be any different? But you claim that I'm conflating risks, so let's talk about a real world weighing of rare but spectacular risks vs. massive but diffuse ones. We both seem to agree that coal is about as bad as it comes as far as fossil fuels. How do you feel about nuclear fission?

The latter's risks fall into the rare but spectacular category, while the former are massive but diffuse. The number of people who die every year from coal pollution (even ignoring annual coal miner deaths) is at least an order of magnitude higher than the total number of people who have died from radiation exposure from all nuclear accidents, and you could probably throw in all A and H bomb tests and more importantly the two wartime A-bombs and not add more than a couple of years to breakeven. After all, more people died in the March '45 Tokyo firebombing using conventional weapons than died in either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings, and probably both combined depending on whose numbers you accept, so it's not as if the level of destruction was unheard of, only that it was new and spectacular. Obviously, mass use of A- or H-bombs would be a whole other matter.

Anyway, given the choice between these two energy sources for generating electricity, which would you choose? Or to bring things into the real world, do you believe that Germany's decision to phase out nukes while increasing the use of coal (especially brown coal) until they could increase their share of renewables and phase out the coal plants was a rational weighing of relative risks, or a decision based on worrying about rare but spectacular risks rather than massive but diffuse ones that are far more dangerous? Which option would you have recommended, and why?


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.


GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: There were 40,000 BEV trucks delivered in 2017 already: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1812 ... na-battery

Terrific, and we both agree that for short range P&D/short range distribution in urban areas when tare weight isn't an issue, BEVs are the likely technology of choice (if they have the lowest TCO). But we're just starting to see competitive FCEVs in the same roles, and until we get long term operating and cost data we won't know just where the break will be given each type's operating advantages and disadvantages. Here's an example of such testing now getting underway in Germany for Mercedes BEV trucks: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=519761#p519761

If the FCEVs can be used for a wider variety of jobs, then even if they cost more to operate on those jobs best suited for BEVs they may still be preferable, at least for smaller fleets.

This has happened in the past, when horses, BEV and ICE trucks were all used by single companies for delivery, from shortest to longest distance. They each had the lowest costs within their useful range, but unless the fleet was large enough it didn't pay to specialize, and ICEs replaced both of the other two. If you're UPS or a similar-sized company, then great, you can use the vehicle best suited for each job and it will be worth it to you to maintain two separate maintenance and parts pathways. If you're a furniture store with three to five trucks, it probably won't be, and you'll opt for the tech that gives you the greatest flexibility and capability, even if much of that is wasted much of the time.

That's exactly why most people own cars that can carry five or more people and travel hundreds of miles between refuelings, even though most of the time there's only one person in them (76% of U.S. commuters drive in SOV) and they travel less than 40 miles a day. That will be one of the major advantages of mobility services, that you can specialize your vehicle choice every day without having to own them, and thus not be hauling around a lot of vehicle all the time when you don't need it. Depending on how much extra people are willing to pay to ride by themselves, we may see a major shift to small single-person vehicles for commuting and errands, which will allow us to add lanes to existing road infrastructure simply by repainting lane lines with narrower spacing. Or maybe we'll see narrow 2-4 person commute vehicles with seats in tandem.


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.

Just one anecdotal evidence to add. I now have 2 family members who leased a mirai (without consulting me first obviously), and they both regretted it.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Sep '17 - 13k mi / 359
.....
Jan '18 - 18.9k mi / 326
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333 ?!?!

GRA
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:08 pm

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 ...

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:There will be more collateral damage in an H2 accidents (excluding car crashes) from things like bad pressure valves, CF tanks that weren't inspected, human error servicing the filling stations, human error seating the filling nozzles, etc. These are increases that are NOT present with current fueling tech.

And yet, it appears that much of the world has adopted CNG vehicles in a big way despite the risks, so why would H2 be any different? But you claim that I'm conflating risks, so let's talk about a real world weighing of rare but spectacular risks vs. massive but diffuse ones. We both seem to agree that coal is about as bad as it comes as far as fossil fuels. How do you feel about nuclear fission?

The latter's risks fall into the rare but spectacular category, while the former are massive but diffuse. The number of people who die every year from coal pollution (even ignoring annual coal miner deaths) is at least an order of magnitude higher than the total number of people who have died from radiation exposure from all nuclear accidents, and you could probably throw in all A and H bomb tests and more importantly the two wartime A-bombs and not add more than a couple of years to breakeven. After all, more people died in the March '45 Tokyo firebombing using conventional weapons than died in either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings, and probably both combined depending on whose numbers you accept, so it's not as if the level of destruction was unheard of, only that it was new and spectacular. Obviously, mass use of A- or H-bombs would be a whole other matter.

Anyway, given the choice between these two energy sources for generating electricity, which would you choose? Or to bring things into the real world, do you believe that Germany's decision to phase out nukes while increasing the use of coal (especially brown coal) until they could increase their share of renewables and phase out the coal plants was a rational weighing of relative risks, or a decision based on worrying about rare but spectacular risks rather than massive but diffuse ones that are far more dangerous? Which option would you have recommended, and why?

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
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: There were 40,000 BEV trucks delivered in 2017 already: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1812 ... na-battery

Terrific, and we both agree that for short range P&D/short range distribution in urban areas when tare weight isn't an issue, BEVs are the likely technology of choice (if they have the lowest TCO). But we're just starting to see competitive FCEVs in the same roles, and until we get long term operating and cost data we won't know just where the break will be given each type's operating advantages and disadvantages. Here's an example of such testing now getting underway in Germany for Mercedes BEV trucks: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=519761#p519761

If the FCEVs can be used for a wider variety of jobs, then even if they cost more to operate on those jobs best suited for BEVs they may still be preferable, at least for smaller fleets.

This has happened in the past, when horses, BEV and ICE trucks were all used by single companies for delivery, from shortest to longest distance. They each had the lowest costs within their useful range, but unless the fleet was large enough it didn't pay to specialize, and ICEs replaced both of the other two. If you're UPS or a similar-sized company, then great, you can use the vehicle best suited for each job and it will be worth it to you to maintain two separate maintenance and parts pathways. If you're a furniture store with three to five trucks, it probably won't be, and you'll opt for the tech that gives you the greatest flexibility and capability, even if much of that is wasted much of the time.

That's exactly why most people own cars that can carry five or more people and travel hundreds of miles between refuelings, even though most of the time there's only one person in them (76% of U.S. commuters drive in SOV) and they travel less than 40 miles a day. That will be one of the major advantages of mobility services, that you can specialize your vehicle choice every day without having to own them, and thus not be hauling around a lot of vehicle all the time when you don't need it. Depending on how much extra people are willing to pay to ride by themselves, we may see a major shift to small single-person vehicles for commuting and errands, which will allow us to add lanes to existing road infrastructure simply by repainting lane lines with narrower spacing. Or maybe we'll see narrow 2-4 person commute vehicles with seats in tandem.

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.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Just one anecdotal evidence to add. I now have 2 family members who leased a mirai (without consulting me first obviously), and they both regretted it.

Care to give their reasons? Assuming they'd done a good job of evaluating how good a fit the cars would be for them in the first place, was it a lack of station buildout where they needed/wanted them, or something else?
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
Gold Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:17 pm

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 ...

GRA wrote:And yet, it appears that much of the world has adopted CNG vehicles in a big way despite the risks, so why would H2 be any different? But you claim that I'm conflating risks, so let's talk about a real world weighing of rare but spectacular risks vs. massive but diffuse ones. We both seem to agree that coal is about as bad as it comes as far as fossil fuels. How do you feel about nuclear fission?

The latter's risks fall into the rare but spectacular category, while the former are massive but diffuse. The number of people who die every year from coal pollution (even ignoring annual coal miner deaths) is at least an order of magnitude higher than the total number of people who have died from radiation exposure from all nuclear accidents, and you could probably throw in all A and H bomb tests and more importantly the two wartime A-bombs and not add more than a couple of years to breakeven. After all, more people died in the March '45 Tokyo firebombing using conventional weapons than died in either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings, and probably both combined depending on whose numbers you accept, so it's not as if the level of destruction was unheard of, only that it was new and spectacular. Obviously, mass use of A- or H-bombs would be a whole other matter.

Anyway, given the choice between these two energy sources for generating electricity, which would you choose? Or to bring things into the real world, do you believe that Germany's decision to phase out nukes while increasing the use of coal (especially brown coal) until they could increase their share of renewables and phase out the coal plants was a rational weighing of relative risks, or a decision based on worrying about rare but spectacular risks rather than massive but diffuse ones that are far more dangerous? Which option would you have recommended, and why?


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.

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
GRA wrote:Terrific, and we both agree that for short range P&D/short range distribution in urban areas when tare weight isn't an issue, BEVs are the likely technology of choice (if they have the lowest TCO). But we're just starting to see competitive FCEVs in the same roles, and until we get long term operating and cost data we won't know just where the break will be given each type's operating advantages and disadvantages. Here's an example of such testing now getting underway in Germany for Mercedes BEV trucks: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=519761#p519761

If the FCEVs can be used for a wider variety of jobs, then even if they cost more to operate on those jobs best suited for BEVs they may still be preferable, at least for smaller fleets.

This has happened in the past, when horses, BEV and ICE trucks were all used by single companies for delivery, from shortest to longest distance. They each had the lowest costs within their useful range, but unless the fleet was large enough it didn't pay to specialize, and ICEs replaced both of the other two. If you're UPS or a similar-sized company, then great, you can use the vehicle best suited for each job and it will be worth it to you to maintain two separate maintenance and parts pathways. If you're a furniture store with three to five trucks, it probably won't be, and you'll opt for the tech that gives you the greatest flexibility and capability, even if much of that is wasted much of the time.

That's exactly why most people own cars that can carry five or more people and travel hundreds of miles between refuelings, even though most of the time there's only one person in them (76% of U.S. commuters drive in SOV) and they travel less than 40 miles a day. That will be one of the major advantages of mobility services, that you can specialize your vehicle choice every day without having to own them, and thus not be hauling around a lot of vehicle all the time when you don't need it. Depending on how much extra people are willing to pay to ride by themselves, we may see a major shift to small single-person vehicles for commuting and errands, which will allow us to add lanes to existing road infrastructure simply by repainting lane lines with narrower spacing. Or maybe we'll see narrow 2-4 person commute vehicles with seats in tandem.


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.

GRA wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: Just one anecdotal evidence to add. I now have 2 family members who leased a mirai (without consulting me first obviously), and they both regretted it.

Care to give their reasons? Assuming they'd done a good job of evaluating how good a fit the cars would be for them in the first place, was it a lack of station buildout where they needed/wanted them, or something else?


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.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
Date - Miles / GIDs:
May '17 - 7300 mi / 363
Sep '17 - 13k mi / 359
.....
Jan '18 - 18.9k mi / 326
Feb '18 - 20.5k mi / 333 ?!?!

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