Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
So GRA.. when are we going to see you at one of our SoCal EV meets in a Mirai?? I mean...... it can make the trip no problem with all those stations and all the outages they are having :roll:

If you're such a believer, why not buy one? :roll:

You've been on this forum longer and BS'ing before I joined.... during this period I've...

Bought my Leaf (which I still have) -and hacked and modified

Bought My Rav4 EV (Which I still have) -and hacked and modified

Bought my Model S 70D (Which I LOVE!!) and starting to hack and modify

What do you do GRA?? You don't own any vehicles (or so you say).. Are you just an industry troll or an alter ego like EV Driver :lol:
 
mtndrew1 said:
" The warranty includes:

8-year or 100,000 mile warranty (whichever comes first) on key fuel cell components including the FC stack and power control unit; FC hydrogen tanks; hybrid battery pack and ECU; FC air compressor, boost converter and ECU; hybrid control module (power management control module); and hydrogen fueling ECU."

While this is admirable, I suspect they almost HAVE to provide such a warranty, since the first person that gets a bill for $30,000 to replace some component on the hydrogen car could make quite a stink on forums.

The same is true on EVs, by the way, which is why the state of California REQUIRES that EVs have a mandatory 8 year / 100.000 mile warranty on the "traction" battery (it's less clear why hybrids need a different 10 year / 150,000 mile warranty). Of note is that the retail price of the 42kWh battery in the 2012-2014 Rav4 EV is $36,000. Without a warranty, it is a throw away car if the battery fails. I suspect that the same is true about many of those expensive hydrogen components.

So, again, I wasn't suggesting that Toyota did NOT warranty these parts. I'm pointing out that you specially cannot get the Toyota Platinum extended warranty that is available on other cars for up to 10 years and 125,000 miles.

That is not available to the Toyota hydrogen cars (well, you can buy it; it just won't cover anything of value).
 
TonyWilliams said:
mtndrew1 said:
The same is true on EVs, by the way, which is why the state of California REQUIRES that EVs have a mandatory 8 year / 100.000 mile warranty on the "traction" battery (it's less clear why hybrids need a different 10 year / 150,000 mile warranty).

EV can't pollute when battery gets weaker/doesn't work.
Hybrid will pollute more than it was designed if battery fails.
Cars are almost always used for at least 10 years 150 000 miles.
No one will change hybrid's battery if "it only adds few MPGs".
 
While the extended warranty thing is mildly curious I suppose, it's all very moot in my opinion.

1) Nobody is buying these things (very likely less than 1% of the tiny number of deliveries are purchases).
2) Very few are leasing these things.
3) The technology is fundamentally stupid.
4) These cars' depreciation post-lease will make the Leaf look like a Lexus in comparison and whoever scoops them up after lease will be just driving them into the ground. Or they'll rot and be crushed.
5) The business case for a warranty to cover the two year gap between the factory warranty and the Platinum warranty for a teeny amount of purchased cars is probably impossible to make.

I think this is more about the reality of the situation than any shady indicator by Toyota that these components are more prone to fail than any other ZEV. The whole Mirai project will be dead soon enough.
 
arnis said:
TonyWilliams said:
mtndrew1 said:
The same is true on EVs, by the way, which is why the state of California REQUIRES that EVs have a mandatory 8 year / 100.000 mile warranty on the "traction" battery (it's less clear why hybrids need a different 10 year / 150,000 mile warranty).

EV can't pollute when battery gets weaker/doesn't work.
Hybrid will pollute more than it was designed if battery fails.
Cars are almost always used for at least 10 years 150 000 miles.
No one will change hybrid's battery if "it only adds few MPGs".

EVs don't pollute, with or without a warranty.
 
JasonA said:
So GRA.. when are we going to see you at one of our SoCal EV meets in a Mirai?? I mean...... it can make the trip no problem with all those stations and all the outages they are having :roll:

If you're such a believer, why not buy one? :roll:

You've been on this forum longer and BS'ing before I joined.... during this period I've...

Bought my Leaf (which I still have) -and hacked and modified

Bought My Rav4 EV (Which I still have) -and hacked and modified

Bought my Model S 70D (Which I LOVE!!) and starting to hack and modify

What do you do GRA?? You don't own any vehicles (or so you say).. Are you just an industry troll or an alter ego like EV Driver :lol:
To take various points in order, I live in Norcal, so why on earth would I waste all that energy to drive to SoCal, a place where I have near zero interest in visiting (BTDT). I need to be able to go east, and while an FCEV or BEV will allow me to get to Tahoe, it won't allow me to get to Yosemite to which I travel more frequently (well, a Tesla would now, but only if I had $70k or so to waste on a car).

As to why not buy one, as I've written many, many times, I won't buy any AFV until they meet my needs at a reasonable price. I have zero interest in going through the whole early-adopter experience again, and will happily leave that to others who are more motivated and have more money to burn. Currently, only PHEVs approach that capability (although I still can't buy a small AWD PHEV CUV). Given how much I've cut my driving down in favor of more efficient and less polluting forms of transportation, it makes no economic sense to buy a PHEV now to handle the remainder while my current (14 year-old) car meets all those needs, if I can wait a few years and buy a full-time ZEV instead which will make economic sense (as no ZEV does for me now - whether BEV, FCEV, or PHFCEV makes no difference to me, as long as I can get where I need to go, when I need to go).

However, given my usage patterns what I'm really hoping for is that car-shared or rental ZEVs with the necessary performance and infrastructure, with/without autonomy and with acceptable operating costs, will arrive about the time I might need a new car, and I can simply forego car ownership altogether. That's my ultimate goal, and the one which makes the most sense from both an environmental and societal perspective. Whether or not you agree with my needs, goals, interests or decisions is irrelevant to me, just as mine should be irrelevant to you. What matters is that they work for each of us.
 
JasonA said:
The same reason you waste all this energy posting on this forum pushing the Mirai :roll:
I don't post "pushing" the Mirai, anymore than my posts providing info or discussing any other car (or AFV truck, or bus, or drone a/c etc.) are pushing them. I post info on them, for whoever might be interested, and am happy to discuss what I see as their advantages/disadvantages with people. I have no inherent bias towards or away from any AFV tech, as what suits a particular person is totally dependent on their individual circumstances.

However, it's no secret that I feel that FCEVs have an advantage over BEVs (at this time, given the necessary fueling infrastructure) as far as meeting the requirements and priorities of members of the general public, as opposed to EV early adopters who tend to populate forums such as this one. IMO, enthusiasts are rarely good at recognizing that their priorities aren't shared by everyone, and that in fact the general public's are usually completely different. I believe it's important to point this out.

OTOH, nothing in the above implies that I think FCEVs are yet ready for mass adoption, as prices remain too high, fueling infrastructure is lacking beyond a very limited area, and we simply don't know when/if sustainable H2 will be cost-competitive with fossil fuels, all problems which will need to be solved to make FCEVs mainstream. Similar issues still face PEVs, but they're closer to commercial (un-subsidized) viability for niche purposes (local cars), if not yet for general purpose cars.

JasonA said:
Sounds like a pretty minor update, and other than the fact that you have to bring the car in to the dealer just like every other car other than Tesla, NBD.
 
GRA said:
JasonA said:
The same reason you waste all this energy posting on this forum pushing the Mirai :roll:
I don't post "pushing" the Mirai, anymore than my posts providing info or discussing any other car (or AFV truck, or bus, or drone a/c etc.) are pushing them. I post info on them, for whoever might be interested, and am happy to discuss what I see as their advantages/disadvantages with people. I have no inherent bias towards or away from any AFV tech, as what suits a particular person is totally dependent on their individual circumstances.

It boggles my mind that you are constantly attacked by various members here as "pushing" a certain technology. I don't see it. I see you posting links to articles, brief recaps, and adding some opinions. In other words, sharing information. Isn't that what a forum is designed for? Especially one titled "Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell"? I don't get it.

Count me as one who tries to stay open to any option that can replace petroleum-based fuels. Keep on sharing what you find, and ignore the haters.
 
I don't believe H2 has any future replacing fossil fuel. it continues using fossil fuel. and quite inefficiently (read "stupid") when compared to EVs.

http://evobsession.com/hydrogen-cars-vs-electric-cars-detailed-comparison-efficiency/

Where oh where do the laws of Physics get to be ignored? And the economics of fool cells? It's crazy to keep continuing down this money-pit, hole, whatever.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ting-emissions-than-fuel-cells-stanford-study

When u have hydrogen 'fans' telling us: "not quite there", "maybe in 10 years", "just around the corner, wait for the breakthrough", it gets old.

Electric transport for the masses is here now and growing and it doesn't involve hydrogen.
 
WetEV said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Isn't that what a forum is designed for? Especially one titled "Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell"?

http://www.mytoyotamirai.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2
Unfortunately, that forum has been moribund for quite a while. I tried to get it going by asking for detailed performance info, but was told that there was an active Facebook group for the Mirai, and that was where everyone was (I don't do Facebook, and it's limited to owners in any case): http://www.mytoyotamirai.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52 . About the only thing posted there for the past six months or so has been Russian Spam.

Not that that has anything to do with posting info on the Mirai (or any other electric vehicles) here, as this is the "Other Electric Cars and Plug-in Hybrids" topic, and FCEVs are electric cars.
 
finman100 said:
I don't believe H2 has any future replacing fossil fuel. it continues using fossil fuel. and quite inefficiently (read "stupid") when compared to EVs.

http://evobsession.com/hydrogen-cars-vs-electric-cars-detailed-comparison-efficiency/

Where oh where do the laws of Physics get to be ignored? And the economics of fool cells? It's crazy to keep continuing down this money-pit, hole, whatever.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ting-emissions-than-fuel-cells-stanford-study

When u have hydrogen 'fans' telling us: "not quite there", "maybe in 10 years", "just around the corner, wait for the breakthrough", it gets old.

Electric transport for the masses is here now and growing and it doesn't involve hydrogen.
Depends on your definition of the masses. I don't consider 0.9% of the market (in the U.S.) after six years the masses, and that's only achievable thanks to large, continuing government subsidies, as remains the case with charging infrastructure. We'll see if the Bolt is the BEV that finally 'crosses the chasm' to mainstream acceptance. The only thing surprising about Norway's take rate, given that government subsidies essentially halve the price of the car compared to an ICE, is that it's only 30+% instead of close to 100%. And here's an IEVS article from today, which again demonstrates that subsidies are still essential for PEVs:
China Faces 74% Drop In January EV Sales As Incentive Uncertainty Rules
http://insideevs.com/china-faces-74-drop-in-january-ev-sales-as-incentive-uncertainty-rules/

I could also point out the drop-off the cliff in PEV sales in Georgia when that state's incentives were repealed, and so on ad nauseum.

As to the efficiency argument, that one's been done to death (as have most of the general FCEV/BEV arguments). I've never said that FCEVs were as efficient as batteries (although FCEVs producing both propulsive power and cabin heat certainly approach a BEV doing the same), only that I don't think that's the main priority for mainstream buyers, which is obvious if you look at the vehicles they're actually buying. That you believe that efficiency is of primary importance to the average buyer is fine, but until they demonstrate this by their purchases, it's simply not true beyond a small segment of the market. After all, if efficiency were the primary requirement, every one in the U.S. in 2008 would have been buying a Prius.

As to continuing to use fossil fuel, as I've pointed out many, many times, it makes no sense to consider a switch to FCEVs unless a substantial portion of the H2 (eventually all of it) is produced sustainably. Fortunately, all the countries and states introducing FCEVs are aware of this, and have imposed some kind of RFS to bring it about, just as most of them have imposed an RFS for electricity production (you know this, as you've made this argument numerous times before yet continue to ignore the examples I've provided demonstrating that).
 
GRA said:
As to the efficiency argument, that one's been done to death (as have most of the general FCEV/BEV arguments). I've never said that FCEVs were as efficient as batteries (although FCEVs producing both propulsive power and cabin heat certainly approach them), only that I don't think that's the main priority for mainstream buyers, which is obvious if you look at the vehicles they're actually buying. That you believe that efficiency is of prime importance to the average buyer is fine, but until they demonstrate this by their purchases, it's simply not true beyond a small segment of the market. After all, if efficiency were the primary requirement, every one in the U.S. in 2008 would have been buying a Prius.
You are confusing gasoline with electricity and completely ignoring the physics of the situation, just as finman100 has said. We are NOT talking about gasoline, which is currently cheaper than bottled water and abundant in the market today.

Rather, we are talking about running the transportation system off of electricity which will need to come from infrastructure which currently DOES NOT EXIST. Simply put, the ONLY possibility to make a WIDESPREAD transition to an electricity-based transportation system is to MINIMIZE the amount of electricity which will be needed. BEVs achieve this by approaching unity energy efficiency and thereby allowing the electricity needed to fuel these new vehicles to be produced on a typical roof using PV. H2 FCVs fail this requirement. As a result it is virtually guaranteed that H2 FCVs will NEVER achieve widespread acceptance UNLESS the H2 comes from cheap fossil fuels. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether the CA government or ANY OTHER government WANTS the H2 to come from sustainable sources. That approach CANNOT BE RAMPED UP because of the simple physics involved.

Bottom line: CA is WASTING extremely valuable taxpayer money and extremely valuable natural resources by building H2 fueling infrastructure and subsidizing H2 FCVs.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
As to the efficiency argument, that one's been done to death (as have most of the general FCEV/BEV arguments). I've never said that FCEVs were as efficient as batteries (although FCEVs producing both propulsive power and cabin heat certainly approach them), only that I don't think that's the main priority for mainstream buyers, which is obvious if you look at the vehicles they're actually buying. That you believe that efficiency is of prime importance to the average buyer is fine, but until they demonstrate this by their purchases, it's simply not true beyond a small segment of the market. After all, if efficiency were the primary requirement, every one in the U.S. in 2008 would have been buying a Prius.
You are confusing gasoline with electricity and completely ignoring the physics of the situation, just as finman100 has said. We are NOT talking about gasoline, which is currently cheaper than bottled water and abundant in the market today. <snip>
No, Reg, I'm saying that most people don't care what powers their car, only that it meets certain requirements, only one of which is energy efficiency. In any case, we've had all these arguments so many times before, and I'm simply not going to get into them again. Those of you who are convinced that H2 and FCEVs simply make no sense will continue to do so, and those of us who consider them a potentially valuable tool in making the transition to a sustainable future will continue to see how things develop, and are willing to let California and other states/ countries make investments in same which may potentially all be thrown away, just as much of the government money invested in public charging has been. The amounts are pretty small in any case, i.e. $200 million over 10 years for California H2 fuel stations. Now, if you want to discuss some serious government money potentially being wasted, i.e. California building a high-speed rail line between S.F and L.A., its route, how it's being funded, etc. and the total unknown cost (reduced to only $68 billion in 2011 from $98 billion), with major budget overruns already, that's a different matter: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-cost-overruns-20170106-story.html

By comparison, $20 million/yr. for 10 years is pocket change for us.
 
GRA said:
No, Reg, I'm saying that most people don't care what powers their car, only that it meets certain requirements, only one of which is energy efficiency.
And what I'm saying is that because of the physics involved and the reality of resource limitations, IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT CAR BUYERS CARE ABOUT. They will not have a choice because there CANNOT be a widespread transition to H2 FCVs UNLESS they are fueled by fossil fuels. In other words, your argument has no bearing on the topic since H2 FCVs fueled from sustainable sources are dead in the water already.

Even for BEVs, the transition will be limited by simple economics. As more people choose BEVs over gasoline cars, the existing electricity infrastructure will be strained which will put upward pressure on the cost of electricity, making BEVs temporarily less attractive. Likewise, the existing gasoline infrastructure will be relieved, which will put downward pressure on the cost of gasoline. It will take time for the two sets of infrastructure (electricity and gasoline) to adjust to the new normal which will need to happen for most transportation to run on electricity.

People purchase or lease H2 FCVs today because OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY is being used to pay for their fuel. People purchase BEVs today because THEY PAY FOR THEIR OWN FUEL and it is cheaper in many locations (and when it is not, that slows sales.

You can keep ignoring the physics but it will always be there blocking ANY possibility of widespread adoption of H2 FCVs.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
No, Reg, I'm saying that most people don't care what powers their car, only that it meets certain requirements, only one of which is energy efficiency.
And what I'm saying is that because of the physics involved and the reality of resource limitations, IT DOESN"T MATTER WHAT CAR BUYERS CARE ABOUT. They will not have a choice because there CANNOT be a widespread transition to H2 FCVs UNLESS they are fueled by fossil fuels. In other words, your argument has no bearing on the topic since H2 FCVs fueled from sustainable sources are dead in the water already. <snip>
Reg, if they're DoA already, then there's absolutely no need for you to expend any effort on trying to point out all their issues, as the market will handle it. I don't think we're to the point where we can say so for certain, any more than we're to the point with BEVs where we can say they're viable without subsidies (we're closer, obviously). As to FCEV owners using some other people's money to help pay for them, sure, just as BEVs still require a hefty dose of other people's money to pay for them. Neither is yet capable of standing on their own.
 
GRA said:
As to FCEV owners using some other people's money to help pay for them, sure, just as BEVs still require a hefty dose of other people's money to pay for them. Neither is yet capable of standing on their own.
Again, you try to pretend that H2 FCVs are similar to BEVs. Let's see, I got a 20% tax credit on the purchase price of my BEV five years ago. $7000. That's it. H2 FCVs are sold for about $80,000 LESS than their manufacturing cost. (The manufacturer can do this because of approximately $140,000 worth of clean fuel credits.) Then the owner gets $15,000 worth of fuel for free. Finally, the government is spending over $10,000 per vehicle for infrastructure.

Bottom line: The government is paying over 20 times as much OPM for each H2 FCV than for each BEV. All for a dead-end project. It's sad.
 
GRA said:
Depends on your definition of the masses. I don't consider 0.9% of the market (in the U.S.) after six years the masses, and that's only achievable thanks to large, continuing government subsidies, as remains the case with charging infrastructure. We'll see if the Bolt is the BEV that finally 'crosses the chasm' to mainstream acceptance. The only thing surprising about Norway's take rate, given that government subsidies essentially halve the price of the car compared to an ICE, is that it's only 30+% instead of close to 100%.

Yes, reality always adds a "sobering" insight to the arguments!
 
Back
Top