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.
GRA said:
As it is, most forecasts are predicting TCO and initial cost comparability for BEVs with ICEs won't occur until about 2025

This has me scratching my head. Initial cost, sure. But TCO? There have been studies showing that a Leaf today has a lower TCO than a Versa over an 8-year period. And the Versa is pretty much the cheapest Nissan you can buy. All other cars will be even more expensive.

My 2012 Leaf will have a similar TCO to the 2010 Insight I had, at about 6 years of ownership. Again, the Insight was the cheapest hybrid you could buy at the time. It sipped fuel (I averaged 43MPG), and was low maintenance. If the Leaf beats that today, then what is this 2025 claim about?

I wonder what car would have a similar TCO to a Mirai. If you could actually own a Mirai, that is.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
GRA said:
As it is, most forecasts are predicting TCO and initial cost comparability for BEVs with ICEs won't occur until about 2025

This has me scratching my head. Initial cost, sure. But TCO? There have been studies showing that a Leaf today has a lower TCO than a Versa over an 8-year period. And the Versa is pretty much the cheapest Nissan you can buy. All other cars will be even more expensive.

My 2012 Leaf will have a similar TCO to the 2010 Insight I had, at about 6 years of ownership. Again, the Insight was the cheapest hybrid you could buy at the time. It sipped fuel (I averaged 43MPG), and was low maintenance. If the Leaf beats that today, then what is this 2025 claim about?

I wonder what car would have a similar TCO to a Mirai. If you could actually own a Mirai, that is.
You can own a Mirai (15% do; 85% lease), but not a Clarity. As to when TCO comparability will happen, there are numerous predictions floating around. They tend to cluster around the 2022-2025 range, although there are some as early as 2020. Here's one such study from Nov. 2016 done by Arthur D. Little, predicting 2022 for TCO crossover, but you can find many more, including more recent ones:http://www.adlittle.us/uploads/tx_extthoughtleadership/ADL_BEVs_vs_ICEVs_FINAL_November_292016.pdf

Another, 2016 Bloomberg Electric Vehicle Outlook via Wired, predicting TCO crossover in 2022: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/electric-car-revolution-now-scheduled-2022/

And so on. The 2017 Bloomberg report is still mostly behind a paywall, but you can read the overview here, which estimates 2025-2029 for initial cost comparability "in most countries": https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/#toc-download
 
GRA said:
You can own a Mirai (15% do; 85% lease), but not a Clarity.

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

When talking TCO of EVs, we can fairly confidently calculate them today (historically, electricity price is extremely stable). Calculating TCO for a Mirai today is a total shot in the dark. Who knows what hydrogen will cost 5 years from now. Or what maintenance will cost (e.g. mandatory replacement of the hydrogen tanks after N years).

I'll read through the articles you linked, but what I posted stands. It's one data point, but it's my own so I know it's true.
 
Alright, this is emabarrasing. From the third paragraph of the wired article:

wired.com said:
"By 2022," the report says, "the unsubsidized total cost of ownership of BEVs [battery electric vehicles] will fall below that of an internal combustion engine vehicle."

Unsubsidized. My numbers include the $7500 tax credit. That alone clears up my confusion.
 
GRA said:
As to when TCO comparability will happen, there are numerous predictions floating around. They tend to cluster around the 2022-2025 range, although there are some as early as 2020.

TCO crossover depends on your personal situation.

Factors that make TCO crossover faster for BEVs: cheaper electric power, more expensive gasoline, cool climate, a Goldilocks commute (not too long, not too short) and so on.

A very few people hit BEV TCO crossover in 2011.

Add in non-economic factors like location of gasoline stations, convenience of home charging and so forth.

I don't see how a FCEV ever hits economic crossover.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
GRA said:
You can own a Mirai (15% do; 85% lease), but not a Clarity.

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

When talking TCO of EVs, we can fairly confidently calculate them today (historically, electricity price is extremely stable). Calculating TCO for a Mirai today is a total shot in the dark. Who knows what hydrogen will cost 5 years from now. Or what maintenance will cost (e.g. mandatory replacement of the hydrogen tanks after N years).

I'll read through the articles you linked, but what I posted stands. It's one data point, but it's my own so I know it's true.
I agree that TCO of FCEVs are a total crapshoot for now, and no one should even think of buying one in the anticipation that it will have lower total TCO than any other vehicle. Actually, I'm amazed that somewhere approaching 200 people in the U.S. have bought Mirais, given the unlikelihood of them being financially viable (absent continued fuel subsidies) beyond three years. Either these people are all in the 'can't be bothered with petty cash' group, or else they're financial illiterates. Given their average incomes the latter seems unlikely, but maybe their wealth is all inherited. Either that or they're someone like Jay Leno, buying them for inclusion in collections.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
As to when TCO comparability will happen, there are numerous predictions floating around. They tend to cluster around the 2022-2025 range, although there are some as early as 2020.

TCO crossover depends on your personal situation.

Factors that make TCO crossover faster for BEVs: cheaper electric power, more expensive gasoline, cool climate, a Goldilocks commute (not too long, not too short) and so on.

A very few people hit BEV TCO crossover in 2011.

Add in non-economic factors like location of gasoline stations, convenience of home charging and so forth.

I don't see how a FCEV ever hits economic crossover.
As noted in my immediately preceding post, they can't under current conditions, a situation which everyone concerned with expanding their market recognizes. But then no one who's buying them is too worried about whether they make the most (or any) financial sense short or long term, any more than people buying Model S's do. A Honda Fit (base MSRP $16,090) is all the car that most people who don't live on farms or ranches need, but most people buy cars based on more than just minimum need.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Calculating TCO for a Mirai today is a total shot in the dark. Who knows what hydrogen will cost 5 years from now. Or what maintenance will cost (e.g. mandatory replacement of the hydrogen tanks after N years).
Easy calculation for TCO break even. NEVER

Vehicle cost is higher, fuel costs more. Remember you are on your own after 3 years.
Any maintenance savings will never offset the vehicle + fuel.

That is the calculation using TODAY's costs. Any significant cost reduction is not just speculation but more in the realm of wishful thinking.

JMHO
 
GRA said:
Either that or they're someone like Jay Leno, buying them for inclusion in collections.

There's always that. The Mirai certainly is a piece of history being, as I understand it, the first production FCEV you can buy and own. Even if they become immobile statues, there is still collector value in that. If you have enough money to throw at a collector item, that is (and far more than 200 Americans do have that kind of money).

smkettner said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Calculating TCO for a Mirai today is a total shot in the dark. Who knows what hydrogen will cost 5 years from now. Or what maintenance will cost (e.g. mandatory replacement of the hydrogen tanks after N years).
Easy calculation for TCO break even. NEVER

You are moving the goalposts. I never said a thing about "break even". That requires something to compare it to. Compared to a Prius, never. Compared to a Ferrari (because, hey, why not - we can apparently set the posts wherever we want) - straight out of the gate, and the gap widens each year (ever looked into the cost of fueling and maintaining a Ferrari?).
 
smkettner said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Calculating TCO for a Mirai today is a total shot in the dark. Who knows what hydrogen will cost 5 years from now. Or what maintenance will cost (e.g. mandatory replacement of the hydrogen tanks after N years).
Easy calculation for TCO break even. NEVER

Vehicle cost is higher, fuel costs more. Remember you are on your own after 3 years.
Any maintenance savings will never offset the vehicle + fuel.

That is the calculation using TODAY's costs. Any significant cost reduction is not just speculation but more in the realm of wishful thinking.

JMHO
No one is arguing otherwise. As has been stated many, many times, the cost of FCEVs, sustainable H2 fuel and H2 fueling infrastructure must all decrease significantly to be cost-competitive with comparable fossil-fueled ICEs. BEVs are currently closer, but they too still have some years to go. All forecasts of future improvements are speculation - the only thing we can say for certain is that R&D and deployment funding for both FCEVs and BEVs and their related infrastructures is being directed to the required areas.
 
GRA said:
BEVs are currently closer, but they too still have some years to go. All forecasts of future improvements are speculation - the only thing we can say for certain is that R&D and deployment funding for both FCEVs and BEVs and their related infrastructures is being directed to the required areas.

Closer? Depends on personal circumstances and assumptions about the future.

Suppose you live in a cool climate, with cheap electric power, charge at home, more expensive gasoline, have a 60 mile or less round trip commute and buy a 38kWh Leaf S for MSRP $30k. Compare with a Honda Fit. also at MSRP 16k. Note that the Leaf is a clearly nicer car.

As there are local to me 2011 Leafs that lost the first capacity bar at over 90k miles, the current Leaf might lose 30% at 300k miles with similar climate and care. The Fit will have hade a engine rebuild before then. Over 300k miles, the Leaf will use $2250 in electric power @3cents per kWh 4 miles/kWh. The Fit will use $22,500 in $3/gallon gasoline, assuming 40MPG. Both will need tires, etc. The Fit will need oil changes, trips to gas station, and generally more time in the shop. How much is that extra bother worth?

Looks to me like the BEV wins big. Before subsidies. You have admitted this in the past, why the change?

Clearly if you live in a hot climate even with a TMS, have cheap gas, expensive electric power, too long or too short of a commute, or need to drive long distances then the ICE wins.

Unlike a fuel cell car, BEVs can break even today. I don't see how a fuel cell car will ever break even,
 
WetEV said:
Unlike a fuel cell car, BEVs can break even today. I don't see how a fuel cell car will ever break even,

It seems not everyone's aware of hydrogen's issues.

1) The fuel cells have a lifespan, previously it was 75k miles worth of electricity generated. Not sure if they've improved on that yet.
2) The carbon fiber overwrap tank has an expiration date. Toyota's Mirai is set to 14 years. You are NOT permitted to drive the vehicle if the tank age is exceeded.
3) hydrogen embrittlement of metal is known phenomenon, that's why the tanks aren't metal. But the valves are. The valve life is unknown for now, but if the tank needs to be replaced, then the valves will too.

Hydrogen Fuel Cell maintenance will most likely be more expensive than BEV.


Edit: Ooops!! Mis-read "break even" for "break down"! Sorry!
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
BEVs are currently closer, but they too still have some years to go. All forecasts of future improvements are speculation - the only thing we can say for certain is that R&D and deployment funding for both FCEVs and BEVs and their related infrastructures is being directed to the required areas.
Closer? Depends on personal circumstances and assumptions about the future. <snip>
I am talking about the ability to completely replace ICEs for general use without direct subsidies or special cases, as do the initial and TCO break-even studies. That a BEV may win out in some cases for limited use now is true, but not relevant to that. A Fit can be most people's sole car, taking them wherever they need to go whenever they need to, and no BEV can be, yet - as you say, personal circumstances and assumptions are still determinant for them.

Comparable cost assumes comparable capability. ICEs didn't become the choice of just about everyone instead of BEVs (except for a few niche uses) a century ago because they were subsidized, it was because they, along with their supporting infrastructure, offered people more general transportation utility and value. BEVs have a cost advantage over FCEVs at the moment, and also (esp. Tesla) an infrastructure advantage, but not the basic capability advantage. Most of the remaining advantages/disadvantages for each are case-specific. At the moment, for the vast majority the fossil-fueled ICE still rules.
 
GRA said:
I am talking about the ability to completely replace ICEs for general use without direct subsidies or special cases, as do the initial and TCO break-even studies.

Cars never fully replaced horses. You are moving the finish line.

I'm reminded of my neighbor near Boston. Had flown many places, but had never driven past Springfield MA. A BEV could have done that and been better than an ICE car.

TCO studies make a long list of assumptions, some of which are likely badly wrong, and fail to match the range of human wants and needs.


GRA said:
That a BEV may win out in some cases for limited use now is true

I'm happy to see BEV uptake increasing. The special cases get more common as batteries get cheaper and larger.
 
WetEV said:
TCO studies make a long list of assumptions, some of which are likely badly wrong, and fail to match the range of human wants and needs.

Yes, and TCO assumes that consumers are rational when making purchasing decisions, i.e. a naive assumption.
That even applies presently, notwithstanding a FCEV, even when considering a BEV verses another ICEV.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
I am talking about the ability to completely replace ICEs for general use without direct subsidies or special cases, as do the initial and TCO break-even studies.

Cars never fully replaced horses. You are moving the finish line.
Oh, come now. Sure, some people still ride horses for pleasure, but for business ICEs rule the roost, for anyone who can afford one. Draft animals are a tiny niche in the U.S. I might add, however, that ICEs almost universally replaced both horses and BEVs (British milk floats ans similar exceptions aside) as delivery vehicles a century ago, precisely because they could be used on all routes, not just the particular ones each was most efficient for. Specialization only makes sense for those who can afford it.

WetEV said:
I'm reminded of my neighbor near Boston. Had flown many places, but had never driven past Springfield MA. A BEV could have done that and been better than an ICE car.
Which is again a limited use in specific conditions. There's no doubt whatsoever that a BEV can be a better choice in a specific, limited set of conditions, but until the general public thinks so, adoption rates will remain limited.

WetEV said:
TCO studies make a long list of assumptions, some of which are likely badly wrong, and fail to match the range of human wants and needs.
All studies make assumptions, including the ones that favor BEVs (like the examples you've given). The study I'm most interested in is the one where the general public votes with their wallets without direct to the individual economic incentives or penalties that push them any particular direction. We've been running that study for over a century now, with consistent results favoring fossil-fueled ICEs. That hasn't yet begun to change, although we both certainly hope it will in the not too distant future. In the interim, it remains necessary to provide subsidies and perks on the one side, and penalties and mandates on the other, to boost ANY AFV tech and provide a disincentive for the purchase of ICEs, because AFVs are as yet unable to compete generally with ICEs on either initial cost or TCO grounds.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
That a BEV may win out in some cases for limited use now is true
I'm happy to see BEV uptake increasing. The special cases get more common as batteries get cheaper and larger.
Do you believe I have any disagreement with this statement? As always, price and capability are the determining factors to adoption. BEVs aren't yet able to compete head-to-head with ICEs on price, capability and infrastructure; FCEVs are even further away on price and infrastructure, but closer on capability. Any AFV must improve in these areas to replace fossil-fueled ICEs.
 
GRA said:
BEVs aren't yet able to compete head-to-head with ICEs on price, capability and infrastructure; FCEVs are even further away on price and infrastructure, but closer on capability. Any AFV must improve in these areas to replace fossil-fueled ICEs.

Hardly a profound revelation, i.e. it's been mentioned ad nauseam in this thread - basic Marketing 101!
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
You are moving the finish line.
Oh, come now. Sure, some people still ride horses for pleasure,

And for businesses, such as ranching. Horses didn't become obsolete all at once, it was over a period of time. First, ICE was a niche, then expanded to half, then horses were a niche. A process, not an event.

GRA said:
Which is again a limited use in specific conditions. There's no doubt whatsoever that a BEV can be a better choice in a specific, limited set of conditions, but until the general public thinks so, adoption rates will remain limited.

In other words, until BEVs hit 50% you will dismiss them.

Once again, FCEVs are more expensive in all cases. Not only now, but for the foreseeable future. Hydrogen is an expensive fuel mostly from fossil fuel sources, and the renewable hydrogen is even more expensive than gasoline and will likely stay more expensive than electric power. FCEVs don't have a niche, and will not have a niche.


GRA said:
The study I'm most interested in is the one where the general public votes with their wallets without direct to the individual economic incentives or penalties that push them any particular direction. We've been running that study for over a century now, with consistent results favoring fossil-fueled ICEs.

Oh, but there is a huge economic incentive to ICEs. Free dumping of waste products into the atmosphere.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
You are moving the finish line.
Oh, come now. Sure, some people still ride horses for pleasure,

And for businesses, such as ranching. Horses didn't become obsolete all at once, it was over a period of time. First, ICE was a niche, then expanded to half, then horses were a niche. A process, not an event.
Sure, they're still used for ranching in some areas (although Jeeps and ATVs now do a lot of what horses used to do). But for personal and commercial transportation, horses were almost completely replaced within two decades in this country.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
Which is again a limited use in specific conditions. There's no doubt whatsoever that a BEV can be a better choice in a specific, limited set of conditions, but until the general public thinks so, adoption rates will remain limited.
In other words, until BEVs hit 50% you will dismiss them.
OFCS, at the end of December mass-produced PEVs will have been available in the U.S. for seven full years, and yet only in this year have they reached 1% of total sales, despite large subsidies and other incentives. In California, which has accounted for 40-50% of all U.S. PEV sales/leases, the HOV lane stickers are worth more to the typical PEV buyer (given their high incomes raising the time value of their commutes) than the federal tax credit and state rebate combined, and yet we're still allowing individuals with incomes up to $150k (and couples up to $300k) to get the state rebate. How else can you interpret these facts, except to say that the general public remains indifferent to PEVs? For one thing, they still can't afford most of them.

Among other milestones, I've said before that I regard 5% of total sales, not 50%, as semi-significant, a level never achieved by HEVs here despite then-high gas prices, 10% as significant, and around 15% will be the point at which any AFV tech can be considered mainstream, assuming that no direct to the buyer incentives are serving as a thumb on the scale. We have years to go to get to any of these, and much of greater future adoption remains driven by government mandates. After all, if the public were adopting these techs on their own, there would be no need for governments in Norway, the Netherlands, France, the U.K., China and India to impose bans on sales of ICEs after a certain date - people would simply stop buying them, just as they stopped buying typewriters in anything other that trivial numbers.

I'm hardly the only AFV supporter to recognize this - here's an ABG review of the new LEAF that makes essentially the same points: https://www.autoblog.com/2017/09/20/2018-nissan-leaf-quick-spin-another-fork-stab-into-the-light-s/

WetEV said:
Once again, FCEVs are more expensive in all cases. Not only now, but for the foreseeable future. Hydrogen is an expensive fuel mostly from fossil fuel sources, and the renewable hydrogen is even more expensive than gasoline and will likely stay more expensive than electric power. FCEVs don't have a niche, and will not have a niche.
As I have stated repeatedly, everyone involved recognizes that sustainable H2 and FCEVs must significantly reduce their costs for them to be viable replacements for fossil-fueled ICEs, which is why there's so much R&D being done in those areas. When or if they will succeed in doing so is unknown. As to having a niche, FCEVs already have one or two (high usage material handling equipment for one), but not yet in personal transportation.

As we've now repeated the same arguments several times, I'm returning to Mirai-specific posts here. All those who wish to see these arguments in more detail may find them in the H2 and FCEVs topic, where they've been endlessly repeated.

WetEV said:
Oh, but there is a huge economic incentive to ICEs. Free dumping of waste products into the atmosphere.
Sure, among many other incentives, and the public doesn't much care as air quality has improved so much since the '60s. In countries like China and India the public does care, because they're back where we were several decades ago as far as smog, but even there when given the choice the public is buying ICEs, e.g.
China car dilemma: Beijing wants electric, buyers want SUVs
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-china-car-dilemma-beijing-electric.html
 
Back
Top