GRA
Posts: 11065
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:56 pm

mux wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:43 am
The point is exactly that even though you can typically refuel in about 10 minutes start to finish, you require detours and planning all the time. This in turn really limits the effective range, because you can't even plug in to get to the nearest actually working, not-repressurizing fueling station - you have to keep some reserve (most drivers seem to err on the side of caution and keep ~20-30% reserve) to be able to refuel.

I'm not saying this is an inherent issue with all hydrogen cars ever, it's just that BEVs have gone from being demonstrably inferior in both range (sub-100mi) and refueling speed (maybe 50kW if you're lucky and it's not cold) to superior range (300-350mi actual range) and charging speed (250-350kW, plug&charge, no detours, no queues) in the span of the existence of the 1st gen Mirai.

While I agree with many of your points, it seems we disagree over the definition of "effective range". Where FCEVs fall short now is in areas of access, which is an infrastructure issue, not (as we've both noted) inherent to the car's tech, any more than ICEs have limited effective range where there aren't any gas stations (although as previously mentioned, their fuel is more portable than either electricity or H2). We also disagree that BEVs have achieved "superior range" to FCEVs, especially if you're talking about effective range, or superior charging speed, as neither is the case. That they're superior to earlier BEVs is undeniable, but not relevant to a comparison with FCEVs. Nor are BEVs yet capable of not having to make detours or requiring no planning - even the Supercharger network in the U.S. has major gaps remaining, especially if you want to go off-interstate, and Electrify America is still completing their major interstate routes. Given the large spacing between SC/QC sites in rural areas, large reserve % are required of BEVs as well, with the additional disadvantage that use of same will increase degradation to a greater or lesser extent over the long term. Perhaps the most accurate statement is that BEVs currently require less planning in many areas.

Re re-pressurization, as was to be expected, the first generation of sites had issues - what new tech doesn't? The second gen sites now coming on-line have two instead of one dispensers, much more capacity (800 kg. in the one most recently opened here, versus 180 kg. (and one dispenser) typical of the first gen, and IIRR are required to support 8 full refuelings/hour. We'll see how they do, but in no way can they be considered inferior to BEV charging speeds, especially if you're talking full fills.

mux wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:43 am
In the meantime, the only way hydrogen has been able to sort of respond is by making a physically significantly larger car to accomodate an extra fuel tank (Nexo) and building about 1/5th of the promised new fueling stations, both in Europe and the US.

The roll-out of stations here has undoubtedly fallen behind schedule, indeed we've only got 40-some in California now when it was initially calculated that it would take 68 (IIRR) up front just to make an initial deployment of FCEVs feasible. I regard that as a glass half empty/half full issue. As to vehicle size, given rapid refueling you don't necessarily need to have the same on-board range as a BEV must have, given the BEV's limitations on usable SoC for longevity (and keeping recharging times reasonable), provided you have a sufficiently dense fueling infrastructure (which doesn't exist yet). Not that I think high-pressure gas storage is the ultimate end, but hopefully an intermediate method on the way to adsorption/nano tube storage if we can commercialize one of those.

mux wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:43 am
This is not news, but it's typical that we see this happening for an alternative fuel again and again. Remember CNG? That was supposed to be the bees knees, and it theoretically was: about 30% lower emissions without the need for any other changes to the car, smaller engines for the same power. It even had the advantage over hydrogen that you could refuel at home, if you had mains gas. But large fuel tanks and very sparse fueling stymied the technology. There were plenty of promises even by oil companies like Shell and BP that they'd offer CNG widely, there were large metro areas that retrofitted buses and taxis to CNG and built their own publically funded refueling infrastructure. All of this has happend over the past 20 years or so, and where is it now? It's basically a zombie technology.

Before CNG, it was liquified gas.

I've predicted this for 10+ years now, but this is what's happening to hydrogen and has been for all the time I've been involved with the tech. Nobody still supporting hydrogen vehicle technologies at this point will be easy to convince of this - obviously this is a self-selecting group - but it's pretty obvious. I'm really surprised BEVs have been able to garner so much support and have progressed so much in so little time.

We agree about the difficulties of any alternative fuel deployment, and how long any such transition will take. We do disagree a bit about CNG, as while it never took off for consumer vehicles, commercial vehicles, especially buses, are another matter. True, it's a bridge tech on the way to something better, but it's certainly improved the local air quality around here, where the transit buses are all CNG (plus a few FCEV) instead of diesels. IDK if FCEVs will have a similar primarily commercial deployment as with CNG, or if they will also be widely adopted by consumers, especially by people who don't live in detached, single family homes with charging on site. That self-selected group you refer to includes China, Germany, S. Korea and Japan so that's a lot of convincing you need to do.

I'm not partial to any particular ZEV tech, only that we get off fossil-fuels ASAP. It happens that my particular use case is better matched by the current capabilities of FCEVs (assuming the infrastructure/pricing improvements previously mentioned) rather than BEVs, but as my sig says I don't believe in silver bullets and do believe we need to advance on multiple fronts as rapidly as possible until we've solved the problem, accepting that there'll be much money/effort wasted along the way while we go down what turn out to be dead ends, or are no more than niches. This is the same process as when electricity or cars were first introduced, so why would we expect anything different this time around?
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.

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 14156
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Nov 2019
Leaf Number: 319862
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:42 am

I think we now have to look at the legality of building refueling stations. WA made shipping oil from the Bakkens illegal by writing a law restricting vapor pressure in tankers transported by rail. Its now all about fossil fuels and the perceived hazards they come with.

I don't see Hydrogen ducking the scrunity here.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 15,000 miles, 478 GIDs, 37.0 kwh 109.81 Ahr , SOH 94.61, Hx 120.15
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GRA
Posts: 11065
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:31 pm

GCC:
Toyota to showcase next-generation Mirai Concept FCEV at 2019 Tokyo show
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... mirai.html


At least from the rear quarter it's much better looking (that isn't difficult). They're also claiming ~30% more in range due to increased storage, which would give over 400 miles EPA. Also, five rather than 4 seats, improved performance. Launch in Japan/U.S./EU in late 2020.


GCR's article has both front and rear quarter plus side views, and it does look better from all angles: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... port-sedan

IMO the side view isn't a nice as a Model S or Taycan, and I'm not thrilled by the nose, but you can see they're trying for a Model S vibe. As they're calling this a concept, some tweaking may be done.
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.

mux
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:52 am
Delivery Date: 13 Oct 2011
Leaf Number: 6177

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:02 pm

I'm not down on the design at all, and as said before it's a real feat of engineering to get an extra tank AND an extra seat in there.

Purely from a technical perspective, this is a big step forward. They're definitely not half-assing this.

GRA
Posts: 11065
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:25 pm

It's too bad that didn't do this with the Mirai initially. IMO, if you know your new tech car is going to be too expensive for the masses, it makes sense to aim it at the premium/luxury market, as the margins are higher and you won't lose as much per car. IOW, it should have been a nice, big, conventional-looking Lexus, rather than an extremely ugly Toyota. How many people are going to want to pay $59k for an ugly, weirdmobile Camry FCEV with only four seats, versus those who would pay $70k for a nice-looking and higher performing Lexus FCEV with 5?

This exactly the approach that Tesla used with the S.
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.

rmay635703
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sun Oct 27, 2019 11:01 am

Possibly a dumb question but I noted some extremely cheap Off lease Toyota Mirais going through the usual dealer auctions (via 3rd party listings) and it appeared they would sell in the low 4 digits, when I check the link I made I do not appear to be able to see a finished action results.

If anyone with a dealer license is feeling generous I am somewhat curious what the 2016 Mirais have been selling for recently. (Wholesale)

I was told they sell for more than that but apparently can provide no proof unless I get a dealer license.

Thanks

GRA
Posts: 11065
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:50 pm

Carfax shows one 2016 for $11,969: https://www.carfax.com/Used-Toyota-Mirai_w9250

The problem with any used FCEV is that you're paying the retail price for H2, which isn't yet anywhere near cost-competitive with gas.
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
jlv
Moderator
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:08 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2014
Leaf Number: 424487
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:39 am

The problem with any used FCEV is that you're paying the retail price for H2, which isn't yet anywhere near cost-competitive with gas.
I think I hear a fat lady singing.
LEAF '13 SL+Prem (mfg 12/13, leased 4/14, bought 5/17, sold 11/18) 34K mi, AHr 58, SOH 87%
Tesla S 75D (3/17)
Tesla X 100D (12/18)
85K 100% BEV miles since '14
ICE free since '18

GRA
Posts: 11065
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:38 pm

jlv wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:39 am
The problem with any used FCEV is that you're paying the retail price for H2, which isn't yet anywhere near cost-competitive with gas.
I think I hear a fat lady singing.

Not sure why, as getting the price of H2 cost-competitive with gas has always been the main issue in making FCEVs commercially viable, and it was always going to be harder in the US than in countries with higher fuel prices (mainly due to higher fuel taxes). I've always recommended that customers lease rather than buy an FCEV for that reason.

Now that excess renewables are starting to become available on a fairly regular basis here as well as elsewhere the odds are better, but success is by no means assured.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

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

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