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.
mux said:
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 said:
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 said:
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?
 
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.
 
GCC:
Toyota to showcase next-generation Mirai Concept FCEV at 2019 Tokyo show
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/10/20191011-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/new...car-revealed-in-concept-form-as-a-sport-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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
jlv said:
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.
 
ABG:
The Toyota Mirai went from yuck to yowza, will it be enough?
If it catches on, it could spur the creation of Toyota's own hydrogen network. That's a big 'if.'
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/11/21/2021-toyota-mirai-styling-hydrogen/



. . . Practically speaking, the new and substantially bigger five-passenger Mirai will be an improvement over the cramped, four-passenger existing model. Toyota is also promising better performance (you can read more about it in our first look). However, according to Mirai chief engineer Yoshikazu Tanaka and senior fuel cell engineer Jackie Birdsall, it's the new design that will really make the biggest difference. They recognize that whatever strides they make in developing and improving hydrogen fuel cell technology won't really matter if no one wants the car or can find a place to refuel it.

The new design is intrinsic to both issues. As Birdsall explained, the hope is that more people will want one, setting off a muted version of what the Tesla Model S achieved for electric cars. More sales and more demand for the car would therefore spur demand for more infrastructure – both in terms of additional stations and urging a change in government regulations to allow hydrogen-powered cars in more places. Throughout the northeast, it's currently illegal to drive hydrogen-powered vehicles on bridges and in tunnels. Neither is going to happen if only a handful of weirdos are driving around in a handful of weird cars – the Honda Clarity included.

This market-based argument is logical enough for how hydrogen fuel-cell technology might catch on, but it still seems like a long shot. The widespread implementation of hydrogen stations might require more drastic measures. Toyota Group Vice President and General Manager Jack Hollis floated the idea that Toyota might build the infrastructure itself, much like Tesla did with its Supercharger network.

"We'd have the ability to do it," he said of the financial capability, but whether it makes sense is another matter entirely. Much like Toyota's delayed approach to offering full-electric models, Hollis is quite clear that the market will dictate further steps in the company's alternative fuel efforts. Perhaps, then, the new sleek and beautiful 2021 Mirai capturing the attention of the public could be the catalyst for Toyota to act, rather than hoping it'll spur municipalities and oil companies to build filling stations. That certainly seems like a more feasible way forward for Toyota's hydrogen plans, but again, it'll come down to that styling. If people don't want the car, it's all a moot point.
 
GRA said:
ABG:
The Toyota Mirai went from yuck to yowza, will it be enough?
If it catches on, it could spur the creation of Toyota's own hydrogen network. That's a big 'if.'
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/11/21/2021-toyota-mirai-styling-hydrogen/



. . . Practically speaking, the new and substantially bigger five-passenger Mirai will be an improvement over the cramped, four-passenger existing model. Toyota is also promising better performance (you can read more about it in our first look). However, according to Mirai chief engineer Yoshikazu Tanaka and senior fuel cell engineer Jackie Birdsall, it's the new design that will really make the biggest difference. They recognize that whatever strides they make in developing and improving hydrogen fuel cell technology won't really matter if no one wants the car or can find a place to refuel it.

The new design is intrinsic to both issues. As Birdsall explained, the hope is that more people will want one, setting off a muted version of what the Tesla Model S achieved for electric cars. More sales and more demand for the car would therefore spur demand for more infrastructure – both in terms of additional stations and urging a change in government regulations to allow hydrogen-powered cars in more places. Throughout the northeast, it's currently illegal to drive hydrogen-powered vehicles on bridges and in tunnels. Neither is going to happen if only a handful of weirdos are driving around in a handful of weird cars – the Honda Clarity included.

This market-based argument is logical enough for how hydrogen fuel-cell technology might catch on, but it still seems like a long shot. The widespread implementation of hydrogen stations might require more drastic measures. Toyota Group Vice President and General Manager Jack Hollis floated the idea that Toyota might build the infrastructure itself, much like Tesla did with its Supercharger network.

"We'd have the ability to do it," he said of the financial capability, but whether it makes sense is another matter entirely. Much like Toyota's delayed approach to offering full-electric models, Hollis is quite clear that the market will dictate further steps in the company's alternative fuel efforts. Perhaps, then, the new sleek and beautiful 2021 Mirai capturing the attention of the public could be the catalyst for Toyota to act, rather than hoping it'll spur municipalities and oil companies to build filling stations. That certainly seems like a more feasible way forward for Toyota's hydrogen plans, but again, it'll come down to that styling. If people don't want the car, it's all a moot point.
That is a very nice looking car. I feel like finally these manufacturers are not insisting that their EVs look hopelessly goofy.
 
IEVS:
Sleek Toyota Mirai FCEV Hits Europe In Production Preview Form
https://insideevs.com/news/393251/toyota-mirai-preview-revealed-europe/

Maybe it's the angle of the illustrations, but I find the nose excessively long and not particularly good-looking, and the proportions not all that pleasing. Jaguar does the long nose/short body look really well - Toyota, not so much. It's still a huge improvement over the first gen's looks, although the average five-year old could manage that.
 
It's got a bit of a '90s executive saloon look too it. But more rounded. I'm always **** at predicting whether people like a particular car's shape, they all look similarly toy-like to me because of all the shiny rounded surfaces, but I'm not seeing anything obviously wrong with it.

Then again, I drive a 1st gen Leaf so I have no taste.
 
^^^ :lol: :lol: :lol: To me, the nose looks way too much like a snout.

Back on-topic, via IEVS:
A Look Into Used Toyota Mirai Sales
https://insideevs.com/news/393433/toyota-mirai-used-sales/

I'm as surprised as the author that there have been so many used sales, although the 3 year fuel cards for each "Toyota Certified" used Mirai given to Toyota dealers probably explains it. I can't imagine anyone buying one of these without it - why would anyone choose to buy a used one if they had to pay retail (ca. $16/kg.) H2 prices?
 
That's actually not too hard to see - they are INCREDIBLY cheap. The high fuel price makes them practically worthless on the second hand market, but that's actually okay as they are generally written off anyway. I've seen people on Mirai forums quote sub-$10k prices for a used Mirai. For an electric vehicle with those specs and a vehicle that is that young, that's unprecedented almost. I'd buy it just for the fuel cell, just for parts to look at!

Look at the only hit on cars.com right now: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/787533913/overview/

35k miles, 3 and a bit years old, new price $68k (nominal, probably never actually paid). For reference, here's a similar-spec, similar-mileage, similar-age Leaf:

https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/794229091/overview/

And keep in mind that sold new for $29-31k. Literally less than half the price, no fuel included, no service included during that time.
 
My god retail prices for H2 are $16 per kg?!
Yeah hydrogen is definitely dead on arrival.

I'll just drive a good old electric car.
 
Oilpan4 said:
My god retail prices for H2 are $16 per kg?!
Yeah hydrogen is definitely dead on arrival.

I'll just drive a good old electric car.


Current average price in CA. Everyone involved with them knows that the H2 price has to come down for them to be practical, which is why so much R&D is being devoted to achieving that. DoE says $7/kg. will be comparable to a gas ICE on a per mile basis (current gas prices), but their goal is $4/kg, which will be cheaper anywhere. It remains to be seen if they can get to either one, and whether or not they can do so before some other tech, whether batteries or whatnot, builds an insurmountable lead. Meanwhile, in countries (Europe) with high fuel taxes FCEVs can be cost-competitive with gas ICEs now, and as some of those countries are starting to designate ZEV zones in urban areas, that gives FCEVs another advantage there.
 
mux said:
That's actually not too hard to see - they are INCREDIBLY cheap. The high fuel price makes them practically worthless on the second hand market, but that's actually okay as they are generally written off anyway. I've seen people on Mirai forums quote sub-$10k prices for a used Mirai. For an electric vehicle with those specs and a vehicle that is that young, that's unprecedented almost. I'd buy it just for the fuel cell, just for parts to look at!

Look at the only hit on cars.com right now: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/787533913/overview/

35k miles, 3 and a bit years old, new price $68k (nominal, probably never actually paid). For reference, here's a similar-spec, similar-mileage, similar-age Leaf:

https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/794229091/overview/

And keep in mind that sold new for $29-31k. Literally less than half the price, no fuel included, no service included during that time.


That price is well below the average price of the used Mirais he was tracking, but what I want to know is how did it wind up in Chicago?
 
Right now the petrol chemical industry produces the cheapest hydrogen on earth in large volume.
What scenario takes it from $16 to $7 retail?
It would have to involve almost free and unlimited electricity.
If by some miracle an unlimited source of free terrestrial hydrogen was discovered tomorrow I don't think it could be compressed and distributed for less than $4 per kg.
Even if the natural gas price dropped to $0 it wouldn't even cut the price of hydrogen half.
 
Back
Top