Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell
- Thread starter RegGuheert
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
WetEV makes an extremely accurate statement and you respond with this? Of course the exact opposite is true.GRA said:
BEVs enjoy a MASSIVE addressable market and massive growth in sales TODAY due to their existing capabilities and cost.
H2 FCVs are facing an existential crisis TODAY because they cannot overcome the massive lack of capability in terms of their extremely low efficiency.
Any deployment of H2 FCVs slows the impact and growth of efforts to convert to renewable energy sources because it wastes most of the energy that those sources produce.
BEVs, OTOH, enhance the attractiveness of renewable sources by efficiently applying the limited electricity which these sources produce. Six to 12 PV modules with inverters (depending on location and driving habits) can produce the electricity consumed by each BEV in a home. (For an H2 vehicle, no amount of PV can directly produce the fuel for the vehicle. In addition to needing approximately 3X as much electricity production, you need additional equipment which costs about $250,000 for each vehicle if you want to refuel at home. Another capability sorely lacking from H2 FCVs of today.)
I tried to avoid that comment, but now that it's been quoted, let's dig in, shall we? FCEVs are apparently only working on cost reduction, while BEVs still lack some capabilities that FCEVs and ICE cars have. So, what can we put under capabilities?
Luxury and performance? There are many more BEVs in the luxury category with many more bells and whistles available than FCEVs, and the highest-end BEVs rival or exceed ICE cars in most respects. The world's most advanced and versatile driver aids are in BEVs, the world's best gadgety interfaces are arguably in either a Tesla or high-end Cadillac, BEVs are with some distance the quickest cars in any segment and although they are not quite the fastest, for all intents and purposes there is no lack of performance in any metric relevant to car sales and general car usage, even in the cheapest offerings.
Versatility? Yes, BEVs are very much trailing ICE offerings, and have been for as long as they existed. There are a grand total of 2 BEVs right now that you can buy and that can tow anything, and nothing beyond ~3klbs. There are no people carriers worth talking about (I'm discounting the Evalia), there are no trucks, no semis, no haulers, in general most corners of the market have at most one or two serious offerings, with many lacking any. But in the FCEV market, this is even worse. There are currently 1 cars you can buy. Sorry, 1 CAR. Three you can lease, with a fourth one coming soon (Nexo), but phasing out another one (ix35). These cars stretch across a grand total of two market segments, neither particularly popular (and sedans getting much less popular as of late).
So what possible capability could we be talking about? FCEVs weigh the same or a bit more than BEVs, so it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. Ah, of course, the only thing we could be talking about is the only USP of FCEVs: recharge time. FCEVs can do 0.7kg/min right now, which is an equivalent of about 45mi/min or 2700mi/hr. The best BEV on the market right now can only achieve 120kW or 500mi/hr. But wait, what is that, only 0.7kg/min? I thought a hydrogen refill only took '3 minutes', but 0.7kg/min means about 8min for a full refueling. In fact, average time spent at fueling stations excluding waiting time is well over 10 minutes according to the EPA's 2017 report. If this were all tech we figured out and only needed to make cheaper, why is there still this 'capability gap' in refueling time? Well, I'm of course being facetious: there are still some serious issues that have to be worked out in FCEV refueling. Nothing super hard, it's got to do with thermal shock, frost seizure, pressurization speed and that kind of stuff. But these issues put some really hard limits on what you can achieve with a hydrogen filling nozzle for the time being - a long time being. Meanwhile, electric energy transfer is not really bound by any physics like that. Sure, on a direct line without buffering you probably won't see any fast chargers exceeding the current 350/500kW CCS/Chademo standards (which, by the way, equal current hydrogen fueling speeds). But we will almost certainly be seeing >1MW water-cooled and >5MW superconducting chargers for heavy duty vehicles in the next 5-10 years. At that point you're talking about recharge speeds that can simply never be achieved with pressurized hydrogen at point of sale without some really big breakthroughs.
The next generation of BEV will literally equal or exceed the next FCEV in every respect, including maximum recharge speeds and certainly in range (which the high end already does). There will be literally no USP for hydrogen anymore. And let's be clear: this is all not a limitation of current battery or BEV-related tech, this is just infrastructure and compatibility.
But, to put some more nails in this coffin, there is almost no system in FCEVs that is not bound to a significant degree by lacking technical capabilities. The idea that this is just a cost issue is beyond ridiculous. For a reasonably-sized car, the total volume and in particular the shape of the fuel tanks is prohibitive. The Mirai already does some really funky suspension magic to fit their tanks, and it has zero breathing room in the car to fit anything else, certainly not something like a third tank. This means for all intents and purposes, 700MPa tanks are limited to around 5kg or 300mi worth of hydrogen in perpetuity. The next generation of tanks, going up to 1050MPa, is already about 5 years overdue and according to the 2017 report there has no progress - barely a mention even. Even so, this will at best get us up to about 400mi of real range on about 140kg of tanks and piping, plus about 200kg of fuel cell and cooling. This gets us to a net energy density compared to batteries of about 1mi/kg, worse than bare lithium ion cells and only slightly better than complete battery modules. Considering the tank shape and strength requirements prohibit much in the way of progress here, you completely lose every advantage of hydrogen as far as energy density goes, but on top of that you have no hope of improving over time. Whereas batteries still have a lot of room to improve, with e.g. 600mi BEVs on the roadmap for 2021-2022 (yeah, the Roadster is supposed to launch in 2020 but nobody believes Elon time).
FCEVs are currently reliant on low-temperature fuel cell stacks, which have some inherent efficienty disadvantages. This means they need a lot of cooling, which together with the fuel tank shape limits to a large degree how much form freedom designers have, and what kinds of vehicles you can expect to build. Batteries on the other hand can be placed anywhere, in any shape pretty much.
PEM fuel cells, especially if we ever expect to go off PGM catalysts and need to go towards lower activity nickel-based catalysts, have inherent ramp-up/down times proportional to the time it takes for solvated hydrogen to move across the electrodes. Either that, or you need to permanently waste a lot of hydrogen to keep the electrodes saturated. This limits responsiveness of the car and makes the cars much less appealing to drive compared to BEVs to anyone appreciative of a quick car. BEVs certainly sell on responsiveness and quickness compared to ICE cars. Of course, this is why I 100% expected a plug-in hydrogen hybrid, because then you suddenly do have a big traction battery to do regen and hard pulls on.
Fuel cells have significantly limited lifespans. Much less than most batteries, unless you drive a Leaf
Typical lifespan right now is in the low thousands of hours, and it is the single most expensive part of your car to replace. Let's be clear here; replacing a 64kWh battery will probably cost you $10k, replacing a 100kW fuel cell stack is closer to $50k. Battery prices are going down much faster than fuel cells, so this is not a good prospect for second hand buyers. Same goes for the fuel tanks by the way, they have to be recertified and possibly replaced after 5, 7 or 10 years depending on your jurisdiction.
None of these issues are just 'cost reduction' problems; they are straight up capability issues. We haven't even touched the infrastructure issues either. All-in, FCEVs are really not ready for primetime yet, and by the time they are they will certainly have been surpassed by every BEV on the market.
Luxury and performance? There are many more BEVs in the luxury category with many more bells and whistles available than FCEVs, and the highest-end BEVs rival or exceed ICE cars in most respects. The world's most advanced and versatile driver aids are in BEVs, the world's best gadgety interfaces are arguably in either a Tesla or high-end Cadillac, BEVs are with some distance the quickest cars in any segment and although they are not quite the fastest, for all intents and purposes there is no lack of performance in any metric relevant to car sales and general car usage, even in the cheapest offerings.
Versatility? Yes, BEVs are very much trailing ICE offerings, and have been for as long as they existed. There are a grand total of 2 BEVs right now that you can buy and that can tow anything, and nothing beyond ~3klbs. There are no people carriers worth talking about (I'm discounting the Evalia), there are no trucks, no semis, no haulers, in general most corners of the market have at most one or two serious offerings, with many lacking any. But in the FCEV market, this is even worse. There are currently 1 cars you can buy. Sorry, 1 CAR. Three you can lease, with a fourth one coming soon (Nexo), but phasing out another one (ix35). These cars stretch across a grand total of two market segments, neither particularly popular (and sedans getting much less popular as of late).
So what possible capability could we be talking about? FCEVs weigh the same or a bit more than BEVs, so it certainly doesn't have anything to do with that. Ah, of course, the only thing we could be talking about is the only USP of FCEVs: recharge time. FCEVs can do 0.7kg/min right now, which is an equivalent of about 45mi/min or 2700mi/hr. The best BEV on the market right now can only achieve 120kW or 500mi/hr. But wait, what is that, only 0.7kg/min? I thought a hydrogen refill only took '3 minutes', but 0.7kg/min means about 8min for a full refueling. In fact, average time spent at fueling stations excluding waiting time is well over 10 minutes according to the EPA's 2017 report. If this were all tech we figured out and only needed to make cheaper, why is there still this 'capability gap' in refueling time? Well, I'm of course being facetious: there are still some serious issues that have to be worked out in FCEV refueling. Nothing super hard, it's got to do with thermal shock, frost seizure, pressurization speed and that kind of stuff. But these issues put some really hard limits on what you can achieve with a hydrogen filling nozzle for the time being - a long time being. Meanwhile, electric energy transfer is not really bound by any physics like that. Sure, on a direct line without buffering you probably won't see any fast chargers exceeding the current 350/500kW CCS/Chademo standards (which, by the way, equal current hydrogen fueling speeds). But we will almost certainly be seeing >1MW water-cooled and >5MW superconducting chargers for heavy duty vehicles in the next 5-10 years. At that point you're talking about recharge speeds that can simply never be achieved with pressurized hydrogen at point of sale without some really big breakthroughs.
The next generation of BEV will literally equal or exceed the next FCEV in every respect, including maximum recharge speeds and certainly in range (which the high end already does). There will be literally no USP for hydrogen anymore. And let's be clear: this is all not a limitation of current battery or BEV-related tech, this is just infrastructure and compatibility.
But, to put some more nails in this coffin, there is almost no system in FCEVs that is not bound to a significant degree by lacking technical capabilities. The idea that this is just a cost issue is beyond ridiculous. For a reasonably-sized car, the total volume and in particular the shape of the fuel tanks is prohibitive. The Mirai already does some really funky suspension magic to fit their tanks, and it has zero breathing room in the car to fit anything else, certainly not something like a third tank. This means for all intents and purposes, 700MPa tanks are limited to around 5kg or 300mi worth of hydrogen in perpetuity. The next generation of tanks, going up to 1050MPa, is already about 5 years overdue and according to the 2017 report there has no progress - barely a mention even. Even so, this will at best get us up to about 400mi of real range on about 140kg of tanks and piping, plus about 200kg of fuel cell and cooling. This gets us to a net energy density compared to batteries of about 1mi/kg, worse than bare lithium ion cells and only slightly better than complete battery modules. Considering the tank shape and strength requirements prohibit much in the way of progress here, you completely lose every advantage of hydrogen as far as energy density goes, but on top of that you have no hope of improving over time. Whereas batteries still have a lot of room to improve, with e.g. 600mi BEVs on the roadmap for 2021-2022 (yeah, the Roadster is supposed to launch in 2020 but nobody believes Elon time).
FCEVs are currently reliant on low-temperature fuel cell stacks, which have some inherent efficienty disadvantages. This means they need a lot of cooling, which together with the fuel tank shape limits to a large degree how much form freedom designers have, and what kinds of vehicles you can expect to build. Batteries on the other hand can be placed anywhere, in any shape pretty much.
PEM fuel cells, especially if we ever expect to go off PGM catalysts and need to go towards lower activity nickel-based catalysts, have inherent ramp-up/down times proportional to the time it takes for solvated hydrogen to move across the electrodes. Either that, or you need to permanently waste a lot of hydrogen to keep the electrodes saturated. This limits responsiveness of the car and makes the cars much less appealing to drive compared to BEVs to anyone appreciative of a quick car. BEVs certainly sell on responsiveness and quickness compared to ICE cars. Of course, this is why I 100% expected a plug-in hydrogen hybrid, because then you suddenly do have a big traction battery to do regen and hard pulls on.
Fuel cells have significantly limited lifespans. Much less than most batteries, unless you drive a Leaf
Typical lifespan right now is in the low thousands of hours, and it is the single most expensive part of your car to replace. Let's be clear here; replacing a 64kWh battery will probably cost you $10k, replacing a 100kW fuel cell stack is closer to $50k. Battery prices are going down much faster than fuel cells, so this is not a good prospect for second hand buyers. Same goes for the fuel tanks by the way, they have to be recertified and possibly replaced after 5, 7 or 10 years depending on your jurisdiction.None of these issues are just 'cost reduction' problems; they are straight up capability issues. We haven't even touched the infrastructure issues either. All-in, FCEVs are really not ready for primetime yet, and by the time they are they will certainly have been surpassed by every BEV on the market.
GRA
Well-known member
We have no disagreement here. The problem is that until we get affordable BEVs with the features people want, we won't have mass market viability, which is why I believe that less expensive PHEVs are the mass market option for the near term. After all, a single-car household in the U.S. that needs a PEV that has an MSRP less than $25k is currently limited to a SMART ED (2 pax, 58 mile range) or an Ionic PHEV (29 mile AER & 630 mile total, 5 pax). It's easy to see which one provides the best value for money and will be the mass market choice. The next step is a $20k MSRP PHEV. Long range BEVs that can serve as people's sole car will be at least $10k-15k more expensive for some time yet.WetEV said:
I've previously said I'll almost certainly be late majority for an AFV, given my unusual use case, and that I'm not typical. After all, only 0.6% of U.S. commuters do so by bike (vs. the 76% who solo commute in a car), so that puts me in a small minority right there.WetEV said:
But change can be speeded up, and I believe that's what's necessary, at the cost of accepting less than the ideal initially.WetEV said:
And I've pointed out repeatedly that for biofuels to expand beyond their minimum essential niche (jet fuel replacement for long range aviation), they can't compete with food production or habitat. R&D continues to try to develop biofuels to do just that (algae etc.), and IMO should continue, even though it's expensive and there's no guarantee of success. Do you agree or disagree?WetEV said:
No, that's a design decision - there's nothing to prevent FCHEVs from being given more powerful motors and battery packs capable of providing the necessary accel. It's like saying that because the Prius is a slug, all HEVs must be - the Porsche 919 (and Audi R18 e-tron quattro, which uses a flywheel rather than a battery), or FTM the i8, show the fallacy of that. And let's not forget that prior to the Roadster and Model S, BEVs were typically dismissed as glorified golf carts.WetEV said:
IMO Toyota and Honda made a mistake by designing their initial FCEVs as Camry/Accord clones. They should have offered them as larger cars with higher performance branded as Lexus and Acura, which would have allowed them to charge a lot more and take less of a loss per car.
Yes, general and regional (commuter) aviation strikes me as a likely use, unless biofuels (with caveats as above) are available.WetEV said:
Of course cost is a problem. As noted, it's H2/FCEVs only problem. As it is, BEVs are projected to reach cost parity with ICEs around 2025, and FCEVs around 2030, but nothing's guaranteed.WetEV said:
Yeah, so? I've never been against BEVs, but I've also never been willing to pretend that they were viable mass market as yet.WetEV said:
Yes, we might get to 1.5 or even 2% this year in the U.S., 8 years after introduction. It's noteworthy that the best-selling BEV here remains the most expensive brand, and priced well above the median price for a new car. Can you say this about any product that is mass market?WetEV said:
Again, we're not talking about change happening quickly, we're talking about change happening faster than slow but steady. I don't think we can afford to wait until 2050, but need to make significant progress by 2030. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think 2x CO2 is an experiment we can afford to run, even though I'll almost certainly be dead well before the worst effects kick in.WetEV said:
[Edited to fix some typos]
GRA
Well-known member
As we know, we disagree about the value of continuing with development/deployment of FCEVs and their potential, and little is served by repeating all those arguments again (and I've been sucked again in by WetEV). Again, no one's opinion here will determine the success or failure of FCEVs. What we do see is increasing deployment of commercial FCEVs; private ones are lagging, especially here in the U.S., for a variety of reasons.RegGuheert said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Forklifts, yes. The only reason they are winning is that BEV developers are focused on a MUCH larger market. H2 forklifts days are numbered once Li-ion solutions are applied to this problem. The extremely low reliability of the H2 forklift solutions now in place will ensure this fate.GRA said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
All this because of your blind faith in nonsense? Unbelievable!GRA said:
Since CO2 does NOT control the temperature of the Earth, all of the doomsday predictions are now shown to be completely failed:
- Earth is rapidly greening.
- Arctic sea ice volume is growing.
- Greenland ice mass is growing.
- Antarctica ice mass is growing.
- Sea level at tide gauges is changing as the same rate it always has (although some sites like The Battery in Manhattan have seen significant drops over the last decade).
I could go on and on about nonsense failed predictions.
It's really ridiculous that people make dire predictions and then pay no attention to the fact that none of them have any merit.
But what really boggles the mind is that you argue for "solutions" like H2 FCVs that will only slow the adoption of renewable energies. Amazing!
GRA
Well-known member
See my reply to WetEV on marketing and design choices.mux said:
You've left out much of the commercial end of things. We have FCEV buses, PHFCEV delivery vans, semis appearing in the next year or two, maybe ferries a year or two after that. For cars, I agree the FCEV market is very limited for now, but then they're 5 years or so behind BEVs in deployment. In 2011 how many BEVs were available?mux said:
Re refueling times, early equipment had issues (big surprise), but as with most tech, lessons are learned, products improve. From user accounts I've read, the full retail H2 stations generally seem to be hitting the 3-5 minute timeframe. And what FCEV weighs the same as a BEV of ICE-comparable range, as the weights scale differently? To add range to a BEV, you add batteries. To add range to an FCEV you add H2 (and some weight for the tank).mux said:
Uh huh, but that assumes that pressurized H2 is the end game, and I've pointed out numerous times that while high pressure H2 works, it's less than ideal. Whether adsorption/nanotube storage or some type of room-temp liquid with on-car H2 extraction (as is about to be used for mass transport by ship, with on-site extraction) can be developed remains to be seen. If BEV charging can equal or exceed H2 replenishment , then I agree, it's game over.mux said:
Uh, no. As it is, no current or near-future BEV car can use the full charge rates of stations that are just now entering service - the Taycan at 280kW is the highest at 4 2/3rds kWh/min. or 14 - 18 2/3rds miles/min (@ 3 and 4 miles/kWh). Even at 0.7kg/min and 60 miles/kg. an FCEV gains 42 miles/min. At 500kW a BEV is still only 25 to 33 1/3rd miles/min, meaning a 10-15 min. fill. By contrast, a Prius getting 50 mpg does up to 500 miles/min.mux said:
I'll be ecstatic if affordable BEVs with real-world 350 mile range appear in the next five years. And by real-world, I mean for the life of the car while being driven normally year round, especially in winter using heat/defrost.mux said:
As to FCEV range, I don't think increasing much beyond what we currently have is important, because rapid refueling can be traded off against range. While there will always be some people who want more, 300+ with a reserve is adequate for most people. Current FCEV tank configs are bad (the Mirai's poor, the Clarity's awful, with a near unusable trunk), but the Nexo, which is going to a 3-tank configuration, seems to fit everything in well enough. Adsorption or nanotube storage would allow going to a skateboard configuration ala' BEVs, which would eliminate any concerns about volume (but at least in the case of adsorprtion, add weight).mux said:
Uh huh, and as all current FCEVs are actually FCHEVs, as noted in my reply to WetEV there's no reason why you can't use a battery for accel, given a powerful enough motor. Not that I think P100D accel is anything more than a toy for the rich.mux said:
ISTR current generation auto PEM fuel cells are considered good for 2,000-4,000 hours and the DoE target is 5,000, and commercial ones have hit 20khours or more: https://insights.globalspec.com/article/5862/fuel-cell-bus-meets-diesel-engine-life-expectancymux said:Fuel cells have significantly limited lifespans. Much less than most batteries, unless you drive a Leaf
Of course, a single example is little more than anecdotal, but the 248,546 hours of service mentioned in the article divided by 13 buses is an average of 19,119 hours per bus.
The Mirai's tank is apparently certified for 15 years life, but I don't know what the inspection regimen might be: https://insideevs.com/2016-toyota-mirai-refuel-2029/ I imagine it's not much different than my scuba tanks which require pressure tests every five years, a modest expense.
See above. At least as far as the commercial stuff goes, ICE comparable capability and lifetime seems to have been achieved in real-world use. Cost remains the issue.mux said:
GRA
Well-known member
Reg, we know that we disagree on AGCC. I'm 80% convinced that it's happening and the effects are likely to be serious and long-term (that human activity can affect the atmosphere locally and regionally over the short and mid-term isn't in doubt, as air pollution and the Antarctic ozone hole have demonstrated). But I'm 100% convinced that we can't take the risk of AGCC. I know you don't believe it is happening, but as the steps needed to prevent it are valuable for any number of other good reasons. I argue for continuing with any possible solutions to the problems I see, until we know that one or more can solve them.RegGuheert said:
WetEV
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
All might be very interesting, if you had a believable source for these "facts".
RegGuheert said:
Don't go too far on hydrogen and fuel cells. Hydrogen and fuel cells might well be the storage solution to the "last 10%" of renewable energy supply, And there might be niches for fuel cells powering transportation, especially shorter range aircraft. Or perhaps cargo ships. Development isn't a bad idea, only the promotion of "hydrogen cars" as a near term solution. Rather that a long term R&D project.
I didn’t realize there was a single supplier for much of the H2 stations in southern CA.
https://tiremeetsroad.com/2018/07/24/hydrogen-fuel-shortage-in-southern-calfiornia/
I am curious to hear what the supplier side issue is.
It seems the network is not only small at this point, but has no redundancy for a single supplier over a large area.
https://tiremeetsroad.com/2018/07/24/hydrogen-fuel-shortage-in-southern-calfiornia/
I am curious to hear what the supplier side issue is.
It seems the network is not only small at this point, but has no redundancy for a single supplier over a large area.
This has a lot to do with hydrogen supply in general. Most purefied hydrogen is produced and consumed for fertilizer production as syngas, which happens roughly here:
This is where the big suppliers are, and there are always multiple; Linde, Air Liquide, etc., they're all clustered around these areas. In CA, there is almost nothing, all the hydrogen produced is for pretty specific, usually relatively small-scale operations like certain polymer production or oil refinement purposes, often on-site.
For HFCEVs, you need super-pure hydrogen, so the hydrogen production that happens in SoCal is unfit. This is why Air Products was contracted by itself, and basically only does small-scale purified hydrogen production for the fuel cell industries in CA. They clearly don't have any kind of supply continuity contract in place, because interruptions in supply happen quite regularly, and for the volume of FCEVs nobody is going to make redundant hydrogen production facilities without a big fat check from the gov't.
All that being said, only FirstElement stations should be affected, the ITM station at Riverside should still provide hydrogen (it does synthesis on-site).
Pretty disconcerting to read that this has been going on for a *week*. That is REALLY long for an unannounced fuel drought.
This is where the big suppliers are, and there are always multiple; Linde, Air Liquide, etc., they're all clustered around these areas. In CA, there is almost nothing, all the hydrogen produced is for pretty specific, usually relatively small-scale operations like certain polymer production or oil refinement purposes, often on-site.
For HFCEVs, you need super-pure hydrogen, so the hydrogen production that happens in SoCal is unfit. This is why Air Products was contracted by itself, and basically only does small-scale purified hydrogen production for the fuel cell industries in CA. They clearly don't have any kind of supply continuity contract in place, because interruptions in supply happen quite regularly, and for the volume of FCEVs nobody is going to make redundant hydrogen production facilities without a big fat check from the gov't.
All that being said, only FirstElement stations should be affected, the ITM station at Riverside should still provide hydrogen (it does synthesis on-site).
Pretty disconcerting to read that this has been going on for a *week*. That is REALLY long for an unannounced fuel drought.
mux said:This has a lot to do with hydrogen supply in general. Most purefied hydrogen is produced and consumed for fertilizer production as syngas, which happens roughly here:
This is where the big suppliers are, and there are always multiple; Linde, Air Liquide, etc., they're all clustered around these areas. In CA, there is almost nothing, all the hydrogen produced is for pretty specific, usually relatively small-scale operations like certain polymer production or oil refinement purposes, often on-site.
For HFCEVs, you need super-pure hydrogen, so the hydrogen production that happens in SoCal is unfit. This is why Air Products was contracted by itself, and basically only does small-scale purified hydrogen production for the fuel cell industries in CA. They clearly don't have any kind of supply continuity contract in place, because interruptions in supply happen quite regularly, and for the volume of FCEVs nobody is going to make redundant hydrogen production facilities without a big fat check from the gov't.
All that being said, only FirstElement stations should be affected, the ITM station at Riverside should still provide hydrogen (it does synthesis on-site).
Pretty disconcerting to read that this has been going on for a *week*. That is REALLY long for an unannounced fuel drought.
Thanks for the great information! I appreciate that.
GRA
Well-known member
This and follow-on posts belong in either the "Ca. H2 Retail Fuel Stations" or "Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion" topics. Will a mode please move them? and you could also move all of the OT posts (including mine) re BEV/FCEVs as well as those arguing AGCC, as this is supposed to be a Mirai-specific topic. Thanks.Zythryn said:
smkettner
Well-known member
Toyota will not give up easy....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-idUSKBN1KG0Y0
Money must be easy at Toyota. I really thought Toyota might wind this thing down in 2019. Good luck.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-idUSKBN1KG0Y0
Money must be easy at Toyota. I really thought Toyota might wind this thing down in 2019. Good luck.
GRA
Well-known member
Pretty much exactly the kind of improvements you expect from continued R&D and economies of scale. Toyota plans for the long-term and is willing (and able) to suffer the losses along the way, just as they did with HEVs. And of course, they've always also continued with solid-state battery development, which they regard as the key to mass acceptance of BEVs owing to improved safety, better longevity and faster charging rates.smkettner said:
It's really hard to take them seriously, though, as Toyota has been making the obvious compliance Mirai car and not investing anything beyond their initial 12 filling stations as well as pushing leases on their car for the past 4 years. Add to that the fact that they're still committing to full hydrogen vehicles instead of hydrogen-battery hybrids and they're only introducing the cars in exceptionally favourable areas wrt taxes and incentives, and from a game theory perspective they're just not trying to mainstream the tech at all.
So it's really hard to take these kinds of press releases at face value. Why would they be starting to take hydrogen seriously now, after just making compliance cars for 5 years?
I tend to judge companies by their actions, not their words, and I don't see a car company trying to advance the cause of hydrogen light duty vehicles in Toyota.
So it's really hard to take these kinds of press releases at face value. Why would they be starting to take hydrogen seriously now, after just making compliance cars for 5 years?
I tend to judge companies by their actions, not their words, and I don't see a car company trying to advance the cause of hydrogen light duty vehicles in Toyota.
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Well-known member
GRA said:
Even if Toyota hits their costs savings (for producing EV's), they probably won't hit their sales target. As a matter of fact, they didn't hit their 2016 (~1000 of 2000) and 2017 (~1800 of 3000) targets! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toyota-environment/toyota-targets-fuel-cell-car-sales-of-30000-a-year-by-2020-idUSKCN0S80B720151014
2018 YTD sales don't look pretty either (projected to be less than 2017): http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/toyota/toyota-mirai/
With such a capable manufacturer, production capacity isn't their issue.
Toyota's desire to increase FCEV production to 30k/year is a sign hubris.
Stoaty
Well-known member
The problem is that physics tells us that production of hydrogen from electricity will always be way less efficient than using electricity directly to power a BEV.GRA said:
GRA
Well-known member
Toyota has also invested in the H2 stations now starting to come online in the Northeastern corridor, the Mirai is only a compliance car in the U.S., and they haven't been 'pushing' leases (as they and they alone allow their LD FCEVs to be bought), they're the only thing that makes financial sense for customers given that no one knows what the price of H2 will be beyond 3 years. That a few customers still choose to buy their Mirais is evidence of either excess incomes or else financial illiteracy.mux said:
All Mirais (and the other two LD FCEVs) are battery-electric hybrids, i.e. FCHEVs. They aren't PHFCEVs. I suspect there's not enough space/weight for the current gen of batteries to make PHFCEV really practical unless you've got something like a delivery van and use a small stack as a range extender to a large battery pack (e.g. Renault Kangoo Z.E.), but don't know that for a fact. Certainly, a PHFCEV would seem to be an excellent option for the next gen as the stack power and battery energy densities continue to improve. As to introducing the cars in favorable areas, how does this differ from BEVs? They're expensive new tech too. And I'd hardly call the U.S. extremely favorable wrt taxes and incentives, given our low gas prices and generally low electric rates. California and a few other states are more favorable than others, but Europe is a much more favorable locale for FCEVs at the moment.mux said:
Toyota has been taking hydrogen seriously for about 20 years now, as indicated by the several billion dollars they've invested in R&D, infrastructure and limited production. Among other things, in the decade between 2004 and 2014 they managed to reduce the cost of a stack from ~$1m to $50k, or 95%. They needed to reduce it at least another 80% (to $10k or less) before FCEVs could be commercial, and they knew that; they are apparently down to $!1k now, and aiming for $8k per the article. Learning how to produce stacks in mass will give them the economies of scale needed to get them a long way down that road, and the rest will have to come from further technical improvements through R&D.mux said:
Then our views of the actions they've taken over a prolonged period of time differ. Introducing HEVs, a cheaper, much simpler task technically (no need to build a fueling infrastructure as well) took over a decade, and Toyota lost money for the entire first gen of the Prius' production (a car mediocre in every way except gas mileage) and probably would have done so for the entire 2nd gen as well if gas prices hadn't started to rise rapidly in 2004, making fuel efficiency a much higher priority for customers. 15 years ago, would you have said that you don't see 'a car company trying to advance the cause of hybrid light-duty vehicles in Toyota'?mux said: