Slew of new mirai articles

UCS calculation was based on:

The power plant efficiencies reflect the current mix of natural gas power plants (80 percent efficient combined-cycle generation units).

What efficiency did NREL study used?

 

Denise, are you comparing the Volt or Ford PHEVs in all electric mode or using their gas mix? The problem with the PIP on the west coast is the 62mph EV speed limit. You just can't really drive that slow out here and that's where a large majority of the PIPs are used, on the freeway (HOV stickers).

I understand the efficiency arguments well. You've driven those into me. I'm just asking in terms of actual emissions using something other than the EPAs estimated EV to gas ratio.

 

Toyota's hydrogen car will be an absolute minimum ZEV compliance car. That's why the hydrogen lobby paid tons of money for record high ZEV credits. Because they have no intentions on building these compliance cars in any quantity. Thus, it's likely to never go outside CA. So why on earth would you compare Volt electricity to the national average - instead of California's high cost for electricity? Why not calculate/base the hydrogen car's waste/efficiency on hydrogen distilled from water strictly via electricity? After all, fracked natural gas won't be too long for this world ... and switching to methane from garbage can't possibly provide enough fuel for the hydrogen car industry. If we are going to skew real world likelihood, then, 'what's good-for the goose is good-for the gander. Nevertheless - the latter skew is likely to be much more close to reality.
.

 

Denise?

EPA emission (g/mi) rating is for a mix of gas and electric. For Volt, it is 66% EV and 34% gas. For Ford Energi, it is 45.1% EV and 54.9% gas. For PiP, it is 29% EV and 71% gas.

Those ratios were based on statistics, so YMMV. For me, my PiP is doing about 60% EV ratio.

There is a reason for that. Emission from EV driving above that speed exceeds that of gas. So PiP would start to blend.

As the grid emission gets lower, I am sure it'll make more sense to drive EV at higher speed. We saw about 10% decrease in the grid mix in the past 4 years. Next gen PiP may be designed with higher EV speed.

Next Gen ICE (HV operation) is supposed to improve by 10% as well. But EV efficiency could improve 10% as well, with the new SiC inverter. I don't know if SiC would make it into production, so we'll have to see what Toyota does with their balancing act.

For my 60% EV ratio, it doesn't matter how/when/what speed EV and HV gets used. All I care is the end result of both fuels. If the results are good, there is synergy. If one fuel drags another one down, you have antergy.

I don't do much blended operation but John does. His PiP data/results also show synergy.

Both Ford Energi models and Volt result in antergy. It is easier to see with Energi models since there is a hybrid version available to compare.

That's one way to produce hydrogen, probably the worse and most expensive way.

Electricity could be generated from hydrogen also, which is worse than generating it straight from natural gas.

So, when you selectively use the worse case to make certain technology look bad, you don't look good.

The best way to generate hydrogen is from natural gas with 80% efficiency (how it is done today). Generating electricity from natural gas is about 50% efficient. You can see why hydrogen is better and without refueling speed bottleneck.

Another good way to produce hydrogen is from renewable sources when there is low demand and it doesn't make sense to shutdown coal and NG power plants.

RAV4 EV using today's California (zip: 94122) electricity would emit 180 g/mi. Tucson FCV is projected to emit 173 g/mi. CA grid can get cleaner by end of 2015 also. It'll be a close call.

By the end of 2015, California is projected to produce 46 percent of its hydrogen fuel from renewable sources, which would render the Tucson FCEV’s emissions equal to that of a 63-mpg gasoline car (173 g/mi).

*The EPA rating for the Hyundai Tucson FCEV is 49 miles/kilogram hydrogen.
**California law (California State Senate 2006) requires a minimum of 33 percent renewable hydrogen content.
***The Air Resources Board projects renewable hydrogen content in California for 2015 will be 46% (CARB 2014).

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/How-Clean-Are-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cells-Fact-Sheet.pdf

All of those have short range and long refuel time. They have said for those reasons EVs do not meet their mass market customer expectation.

 

As mentioned, they never expanded availability of the PPI when the initial claim was to go nationwide. There was even a June 2011 date on the website for that. No announcement on whether the next gen PPI will be nationwide, but it comes out a full year after the next Prius, so it is early yet.

The one BEV they sold was contracted out to Tesla, and was only released in California. Yes, some were sold, like the PPI, to people outside that state, but Toyota stopped that with the final ones available. It was years until the government credits were rolled into the leases, while others did so from the start, keeping the rates high for it. Despite being part of the Chademo group, the RAV4 EV never had that for an option. Toyota ended the partnership with Tesla without any announced plans for another plug in, but instead hyping their Mirai. Which does have a Chademo outlet, just not for charging the battery.

Their in house BEV was stillborn. The eQ has the worse EV range of any compliance BEV while still being pricy. Toyota realized it would flop after seeing wht the competitors would be, and only sold the hundred or so made to fleets. IMHO the car was designed to conclusions made in Japan about BEVs when the batteries were lead-acid and NiMH.

To a degree, that could also be said of the PPI. Not knocking the car's overall efficiency or cleaniness, but that was something achieved by DIY and kit modders since the gen2 Prius. The PPI does it better, but only in a couple of steps. Not in leaps of performance or price. In hindsight, the PPI appears to be something to just have to compete with those kits and the Volt. I think Toyota would have been happy ignoring its customers' calls for a plug in if there wasn't any outside threats.

I am disdainful of other manufacturers with compliance only plug ins, but those are few. Nissan and Tesla are the only companies committed to BEVs, but the others are doing more than meeting the minimum. The MiEV is nationwide. Mitsubishi itself was doing poorly. The Spark EV never got out of Ca and Oregon, but GM has the Volt and wider availability plans for the Sonic EV. The Focus EV can be bought outside Ca if you really want it, otherwise there are the Energis. The i3 and smart ED are expanding across the nation.

FCA's CEO has publicly admitted the Fiat 500e is compliance only. Honda let the Fit EV program end, because they can meet the CARB quota with their FCV.

Finally, there are the recent anti-plug ads from Lexus. I said, guess a couple of years ago, that Toyota has no interest in selling a car with a plug, and that impression hasn't changed.

What about getting it to the car? I know there are transmission and charging losses with a BEV. How do they compare to the losses incurred from compressing and liquidfying the hydrogen, and then trucking it to the station, where it will need to be compressed again? Or with onsite natural gas reforming, which is less efficient with no possibility of CO2 sequestering, and compressing?

Refueling speed is a red herring. For daily use, I and likely most others go to a gas station once a week. Compared to plugging in and unplugging everyday, the time at the gas station probably isn't much more out of the week. It just has the hassle of pulling in, getting out of the car, getting out the wallet, standing there while pumping the gas, getting back into the car, and pulling back into traffic instead of a single action before or after getting in the car.

For people where a BEV range doesn't meet their daily needs, or don't want to wait for a quick charge on a trip, a FCV's refueling speed is an attraction, but it is something also shared by plug in hybrids.

That is the real question for you. What do FCVs offer that make them better than PHVs for the majority?

 

I'm sorry - but a quote from CARB as an authority . . . . . CARB - the fine folks who - when GM (et al) demanded carb kill the electric car some 10 years ago .... that's just another way of saying the "facts" are what ever the FC lobby pays them to say. CARB is another cheerleader for the FC industry. Quote someone who doesn't have a paycheck in the result, please.
.

 

I think trucking it to the stations would be the short term route. Pipelining (at low pressure) is the longterm plan.

Compressing it to 10,000 psi takes significantly less energy (5%?) than battery charging loss (15%).

Battery also has self-discharge and vampire drain. In Tesla's case, it could be as high as 4 kWh per day. That's more than my PiP full charge.

They don't need to change their habit. Just go to the same gas station and pump/pay hydrogen and go.

There is no need to plug/unplug, hang EVSE on the wall every day. If you charge it outdoor, you need to walk some distance to hang the EVSE. It defeats the purpose of having the SmartKey feature. Wireless charging would relief but that takes to the next point.

There is no need to buy extra equipment to refuel. No charger to buy (faster charger is optional/extra) and pay the electrician to install the dedicated outlet (required).

You don't need real estate to refuel. That means, no need to have garage, drive way, proper electricity service (200Amp) at home to handle charging.

There is no noisy and vibrating gas engine. It drives like an EV. There is no need to maintain the gas engine.

You get the advantages of both gas and EV and it is the best choice to commercialize for the mass market.

Thanks for the link but Jeff was referring to a recent study. Is 2001 the most recent?

 

I was referring to this updated NREL study from 2013:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60528.pdf

I was referring to this updated NREL study from 2013:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60528.pdf

 

Why would FC industry lobby CARB to reduce fossil fuel in the hydrogen?

Look, I am not going to change your mind made up 20 years ago.

 

When you look at the graphs in the executive summary you see that a vehicle getting about 68 miles per kg of hydrogen from NG would emit about 250g per mile CO2-eq. The standard Prius has a total EPA emission estimate of 218 and the PiP has 220 on US average electricity. The Volt gets 250 on US average electricity. The Mirai will probably get rated a bit under 68 mpgge based on what we know today.

Note that the "hybrid electric vehicle" shown for comparison on those graphs is associated with 350g per mile of emissions so it not a Prius! It likely represents a hybridized version of the average conventional car.

I've only really read the executive summary. I plan to read the full 268 pages during the holidays.

 

250 g/mi if the source is all NG. 65 g/mi if it is wind.

A blend of 46% wind and 54% NG would be:

0.46 x 65 + 0.54 x 250 = 165 g/mi

 

I don't think the Mirai will be much more efficient than the old Clarity. The car went on sale this week in Japan, and if it greatly surpassed the Honda FCV's japan cycle results, I think we would have heard about it. Autobloggreen is estimating it at 60mpge. 2016 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Vehicle likely to get 60 MPGe

Came across this in California's SB 1505 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hydprod/sb_1505_bill_20060930_chaptered.pdf, "The bill would also require the state board to adopt regulations that are to apply in any year immediately following a 12-month period in which the mass of hydrogen fuel dispensed in California for transportation purposes exceeds 3,500 metric tons...production and direct use of hydrogen fuels for motor vehicles...contributes to a reduced dependence on petroleum, as well as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutant emissions, and toxic air contaminant emissions, and would require these regulations to meet minimum requirements, as specified."

While the state run hydrogen highway stations have to meet the 33.3% renewable requirement for hydrogen, commercial or private ones don't until there about 14,000 FCV on the road(60mpge, 15k miles/year). Furthermore, if it appears that the 33.3% can't be met, the state board can reduce the requirement by up to 10 percentage points. They can also give individual hydrogen producers that don't meet that renewable requirement a 5 year wavier up to two times for a total of 10 years.

Low pressure is relative. Interstate natural gas pipe lines operate at 200 to 1500psi. The hydrogen will have to come in at a flow rate to not starve a stations compressors. That means big pipes or higher pressures. Like gasoline, the final leg will be by truck.

Those with a plug in now don't seem to miss needing to go to a gas station now. If they arrive when the station filling tank is low, it will take longer to fill their FCV than getting a fill with gasoline.
They are already plugging and unplugging their smart phone. Doing it for the car isn't a major task. Even when every car has it, SmartKey will still be a luxury feature. It is a minor feature, and if that alone keeps someone away from a plug in, that someone will likely want self opening doors on their car. If they want to pay for wireless charging fine, I personally think it is an unnecessary drain on charging efficiency.
Factoring the lower cost per mile of electric, the cost of a charger still leaves the PH owner ahead of a FCV. The hydrogen will likely cost the same or more per mile as a comparable gasoline car. It will be even higher when renewablely made. Besides, until PHVs start having ranges comparable to today's BEVs, a EVSE unit is unneeded for most to fully charge overnight. In which case, any needed electrical work will be only to instal a dedicated outlet of 20 amps for the car. many new homes use 20amps for the entire home instead of 15, and some locals require wiring for an EVSE in the code.
Good point about the FCV working for those without charging access at home.
A fuel stack isn't as quiet as pure electric. Some require air compressors. The stack and tanks also have their maintenance requirements. That info isn't being made readily public, but we know that CNG tanks have a shelf life, requiring regular inspection, and that in one FCV bus test program the fuel cell bus ended up costing more that a diesel one to operate.

I think fuel cells can serve roll in transportation in the future. So keep researching and improving them, but pushing to commercialize them now is foolish at this point. The cheapest are at luxury car levels without all the perks of other luxury cars. Cost of fuel stacks will come down with production, but the production levels appear to be compliance only levels, which isn't a large pressure for cost cutting in production. By the time the fuel stack comes down to cost for mass consumer levels, methanol, NG, or another fuel type may make high pressure hydrogen stations obsolete. The millions CARB is spending on those stations can help out on many alternate fuel projects.

 

Toyota Embraces Fuel-Cell Cars for Post-Gasoline Future - Businessweek

 

The number are everywhere. We have NREL report suggested 68 MPGe for 2009 Toyota prototype (FCHV-adv?). So, the production version after 5 years should do better. I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the high 30's. Most likely it'll be 60 MPGe (EPA) since they said the range is 300 miles with 5 gallon equivalent hydrogen.

The well-to-wheel comparison was for Japan as fuel efficiency was measured under Japanese cycle. It'll be interesting to see the actual EPA fuel economy and emission numbers.

It is rated 650 km (402 miles) range under JC08 cycle. So, it does get 80 MPGe under Japanese cycle.

If we look at how much Leaf JC08 range drop under EPA cycle, Mirai range will be below 300 miles. Perhaps, FCV range is not as sensitive as BEV.

 

Of course if you wanted to build a really quiet submarine, a fuel-cell makes a nice power source:

Source: US & Japan to develop fuel-cell powered sub – report — RT News

Bob Wilson

 

The chart is accurate. My previous post addressed the Tank-to-Wheels of FCV 59% claim under Japanese cycle, which it compared Prius and BEV under the same cycle.

Toyota used Well-to-Tank as 65% for 10,000 psi (67% for 5,000 psi). This is the same as what's used in the most recent NREL report, if you divide output by input (see below).

UCS probably used the latest technology to be deployed in 2015. This DOE document describes 79% efficiency (see below). This is the recent breakthrough that wasn't in NREL 2013 report. It should when they do another update of the report.