Featured Toyota chief speaks out on EVs

My Camry has 10.5 cu ft. trunk space. I've made trips of thousands of miles in the car. The biggest impediment to carrying cargo is the narrow rear doors and the small trunk opening. I could fit a 55 inch flatscreen in the back seat if only I could get it past the door trim.

That's an interesting assertion, but if it's 4 feet smaller than yours, then it's a bit larger than mine. I've never felt that mine was a problem.

Really? Have you driven the Prius Prime for more than a test drive? The rear seat headrests get in the way MUCH more than a load of grocery bags. BTW. A shopping cart full of groceries fits well behind the seats of my Prius Prime. They don't block my view. When I travel with enough tools (compressor, sliding chop saw, etc) to remodel a room (yes, I did that) I never had a problem seeing out any of the windows.

You're welcome.

As far as the most common cause of fires: "Leaks in the fuel system are the most common cause of vehicle fires, so that's why they take the top spot on our list [source: Chandler Law Group]. "

Nothing personal. You just make a lot of points in a single message, and that tends to require a lot of words to rebut or clarify.

Dan

 

My son and DIL have a solar and efficient house, a Gen 3 Prius and a 2013 Prius v. 3 kids. Going skiing for a weekend. Will all of that plus a large dog fit in any of those vehicles? No. So they are going to take two cars because of the skis, snowboards, etc.

Oops, his 220k miles Prius just got diagnosed with needing a total $8500 rebuild of the engine. So he is taking my Rav4h with 13k miles because I want my family safe.

Now they are in a puzzle. What should they buy considering:
He works 40 miles from home.
There are going to be two new drivers in the next 5 years (one this year).
Her car has 110k miles.
They live in a fairly large metropolitan area.
They are very green.

Would a Murai fit their needs in the mountains of VA? Either refuel or space? I don't think so given their Raleigh location. But what should they consider?

 

Charge at work buy a Volt
$2000 cost of entry and up
They easily go 40 miles and can go on trips carefree without worry about inop chargers at the destination.

Bolt only has $10000 cost of entry and up and will easily cover daily drives.

 

What Camry is that? The old hybrid with compromised trunk had 13.1 cubic feet.

It is 9 cubic feet for the Mirai, so 6 cubic feet smaller than my 2016 Camry. It is built on the GS platform, and the base model of that Lexus has 18.4 cubic feet in the trunk. The fuel tank and equipment taking up trunk space means the Mirai doesn't have folding seats with a pass through.

That domain appears to be for sale. I'm going by fire stats from FEMA.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v19i2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-veOL-fbtAhWHo1kKHXgHBe4QFjACegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw1fz2JDKJAC8unhd1sOff-m

"Forty-six percent of the items first ignited in highway vehicle fires fell under the category of “general materials”. This category includes materials such as tires, insulation around electric wire and cables, trash, and fabric. Specifically, insulation around the electrical wiring or other cables was the most common item to initially ignite, not only within this category but in all highway vehicle fires (29 percent). While it is often assumed that vehicle fires commonly originate with the tires of the vehicle, tires were the item first ignited in only 6 percent of all highway vehicle fires.
The second leading category of items first ignited was “liquids, piping, filters” (26 percent). This category primarily includes fuel in various locations in the vehicle. Due to its combustibility, fuel from the engine area was the leading specific item first ignited within this category and was the second most common specific item first ignited in highway vehicle fires overall (18 percent). In general, flammable liquids and gases accounted for 24 percent of items first ignited[/QUOTE]

 

OK, I'll accept that 29% of the vehicle fires were cases where "Specifically, insulation around the electrical wiring or other cables was the most common item to initially ignite"
That's a lot, but your initial assertion was "Most car fires start as an electric one in the 12 volt system". 29% is not most. It's the most common, but not the source of "most fires". Most fires (71%) are sources other than electrical.

My Camry is a 2010 hybrid. According to the fact sheet that I looked up it's only 10.5 cu feet.

 

It’s not just capacity one needs to evaluate, it’s also the size of the opening to the trunk. The Mirai has a much larger opening. Model 3 trunk opening is rather small compared to many other vehicles in its class. Maybe Tesla wanted to do that knowing the Model Y would be a small SUV.

Well what happen in the 70’s and 80’s with the rise of small Japanese cars and don’t forget the VW Beatle and it’s small trunk space. Full size Wagons were disappearing by the 80’s with the Minivan replacing them. But the rise of the Minivan was more for hauling kids and moms than about being able to be used for the use of luggage. Roof racks were the new way to haul when the Minivan was filled with persons.

 

I don’t believe that is accurate. The Model 3 doesn’t have the ‘lip’ on the trunk the Mirai appears to have.

According to: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/tesla/model-3/interior

The S is apparently a typo as the rest of the article is about the 3.

According to Car & Driver:

.
So it looks like about 15% less trunk space, less cargo space with seats folded down, and no more ease for loading.

 

I think there is some confusion on the vehicles being compared. The 2021 Mirai has 9.6 ft³ cargo space compared to the 15 ft³ of the Model 3.

 

If heated, of course they will release some H2 through those PRV (possibly with rupture disks). Common sense says it will feed the fire, but we can read

Hydrogen leaks can support combustion at very low flow rates, as low as 4 micrograms/s

(Hydrogen safety - Wikipedia)

Also we have to consider the total energy inventory is less than a gasoline car tank.



The pressure Energy is about 1.4kwh/kg at 700bar
For a full 5kg H2 Mirai, it will hold 7kwh of compression Energy.

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf

That energy is a fraction of all the Energy content (LHV) 33.3Kwh/kg - the amount of 5kg holds 116kwh.

Also we have to add the good resilient properties of the carbon FRP, which do not exhibit brittle fractures. It can be punctured but not prone to open up suddenly.


Hope this clears a bit.

 

That's a good basis of hypothesis. Testing proved that false though. Science has a way of revealing counter-intuitive facts.

In the case of FCEV design, that reveal came from implementation. Tank design was for high-pressure containment, strength for impact resistance, and breath-ability. Those 3 aspects resulted in tests showing the hydrogen dissipated so quickly, there as basically no fire.

So, claims about danger are really just FUD, nothing to be taken seriously. The data simply doesn't confirm it.

 

Apologies, that was a 2020 Mirai. They actually shrunk the cargo space?? So now it is 35% smaller.

 

According to the specs published by each manufacturer, yes.

 

The car is now RWD with longer range, and it now fits five. There is a motor and third fuel tank taking up space in the rear.

 

Science of hydrogen burn rates - & what testing proved;

Flame Quenching Limits of Hydrogen Leaks

From SAE

.

 

"The minimum mass flow rate of hydrogen that can support combustion from a leaking compression fitting was found to be 0.028 mg/s. This flow was independent of pressure (up to 131 bar) and about an order of magnitude lower than the corresponding methane and propane flow rates."

What leak proof fittings do hydrogen cars use?

If FCEV design makes hydrogen fires impossible, why aren't those designs and equipment used at hydrogen stations, hydrogen plants, or any where else hydrogen is in use?

 

i was about to hang myself, glad at least somebody else besides my self & the publisher gets the point.

 

One only needs to look at Japan's emissions to see that Toyoda is right, but it almost seems like he's missing the government's motivations.

Only 15% of Japan's emissions come from road vehicles (excluding trains). Under existing regulations, this is falling to be an even smaller percentage each year.

Most of Japan's emissions come from electricity generation. Fear of nuclear power since Fukushima has caused Japan to burn large amounts of coal for electricity. While they've (slowly) been displacing that with renewables and natural gas, a rapid increase in electricity demand means much more coal will be burned in addition to costing money (Japan tends to think nothing of major infrastructure expenditures so money isn't as much of a problem as Toyoda makes it out to be).

The reality is an ICE ban is not climate policy at all. It does two things for Japan:

1. It improves national security. Australian coal is dependable (made by a close ally, unlikely to be subject to sanctions, almost impossible to embargo), Iranian oil is not (this has become increasingly clear under the Trump administration).
2. It allows Japan to pretend to address climate change to the global community while burning more and more coal and gas.

In terms of jobs, the government has been trying to pressure automakers to prioritize exports over the domestic market anyway by doing things like eliminating tax breaks for kei vehicles. I'm not sure if Toyoda is failing to understand this or is just pissed off that his lobbying failed to overcome these priorities with his own.

This is why Japan has invested heavily in hydrogen and methane hydride extraction. Successful natural gas extraction from ocean deposits would quickly improve energy independence, reduce the emissions from electricity generation, and create a supply of hydrogen for automobiles. In the next 20 years or so it's the most realistic path for Japan to reduce vehicle emissions whether the car itself ends up being battery or hydrogen electric.

California is a different beast. Terrible public transport, long commutes, a clean electrical grid, and American politics mean banning ICE isn't stupidity there. Ideally, replacing every medium duty truck used for commuting in the US with a mild hybrid and reforming zoning laws to reduce commutes would do much more than banning ICE in California, but we know that's not happening.

 

Toyota CEO's Anti-EV Diatribe May Be Puzzling, But It's Not Unusual (insideevs.com)

 

Source: Toyota Launches "C<sup>+</sup>pod" Ultra-Compact Battery Electric Vehicle in Japan | Toyota | Global Newsroom | Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website

Toyota City, Japan, December 25, 2020―Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) announced today a limited launch of the "C+pod" ultra-compact battery electric vehicle (BEV), from December 25, to corporate users, local governments and other organizations that have been exploring new options to drive the popularization of BEVs. Toyota plans to further promote the establishment of systems for popularizing BEVs, including development of new business models, and to conduct a full-scale launch including to individual customers by 2022. Today's launch will also demonstrate new services that can only be provided by BEVs.
. . . ​

Bob Wilson