We don't know the official EPA estimates for the Mirai or 2016 Volt but I think we can make reasonable guesses based on what is known today. I'm guessing the Mirai will get 60-65 mpgge AKA 60-65 miles per kg of hydrogen. That would give it a carbon-equivalent of around 40-45 mpg of gasoline. I'm guessing the Volt will get a combined 42 mpg gas-only and around 32-33 kWh per 100 miles on electricity. I was comparing Volt on US national average electricity and Mirai on hydrogen from NG. The Tucson doesn't have a hybrid variant to compare directly against the FCV version. The Escape hybrid, Ford's first gen hybrid effort, gets 40% better combined EPA mpg than its convention version (32 vs 23 mpg). If you apply the same ratio to the Tucson it would have a hybrid mpg of 35 mpg. Well-designed efficiency-oriented hybrids typically get about 50% better combined mileage (like the Camry hybrid vs conventional). By that measure, a hybrid Tucson should get 37-38 mpg just like the hydrogen FCV version.
Yep, I got my first Pop-Sci subscription in 1974, and if I had a nickel for every promising new technology that was "right around the corner," I could afford to retire right now. Dr. Moller's flying car was almost a sure-thing in 1974, just as it is in 2014.
There is also some dispute about how to estimate CO2 equivalent emissions for hydrogen made from NG. The Union of Concerned Scientists assumes that the Tucson's 49 mpgge EPA estimate implies 289g per mile or the gasoline carbon equivalent of 38 mpg. The recent comprehensive NREL study on hydrogen production estimated that a 49 mpgge vehicle on hydrogen from NG would get close to 350g per mile CO2-eq on a well-to-wheel basis. A 2014 Ford Focus convention gas 4 cylinder automatic has an EPA estimated combined 31 mpg and a well-to-wheel CO2-eq of 351g per mile, according to fueleconomy.gov. So, is a Tucson FCV carbon equivalent to a 38 mpg car or a 31-32 mpg car? Somewhere in between?
The reality of today's hydrogen fueling infrastructure is that it would be worse than the 31 mpge NREL carbon estimate, but really everyone expects things to be better than today where much of the hydrogen is liquified then trucked then some leaks before making it into a vehicle. The UCS makes assumptions that the new stations will be much more efficient than the existing ones, which is not a bad assumption. We are then left with a couple of questions. If renewable hydrogen is much more expensive than natural gas based hydrogen, when we have hundreds of thousands of hydrogen powered cars on the road, will the source by natural gas or renewable. MIT assumed it will mostly be natural gas based but much more efficient than today's infrastructure. If it is going to be renewable (33% or more) who is going to pay for it? Certainly if some beneficent soul provides the renewable infrastructure but then tries to recoup the cost by selling the hydrogen (for say $10/kg) will taxpayers or auto companies pay the costs or the car owner. Maybe a decade or two from now renewable hydrogen becomes much less expensive, idk. Would it be better to use that renewable energy in a fcv, or use it to replace coal power plants or used to go three times as far in a plug-in? Lots of questions. One thing we know is the path of natural gas to hydrogen without sequestering the carbon dioxide during manufacturing brings about the same ghg footprint as a hybrid (actually higher if you account for content in the car an d infrastructure). Even though ghg aren't better than a hybrid without renewable, natural gas to hydrogen does switch from oil based to natural gas based and that alone is good for america. The big problem is not ghg versus hybrids, it is cost, and that is why I doubt that if we had hundreds of thousands of these things running around we would fuel them with renewables. That doesn't mean we won't be using renewables 30 years from now, but a decade from not it simply means we won't have many fcv running around north america. End of 2018, DOE should have good numbers for amount of natural gas and electricity are used. The problem is every time one of these studies come out, the fuel cell lobby says they just need more money and time to make it much better.
We have a good amount of data that show FCVs will be as clean as gas hybrid or EV. It will be cleaner than EV by the end of 2015 in CA due to massive use of renewable sources. There is a huge untapped renewable energy that can be stored as hydrogen, otherwise gets wasted. Put two and two together. There is synergy between hydrogen and the renewable energy. I am not totally against fossil fuel industry. I am against OPEC (1st), then Coal (2nd) and then Natural Gas (3rd). I want to cut off OPEC petroleum import and FCVs will do that. My PiP cannot do that completely. Hydrogen will be created using only domestic fuel (NG or renewables). We have plenty of NG. We also have plenty of Coal and I think NG is the lesser of three evils. I am not against hydrogen because it will be domestic fuel and it allows us to use more renewable energies. Cut off OPEC and support domestic fossil fuel and renewable industries while retaining advantages of EV and ICE vehicles? Yes, it is a win-win-win. We should be able to buy hydrogen from renewable source, just like how you can buy renewable electricity. I just don't understand political agenda drive anyone's support for technology. I hope this post breaks down fear properly and prevent misplaced anger away from potentially good technology. I agree but don't think it will work. It has the same scheme as Cash For Clunker. People will sell the fuel efficient car later to cash in. I did similar calculation on the effectiveness of plugin tax credit for the Volt. It cost about $6 for every gallon Volt would save. So they came out about the same. Can't really speculate which will be cleaner. Mirai will pull ahead as 46% of California's hydrogen will be sourced from renewable by the end of 2015. In another word, it will be as clean as the proven gas-electric hybrid or an EV (RAV4 EV). Why are we against fuel cell again? FCVs will be using domestic natural gas and a great amount of renewable that can't be used with EVs due to slow refueling time, inefficient transportation (transmission loss) or storage issues. Yup, that shows you have an open mind. And not misplace your fear toward the technology instead of the fuel source. You get it now! The cost of FCV came down 95% in the last decade. It is projected to do the same in the next decade. They are being sold to the public for the first time in history. A huge milestone, so no more jokes. If you look at technology, it is simple without moving parts. Mirai uses 40 grams of platinum and the usage amount would decrease and could even out with the platinum used in catalytic converters (15-20 grams). They may even find a way to replace completely with another material.
U.S. Shale-Oil Boom May Not Last as Fracking Wells Lack Staying Power - Businessweek Thanks for reminding me . . . . Japan is building an outrageously expensive - tax payer supported fueling infrastructure that must necessarily be built on the miracle of fracking .... which is just a few years out from sputtering. That's what I call Peak Deja Vu. Ever since Bob Lutz began blowing anti hybrid smoke up everyone's bung 10yrs ago, I started hoarding these little written gems. One year 'till FCV's are cleaner than (CA) ev's? Source? I'll be reminding folks of this in just 12 months. Don't go anywhere. You can't quote a source because that's the FC lobby spin. Fact is, Toyota refuses to show build costs ... It's likely come down though ... but just try & source it. But that's one of the many insurmountable problems with FC's .... it's a turn off because it's shrouded in half truth/spin/outright lies that no one is held accountable for. Do you really want to be an ambassador for such a scheme? .
For me, the sticking point against hydrogen is the inefficiency. No matter what source of energy is used, it's more efficient to store in batteries than it is to convert it into hydrogen. There's always a conversion loss. No matter what happens in future, unless there's some way to change the basic laws of chemistry, hydrogen will never be superior to batteries.
Well they fixed everything about the Mirai that I wanted, not that they actually listened to me. Seriously I wanted a larger motor than the one they offered on their concept FCV, and I wanted that ability to act as a backup generator and now they have an option for that. So I'd pull the trigger in a heartbeat on a Mirai if they would fix three things about it: location, location, location. The Mirai and the fuel for it will not be in my neck of the woods for a very, very long time. I'm a realist, so my only real 2 choices for the near and probably fairly far future will either be PHEV or BEV. The Mirai just simply will not be a viable option in my neck of the woods for a really, really long time. In the mean time, I'd like Toyota to offer a longer EV range PHEV with AWD. I'll be trading my wife's Venza for it. And keep it a hatch, thank you very much. I already have a 7.7 kWh Clipper Creek EVSE so bring it on. And try not to match what's already out there, just make it better. Here's your competition: Chevy Volt - long range mileage not that good and my PiP's bigger Ford CMAX Energi - long range mileage not that good and my PiP's bigger BMW i3 - 2700 lb rear wheel drive car where I live? No thanks Mercedes Benz B-Class EV - Front wheel drive and a little longer EV range - has promise. I'll keep my PiP for longer range driving. See simple.
I look forward to the hydrogen economy (if I live long enough) but we won't get there by pretending that it works today.
I totally understand what you are saying, usbseawolf2000. Eventually it could work. I just hope someone designs a hydrogen car that doesn't look so lame. The Mirai is horrid and a tough sell even if the interior and performance matched the price. lol
Wait. Is this a good comparison of toyotas move to fuel cell or is it a swap game where gm is toyota in this articket and toyota is gm...where gm supports ev hybrids now and toyota wants to kick EVs to the curb...
Yes, and I've been hearing it from toyota about plug-in cars. None of the articles posted here, say anything like that for fcv. They do make the point that perhaps the subsidies are too high, as we have much higher subsidies for fuel cell vehicles, but they don't appear to have higher benefits. Here we have toyota saying they only expect to sell 300o in the US by the end of 2017. This compares to earlier in the year Bob Carter saying that fuel cells would sell much better than we expect, and the fuel cell lobby and CARB's plan for 53,000 by the end of 2017. Perhaps the 3000 vehicles is quite reasonable, but much bellow expectations for a $220M hydrogen highway and $13,000/vehicle tax credit. plus 9zev credits worh around ($18,000/vehicle). Toyota is doing the heavy lifting for the hydrogen lobby though, hyundai only is going to lease around 60 this year in the US, honda postponed until 2016 maybe something about engineering problems, but maybe they just want to wait and see how toyota does with their 200 cars in the US in 2015. Toyota hyped this car as being like the prius. The prius sold 1M vehicles in the first decade. This car is projected to lease 700 the first year then explode to 2100/year for some then make it to the 10s of thousands. Even if that is 30,000/year starting in year 4, a projection of 200,000 vehicles in ten years doesn't make it like the prius. Maybe in the next decade or the one after that. The argument that plug-ins are too heavy but fcv are light goes away when we look at the weight of the mirai (over 4079lbs, 0-60 in 9 seconds) or the tucson fcv (4101lbs 0-60, 12 sseconds) they don't compare favorably to the plug-in brethren in weight or price. Certainly if Japan's METI and korea's equivalent wants to pay for fuel cell development more power to them. I hope the next generation they release more attractive cost competive cars. For the mirai, I don't know how anyone can look at that sheet metal and sales projetions and say, this thing is going to kill the plug-in market.
who told you toyota wants to kick EVs to the curb? What does that even mean? Look, I just read this story, hope it is not so! Tesla’s Tanking U.S. Sales And The World Of Automakers Falsifying Sales Numbers
Pure silliness. I suppose Tesla is also lying to someone ready to fork over $70-120k when they tell them they will have to wait 2-3 months for their car? Tesla is public. If they lie in their quarterly reports it is rather stupid.
you're serious? ok, let me know if this helps you understand what it may mean .... if a car builder ran smear campaigns against plugin's - and they mysteriously failed to expand their plugin lineup - and came up with alibi after alibi as to why they can't open PiP sales to more, if not all 50states .... and they promised the moon, with how great fc's are - even as the fc lobby is assuring insane amounts of CARB/ZEV credits (allowing minuscule production numbers of fc compliance vehicles) and not pushing higher credits for PiP sales ... all the while claiming FC sales are looking like they're going to explode .... ad nauseam ad infinitum ..... that's what kicking 'em (plug-ins) to the curb might mean. .
remember the story of that high school student that made $72M? Yep the guy that just did virtural trades but was about to go on cnbc as they believed the lie. Well someone is yanking your chain with this bogus story too. TTAC has no real information. They are claiming tesla is falifying information they haven't even put out? Talk about your bogus story. So do you think the projected sales of the S if they fall from projeted 33,000 in 2014 to say a bad 30,000 is a bad number compared to toyota's fuel cell projection of 700 in 2015 and 2100 in 2016? OR do you think that this is just another bogus anti-plug-in story floated out there that is probably false? Here is a simple fact check that TTAC is simply following blog rumors with no reserch. A simple brain check would say tesla reporting quarterly would report september not october. Inside Evs that checks against tesla's actual quarter reports has 13,800 through october, so Automotive news hasn't listened to Tesla's figures and TTAC is reporting a bogus estimate. What about Automotive News estimated sales? I would go with inside EVs they at least read the quarterly report. Once you report one bogus number, the second is suspect. Should TTAC fact check and at least read teslas reported sales before claiming they are lieing? Well if it was news source yes, but obviously it wants to support a shorter on a financial blog. Do a little research TTAC? FACT CHECK. It isn't so hard. juwt reading the comments on that blog would have given anyone with an iq above 80 reason to pause.
Can you list the name of plugins with lower in emission (US average) than the 50 MPG Prius? You say Toyota is anti plugin. I say Toyota is anti pollution. PiP was released in the Top 13 states with cleanest electricity.
There is no doubt that the Prius and PiP have excellent CO2 (and other) emissions however the PiP for many drivers has noticable limitations on the ability to drive high percentages of miles on renewable or otherwise low-carbon electricity sources when they are available. In reality, most plugins including the Volt are almost certainlybpurchased and driven in states that have carbon emissions significantly lower than the US average. When weighted against their actual distribution and their local electric sources, even the Volt and perhaps the Ford Energi plugins might show EPA emissions lower than the Prius. Only the i3 with range extender scores a lower EPA full emissions estimate on US average electricity among plugin hybrids but the Honda Accord plugin matches the PiP at 220g and the Volt is not terribly far higher at 250 and may be able to almost bridge the gap with the 2016 model. Almost all EVs other than the BYD e6 and the larger Tesla-based vehicles have lower emissions than the Prius and PiP. Along those lower are: BMW i3 Chevrolet Spark EV Fiat 500e Ford Focus EV Honda Fit EV Kia Soul EV Nissan LEAF Smart EV Volkwagon e-Golf
