This is great. It seems they are pretty confident their Gen2 Mirai and it's technology implement in other vehicles (Lexus included) would sell 30k annually. 90% reduction in emission can come from generating hydrogen from renewable sources. I also read that they'll stop selling gas-only cars. That means everything will become hybrids (Fuel cell is also a hybrid).
what a misleading headline they aren't saying they will reduce FCV well-to-wheel emissions by 90%. they are saying that they will reduce tailpipe emissions across all vehicles by 90%. that includes gasoline hybrids and FCV.
When you look at the slides my eyballing seens to see FCV+EV at around 30%, hybrids around 35%, and PHEV around 35% (phevs look a lttile bigger than FCV+EV). Its pretty clear they mean tail pipe plus manufacturing emissions. To be fair, if the goal is 80% reduction in all ghg emissions by 2050, then the grid and hydrogen will be almost all renewable. I don't really buy that the US and China are headed to anywhere near that reduction, but this is playing to the Japanese, Californian, and German governments that all have that as a goal. By 2020 for 30,000 fcv/year is also misleading, as in the slides they talk about around 2020. Around 2020, maybe 2021 (that's when gm/honda expect to have their fcv. If toyota produces and leases 15,000 fcv in 2020 that will be an accomplishment compared to what demand and infrastructure and costs look like today projected to that date.
If you own Tesla stock, you should be complaining about them building solar for Superchargers then. Large companies, which auto manufacturers are, have more options and means than a homeowner to reduce power source pollution. And it goes beyond having more roof space for more solar panels. Peak shaving/time shifting technologies are more economically attractive on those larger scales. As are stationary fuel cells.
Not sure what this has to do with the assumption. Some countries and states have a goal of reducing ghg pollution by 80% by 2050 relative to some time in the past (various years have come up). Japan is one of those original signatories, but compared to 2005 Japan will likely cut less ghg than the US. We have a lot of fiction in that 80% goal. Japan’s Plan for 26% Greenhouse Gas Cut Jeered as Too Timid - Bloomberg Business Which is kind of a false metric on big auto, which can't really cut close to 80% without 1) switching fuels 2) cutting ghg from those fuels. But if the world reduces ghg by 80% from 2005 levels in 2050 then the world grid will be magically cleaned up. WIth a clean grid both plug-ins and hydrogen cars should have lots of cheap night electricity (from wind and nuclear), with hydrogen cars making a high proportion from that now cheaper electricity. So instead of toyota saying, we can't meet that 2050 goal, they are kind of calling that bluff. They are providing a path to the goal, if all the grids get cleaned up by 2050. That sort of shuts up the complaigners that say - that hydrogen car runs on natural gas, that plug-in runs on coal (some of that is from toyota). Toyota is simply saying when in 2050 or whenever the worlds grids are 90% lower in ghg, the amount used for transportation in hydrogen and plug-ins will be vastly lower. Now what are the odds that chinese grid gets cleaned up by 2050, I'll give you a clue, it hasn't peaked in ghg yet. Japan's peak is probably 2013, but they may break it again, the US in 2004.
it's simple. it's up to the state of cali, and/or the federal government, to lead in the right direction. if they fail, we all go down with them. you get the government you deserve.
Here is Here we have toyota specifying their fuel cell cost reduction. Adding previous statements Fuel cell components cost to toyota dropped from $1M in 2008 to $50,000 in 2014. I assume the 2014 assumes 3000/year production (maybe 700/year?) and the 2008 was the FCHV-4 or FCHV-adv the the first Toyota fuel cell vehicle to be leased, or as toyota said commercial production, but it was much lower volume and never sold like the mirai. Eyeballing it looks like popularization is like 1/5 or $10,000. Year is not mentioned by it has to be much later than 2020. Let's call it 2030 in 2014 dollars. The system is definied as Fuel cell, hydrogen tank, PCU, motor, and battery. For grins lets add inverters as that seems to be missing, perhaps they ran out of space. 2008 - $1,000,000 2014 - $50,000 2020 - $??,000 2030? - $10,000
Should be interesting to see how many FCV's are on the road by 2021. We should have years of Mirai owner experience to show us how reliable those vehicles were, along with the charging station. I also hope some of them buy it, so they can tell us what the hydrogen costs them in year 4 of ownership after Toyota stops footing the bill for hydrogen.
We don't have a good idea of the lower limit, but have a good one for the upper limit. CARB in its 2015 report, said that fueling infrastructure could not keep up with the promised cars from automakers. The promised vehicles being around 35,000 cumulative in california, and infrastructure being more expected than expected in 2013 when funds were requested, would only be able to build 86 stations by the end of the year. There are promises of 14 stations on the east coast, but it is doubtful that could handle even 10,000 vehicles. Unless magic happens or the government spends more money to import more asian fcv, we look capped at 50,000 by the end of 2021. CARB is already saying they need more money for stations, but there will be less than 500 light fcv on american roads at the start of 2016. Toyota said this week it only expects 14 public chargers that are capable of fast fueling and taking its hydrogen credit cards the end of the year. This is down from a promised 44, but there are 43 other stations being retrofited, under construction, or planned with budget now, bring the total planned and under construction to 57. I belive with the construction delays toyota is planning 1000 by the end of 2016, then 2000 more in 2017. I think the infrastructure can take that. Hydrogen is about $13/kg with the california subsidies (I don't want to ask what subsidized cost), I would expect it to drift down to about $10/kg if they get a volume of cars in california. If there are only 5000 fcv in 2021, I would expect costs to stay as high as they are now. Japan expects 6000 fcv in time for the olympics in 2020. At that point they should have 35 hydrogen stations. these are more expnsive and higher volume than planned in california. After that they expect 100,000 by 2025. Lets call that 20,000 per year, or 40,000 by 2021 at most. Here we get 46,000 as a cap. I would think europe and the rest of the world would get at most 50,000 more. That brings a cap of 150,000 by the end of 2021 world wide. Toyota's 700, 2000, 3000, 3000, 3000, 30000, 30000 means 71,700 toyota projection for 2015-2021. That seems reasonable, gen I volt is about 80,,000 in 2010-2015. Since Japan and Europe seem happy to build infrastructure no reason to build more in the US faster as there is enough for all toyota's goals if the other countries follow through. The place that we run out of infrastructure, is Japan only expects to lease 26,000 out of the 71,000., and the bulk looked planned for the US. The infrastructure in california, can't carry the slack implied from Japan and Europe. I think 30,000 is overly optimistic for 2020 and 2021 unless Japan builds stations faster and toyota sells there instead of expecting US sales.
Not April 1st. When did you start reading into Toyota graphs? Seriously, Toyota knew the potential of FCV and saw the road to cost reduction along with the refuel time. They do not think battery would come down in price/space/weight to match nor solve the recharging speed issue.
Toyota is conservative. I hope they exceed their goal. Mirai chief engineer said unlike Prius, a great engineered vehicle alone won't make Mirai successful. It'll need the fuel infrastructure on top of that, so working with governments will be as critical as the car. Lexus LS next gen is supposed to FCV model. Who know what other models would make up the entire FCV family. I think 30k per year is doable.
Of course not. It also isn't up to auto manufacturers to make cars that are comfortable or are safer than minimum requirements. However, if an auto manufacturer does help reduce power source pollution, that is the one I will support.
If you liked that here is a blast from the past, a 2009 presentation to CARB http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/2009symposium/presentations/yokoyama.pdf I'm glad they have dropped many of these old slides. On slide 4 they did good, as to battery weights it would be a little over 600 kg which is not too far off from the graphic in this old slide. The battery car is sweating twice as much as the fuel cell vehicle. They correctly thought you needed to move to lithium. Then slide 5 they thought you couldn't make a bev or a phev for a long range medium or large car like the Tesla S, X, and Mitsubishi out lander phev. These cars seem to prove batteries are not too heavy even today, and they are getting lighter and smaller and less expensive. We probably can claim good on cost reduction claimed on design of the stack and tanks. That seems in line with the old slides, but volume? The thing that was supposed to get us to $10,000? Those are slides 18 and 19. Now of course this was to carb that belived those numbers, but ... they are much higher than anyone belives today. Slide 20 is pretty good.
