A cheaper, better way to make hydrogen (82% efficiency)

I can see unplugged charging more for electric busses and delivery vehicles, but would not rule it out for some plug-in drivers. Lets face it money will chase lazyness, and even after losses a plug-in resonance or induction charged will be much more efficient on the electrictricity than a fcv.

Lets drop the car sales games. People are going to pay for the tech package and probably the stereo upgrade and that brings pre direct subsidies of $80,000. It gets 4 zev credits, say in half the model S's sold in the US, so call it 2 at a value of say $2000 per credit, that is $84,000 unsubsidized. Buyers in california will pay $70,000 and get a HOV sticker after subsidies, $72,500 in most other states with no HOV. That is very competitive with other cars in its class, and would sell most even without the subsidies. Tesla because they only make one model last quarter we can tell the cost is $57,600 in the first quarter. They are plowing the profit and more into the model X, super chargers, and model 3 R&D. In effect the subsidies are fueling tesla's growth and stock valuation, but other makers don't have tesla's margins on plug-ins.

Doing the same for the mirai, it gets 9 zev credits for each car sold as they are all in US as they are all in subsidized places that is $18000 plus $58,500 we get $76,500. On top of that fuel is subsidized, but lets stick here. That is only $7500 less unsubsidized than the tesla S 70D with technology and upgraded sound. That mirai needs to probably add $50,000 to match a S 70D in performance and luxury. Toyota is losing money not making money on each car. Until they can make money subsidized volume will be very low. Toyota's estimate is 3000 per year world wide in 2017. They need to lower costs or raise subsidies to sell any volume.

These automakers may drop costs this is a pre-commerical stage. Telsa and DOE expect costs to drop greatly for plug-ins by 2020. Fuel cell vehicles need to get to that point. Definitely the test should be subsidized, but why make it a big test?

 

I agree with your post in whole.
This is incorrect though, the 70D, after the fed rebate, is $67,500.

 

zythryn he is including fuel savings from the tesla site. I think this is a sales tool, not really a fair cost.

 

Ah, yes that is probably it.
While fuel savings should definitely be considered, for a hybrid or EV, I really don't like the placement of that price.

 

I went with it because FCEVs are getting free fuel for the 3 years in their price.

 

Also a good point.

 

Not to everyone. People with physical limitations and other locations where kids and animals might be present might put an extremely high priority on wireless charging. What we should end up with is a free market where different users can choose their priorities in a vehicle. Refuel time is critical to a taxi driver. A daily commuter with their own solar panels will have a different priority.

Agree, now name an EV that can be refueled directly from the solar panels on a house for free. I believe that would be every EV. I find the Mirai claim worth some scrutiny. The difference in a vehicle's price versus the cost of making it are two very different things. Comparing one FCV whose price is under the cost compared to profitable EVs where the price must be more than the cost is a very transient situation. It makes for a more honest discussion to compare FCV cost vs EV cost in the competitive marketplace.

 

As I always say, keep in mind the current technology to make H2 is quite cheap and quite green (and quite a miracle of catalyst technology). In the normal process, H2 is made from methane and water. Methane is relatively clean, and even if you don't like methane, half of the H2 yield comes from water.

So the real issue with FCV is the vehicle cost, not the need for new and politically correct H2 production methods. The latter is nice to have, as is any useful new invention of a new way to make things.

 

Reforming methane is cleaner than burning it directly. That doesn't eliminate the CO2 emissions, but opens the possibility of sequestering it.

A politically correct way to make hydrogen is an issue because the fuel cell lobby makes it one. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe after all. Toyota's poo hydrogen ad as been mentioned in a couple of threads now. Being seen as renewable and readily available, and not just a switch to another fossil fuel is important PR for them. California also requires 30% of hydrogen for cars be made renewably. Which is great, but costs more than hydrogen from reformed methane. The free fuel for FCEVs is ultimately because they don't want a price per kilogram displayed on a roadside sign at this time.

 

Very little solar (<1%) is stored today, the grid reacts by managing fossil fuel.

We do have tesla's costs because they have a single model and report ZEV credit sales and profit margins on the model S. Since it is a publically run company all we don't know is how much of R&D goes to each project.

For toyota because of different reporting rules for its exchange and since the mirai is only a tiny portion of toyota's budget, we have much less information. We do have toyota's public statements, along with those of hyundai and honda. Hyundai says theirs cost about $150,000/unit and toyota reduced costs further. That is the ceiling. Toyota has also said they are losing money on each mirai, making the $58,000 the floor. You can see from my analysis my guess is cost is about the US price plus the value of the credits. You will note this is for a car that it could not sell for anywhere near that model S 70D, and toyota's sale price (floor of cost) is probably higher than tesla's cost on the model.

The cost to tesla of the batteries is probably $275/kwh x 70 kwh is approximately $19,300, and they hope to reduce it to $175/kwh with the gigafactory and new battery design which would be $12,300 or $7000 less. That savings is projected in 2018 My guess from toyota's public statements that the fuel cell stack and tanks cost toyota approximately $40,000 but they hope to reduce this cost a great deal on the next generation.

You lost me a little there. The price to the consumer includes the cost of electricity. I assume the cost of hydrogen adds to the cost to the fuel cell manufacturer or government. I don't see anyway that the mirai costs toyota less than the tesla costs the model S 70d unless you include subsidies.

We do have the price to the consumer after subsidies. Few will buy the mirai compared to the lease (and even here few will lease). The mirai lease is $3649 down and $499/mo x 3 years which includes fuel. At that price and the risk, only those that really want to keep toyota from crushing them would buy instead of lease. The tesla model S though doesn't give you a big discount for leasing, I believe it has a bigger down payment and $800/mo, so you may want to buy that tesla. The tesla is only competing with the mirai in terms of government subsidies. There is a much higher demand for the tesla despite its much higher price to the consumer.

 

Their (Honda's) home compressor had a bunch of issues (slow refueling, rebuilding after a few 1,000hrs, ~ $4k out the door, dealers not wanting to carry them for sale) so IIRC, they may be difficult to obtain any more.
.

 

Exactly. People have this silly fantasy of needing a multi-hundred mile BEV to even consider because it is gas tank thinking. Being able to just plug in at home is so much nicer.

 

way below freezing of what . . . hydrogen? IIRC, hydrogen doesn't freeze 'till about 14 degrees above absolute zero . . . so it really can't be TOO much in the way of way below

i don't know about ALL the superchargers, but there's a water cooled one in central cali - & yes, water cools its cord. Water cooling is very cheep - thats why regular cars use a water/radiator system. On the other hand, chilling hydrogen takes a whole LOT of energy. That's why "never-ready-for-primetime" (even their industry admits this) hydrogen cars haven't considered the super chilling of hydrogen process to be practical. Meanwhile, the supercharger network just continues to grow & grow, without saddling taxpayers with the billions & billions that taxpayers would have to pay, just to bring an insufficient # of hydrogen refuel stations across the nation.
.

 

Whoa. That makes sense now. Thanks

 

The saved gasoline cost figure Tesla uses doesn't include Supercharger use at all, but that 13 cent/kWh subtracted from the cost of gas for a comparable car. The cars that are comparable to the Model S use thirsty V6s and V8s. It is an advertizing number, but it is honest.
You could subtract the gas saved from the Mirai's price. Cars comparable to its performance are more fuel efficient. Gasoline needed to go beyond the hydrogen network needs to be included.

Superchargers aren't for emergency use. They are for long distance travel.

What a person pays for these cars is the price, not the cost.
In Mirai's case, that person is someone vetted and okayed for FCEV ownership. Even if you want one really really bad and can afford it, you can be denied. Tesla isn't turning away customers that can pay.

Freezing in as a weather report, a.k.a water, you {friendly use of insult here}.

 

Throwing around all these "efficiency" numbers...and the 82% to "make" hydrogen.
Aren't we forgetting that going from hydrogen back to electricity is, at best, about 60% efficient?
(Besides the extra energy needed to cool/liquefy and compress.)

And I'm not an expert on the chemistry of electrolysis, but I would guess that the 82% number is based on the electrical energy in both the hydrogen and the oxygen, with 18% given off directly as heat. Since we probably have no use for vast amounts of O2, that portion is going to be wasted, right? Co-generation of some kind could use the waste heat with a more expensive, large-scale, plant.

Mike

 

It seems dishonest to include the government rebates for the Mirai but not for the Model S.