Toyota negative on batteries because it has more experience than other others on them

It was always a made up problem by the fuel cell lobby. But all you need to do is drive a tesla 70d and a mirai, and tell me which is better to drive.

mirai weighs 4078 lbs (source toyota press release) 67 mpge
model S 70d weighs 4647 lbs 101 mpge
bmw i3-rex weighs 2900 lbs 117 mpge + 39 mpg gasoline after the 71 aer runs out.

Hydrogen is so much lighter than batteries so the cars should be lighter and accelerate better and handle better right? The hydrogen car should be more efficient, but really is not despite accelerating much worse than the plug-ins.

BEVs are heavy and so are FCV compared to ordinary ice cars. Weight is only a problem if it hurts acceleration, handling, or efficiency. I don't think many after test driving a i3 or model S will think the weight is a problem. Some other designs are not as well done.

Batteries are expensive and there are manufacturing efficiencies that can be gained. You linked to a investment site that said this

What is left out is that the DOE 2030 cost estimate assumes 500,000 fcv per manufacturer, an assumption that is unlikely as early as 2030, only 15 years from now. Toyota is only estimating they can sell in the tens of thousands sometime in the 2020s. On the other hand tesla, chevy, nissan, and ford all think they will have a 200 mile bev out in the next few years. Tesla is targeting that price in 2020, well before 2030. That is a big head start. Only time will tell if they can take the cost out, but with tesla/panasonic, and lg competing to bring down battery costs that 200 mile bev is a much better bet. Would you pay more for a car you could fuel it in your garage for much less than trying to find a hydrogen fueling station? Surveys say that people would, so 2030 while possible, is probably premature for a lower priced vehicle.

Since its an investment blog, its probably good to read the comments section. The commenters, that probably made more money than the author, countered the bad logic. Of course if you read this and sold tesla in november of 2013, then you probably would be upset about missing the huge move up tesla has made since then in the stock market (135 at the time of the article, 265 close friday)

 

for 'normal' travel, you would have to be guaranteed that a 10 minute fill up charge was available, or slower, lesser charges anywhere you choose to stop. like gas stations.

 

KWh per time.

The power decrease as the battery approaches full is irrelevant because people are not charging to full at these stations.

 

it's true, if you have enough capacity, filling completely is unnecessary. i often charge for only an hour, instead of 1 1/2 hours, because i still get 13- 14 out of 15-16 miles, and that's all i need.

 

It would be helpful to call in mpch or mphc. Something like this will be needed before EVs become much more widespread.

 

what do those stand for?

 

mile per hour charging or miles per charging hour.

 

those are good, will keep from mph confusion. i like #2, who can we talk to ase?

 

If the energy consumption rate in all cars was the same and was not affected by speed, traffic or terrain it would very useful.

 

once you get a feel for the car, it is useful. plus the software compensates for temperature. easy enough to estimate for speed, traffic is not a problem, a.c or heat, and terrain unless you're in unfamiliar territory. i would certainly be more careful i f i were headed for the rockies.

of course, once we have 10 minute 600 mile fill ups, this is a moot point.

 

well, for ~95% of fuel cel cars, the hydrogen "source" is natural gas - a fossil fuel. As for batteries, well again, the Natural gas /hydrogen car does in fact still have/need a traction pack, weather lithium or nickel.
.

 

correct, but that was not the point.

 

Thanks for contributing. The non-US view is needed as often as possible.

Who is going to pay for it going mainstream? This is the central issue in the discussion. All technical problems can be solved with enough money. It's the economic ones that are problematic.

That is not a complete view of the weight issue. Yes, the battery is heavy but the engine and transmission weight has gone way, way down. To be honest, only the weight of the final vehicle should be praised or criticized. So far, it looks like an even tradeoff.

The wear and degradation of the battery must also be compared to the wear of the motors and transmissions of previous autos. Likewise, FCV have a long history of membrane degradation. It remains to be seen if these are more or less problematic than battery issues, so I would recommend being careful claiming FCVs do not have any working life issues compared to EVs.

The actual statistics do not support the claim of battery degradation being a major problem. What has actually happened is twofold. First is virtually every cell on modern EVs is tightly monitored and regulated to avoid degradation conditions. Virtually all the ways for a EV owner to sabotage their battery has been eliminated. Second is many EV vendors are making battery warranties for decades instead of years. One of the nice things about the Prius is the battery is warranted for far longer than many people own a car.

 

You are aware that the Mirai outweighs the first gen Volt by a good 200 pounds right.
Battery degradation hasn't been a problem in Volts going over a 100k miles, or even 200k.

The Volt can haul as many people as the Mirai, and the gen2 will do over 90% of its daily miles emission free. For long trips, it uses readily available regular gasoline. It is also $20k less than the Mirai, and GM makes money on each one sold. That is the FCEVs real competion, after ICEs, Not Tesla.

MPGe is the result of the EPA holding focus groups, otherwise we would have a kWhr/100mi or Whr/mile standard on the window sticker.

 

That isn't really true. 95% of hydrogen (IIRC its more than that) is made from natural gas, but if you only fill up at one station, that station may be renewable. You know, that uncomfortable, we only sell a few thousand and they have a 140 mile range (trip to the station, then turn around to not run out). Given enough money all the hydrogen could be made renewably. maybe the government eats $1M /car to set up fuelling and subsidize the buyers that can use that limited fueling.

Or ..... perhaps we should be honest and admit that if in 2030, or 2080 or 2115 most of the stations will be making the fuel from coal or natural gas because its cheaper. Which makes me wonder why california is doing this false extra charge to make x percent renewable and have the stations not work well in the test.

 

The obvious solution would be for the company to require their dealerships to offer 24/7 refueling facilities for their products. Instant refueling network.

 

Nissan tried that for the Leaf and the dealers refused.

Too many states have laws preventing the car companies from punishing car dealerships so they don't have leverage in those states to force the issue. If the dealer doesn't want to do it they won't.

 

Ok TrollBait, no I wasn't aware that Mirai is a heavyweighter. Maybe it's a tech development thing, the technology is still in it's infancy?
I haven't checked up on Mirai but it's what we have today, another what is technically feasible, what kind of optimization who haven't yet been implemented but will be in say less than 5 years? System development is a slow process who takes time. Anyway, I still have problems with your assurance that Volt doesn't have any cell degradation, do you have any source who can verify your statement?

 

Nissan Altra: A Look Back at The World's First Li-Ion Powered EV
Nissan's Altra EV had lithium traction packs years before Totota ever even contemplate using anything but nickel packs. So much for bragging about their experience.
As for Toyota's other comment inthe OP's article;

If it's not physics ... then what's the problem...
And if "the only real challenge" is stack costs ... why isn't the multi-billion dollar cost of refueling infrastructure "a real challenge" .... is that because they believe they have easy funds via CARB & politicians in their back pockets?
.

 

Can't believe that the source of hydrogen will be fossil fuel in the future because that beats the entire idea with FCVs: To make us independent of fossil fuel. So from where does your predictions come from "Austingreen"? U can make H2 from a lot of sources, a nice system uses wind power who is 100% renewable, solar panels can make the same thing happen because U can make H2 from any electrical source but I didn't say it's good fuel economy in that today...