more (technical) info about the Mirai

[bruin nut]

For full disclosure, of course:

20 hours ago:

Shell Torrance working fine. Both pumps appear to be working. Just got a full fill.

21 hours ago:

Newport Beach 350 bar operational again. All repairs are complete and 2 of 3 tanks are full for 350 bar dispensing.

By the way, I'm fully aware of the arguments against H2 FCVs and in favor of BEVs. I don't think there's some conspiracy by big oil or the big automakers to push another fossil fuel dependent technology. Rather, technology advances will make the production and delivery of hydrogen more economical and more ecologically friendly. The same has happened with EVs. I just think battery technology is much further along. The infrastructure is more developed; it has become more efficient and reliable. I'm a big fan of EVs but am also excited about FCVs. Clearly, most folks here don't feel the same way. But the orthodoxy among EV diehards is troubling and the failure to realize the potential of Hydrogen is myopic.

And I'm not a troll. I've been on this cite for 2 years. Difference of opinion does not equal being a troll. But I do think my time is up on this cite. Frankly, I don't like the echo chamber and boorish attitudes.

 

[Incredulocious]

Rather, technology advances will make the production and delivery of hydrogen more economical and more ecologically friendly. The same has happened with EVs. I just think battery technology is much further along.

The infrastructure is more developed; it has become more efficient and reliable. I'm a big fan of EVs but am also excited about FCVs. Clearly, most folks here don't feel the same way. But the orthodoxy among EV diehards is troubling and the failure to realize the potential of Hydrogen is myopic.

And I'm not a troll. I've been on this cite for 2 years. Difference of opinion does not equal being a troll. But I do think my time is up on this cite. Frankly, I don't like the echo chamber and boorish attitudes.

Personally, I don't think you're a troll. But I also don't think hydrogen fuel cells make sense for personal transportation. Due to the pure physics of how hydrogen must be extracted, compressed and then turned into electrical energy, fuel cells will always require much more energy than pure battery electrics to move a vehicle a mile. It's not a question of future technological improvements or battery technology being further along. On top of that, we/you will have to buy the hydrogen.

So, don't color me "myopic". I instead see far ahead to the potential for much improved electrical storage technology (battery or otherwise, but not hydrogen fuel cells). On the other hand, I do see how fuel cells could be a good, cleaner stop gap for large transport vehicles, until electrical storage tech gets better.

I'm sorry we're all "echoing" what you don't want to hear, but that's how we see it. Good luck to you, but I wish no luck on Toyota or others pushing fuel cells on us. I don't think they'll be able to, but I don't want to see the rosy, make-your-own-fuel without-burning-fossil-fuels future stalled.

(Note the spelling of the word you want is "site", not "cite".)

 

[Incredulocious]

from http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/07/why-hydrogen-fuel-cells-have-no-future.aspx

Hydrogen is not an energy source but a store of energy, much like a battery. Today 96% of hydrogen is made from natural gas, in a process that is 72% efficient. Hydrogen can be made from water in a process called electrolysis -- which is 70% efficient. However, because it is the smallest, lightest, and least dense element hydrogen must be compressed to be stored. When one considers the energy losses of creating hydrogen (say from wind or solar powered electrolysis) then compressed into a vehicle's fuel tank, it will never be as efficient, nor as cheap, as taking that electricity and putting it straight into a battery.

from http://cleantechnica.com/2014/12/01/fuel-cell-economics-vs-batteries/

Electricity is relatively cheap, but hydrogen fuel is pretty expensive. Right now, state-of-the-art hydrogen extraction from natural gas, pressurized and delivered to the customer, costs about $4.50 for a gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGe). Since the fuel is derived from natural gas, and requires a lot of electricity to compress, store, and dispense, the net global warming potential reduction for the fuel is modest compared to hybrids like the Prius, let alone BEVs. Hydrogen production from fossil fuels is a mature technology because there are industrial uses for the gas. As a result, price reductions are unlikely. You can produce hydrogen from renewable energy, but costs escalate quickly. Right now, it’s between $6.00 and $11.00 per GGe. That’s actually assuming economies of scale that don’t exist right now. Yes, that’s right, your highly expensive new-fangled fuel cell automobile will also cost you between 3 to 5 times the current price for fuel, to actually make a difference in CO2 emissions, and it won’t actually do all that much better on that fuel than the Prius in terms of fuel economy.

from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/02/17/203695/hydrogen-fuel-cell-wont-work-impractical-la-times-dan-neil/

It’s a tragic cul-de-sac in the search for sustainable mobility, being used to game the California Air Resources Board’s rules requiring carmakers to build zero-emission vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars.
Face it: Fuel-cell technology has been eclipsed by vastly cheaper, here-now advances in batteries and plug-in electric vehicles. To knit together even the barest network of H2 refueling stations would cost billions. And, in any case, the fuel itself, whether produced by cracking natural gas or hydrolyzing water (consult your freshman chemistry texts), represents a horrible energy return on investment.
Some illustrative math: It takes about 60 kilowatt-hours of electricity to gin a kilogram of hydrogen from water. The FCX Clarity’s tank holds about 4 kilograms of H2 and that gives it a range of about 270 miles on 240 kWhs.
The all-electric Tesla Roadster has a 53-kWh lithium-ion battery and a range of 220 miles. So the Tesla’s per-mile costs in electricity are roughly one-quarter what they are in the FCX Clarity.

from http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

“More energy is needed to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds than can ever be recovered from its use,” Bossel explains to PhysOrg.com. “Therefore, making the new chemical energy carrier form natural gas would not make sense, as it would increase the gas consumption and the emission of CO2. Instead, the dwindling fossil fuel reserves must be replaced by energy from renewable sources.”

“The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today,” says Bossel.

“There is a lot of money in the field now,” he continues. “I think that it was a mistake to start with a ‘Presidential Initiative’ rather with a thorough analysis like this one. Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratories—otherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.”

Even though many scientists, including Bossel, predict that the technology to establish a hydrogen economy is within reach, its implementation will never make economic sense, Bossel argues.
“In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with ("green") electricity from the grid,” he says. “For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem."

Let me call special attention to that one short and sweet sentence: "But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.” You must use energy to extract and compress hydrogen. No free lunch. A suggestion: how about if we use that energy instead to move our vehicles??

 

[fromport]

Let me call special attention to that one short and sweet sentence: "But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.” You must use energy to extract and compress hydrogen. No free lunch. A suggestion: how about if we use that energy instead to move our vehicles??

Thank you for a very nice series of articles and I think understandable arguments why Hydrogen is not the green energy that a lot of current car manufacturers claim it to be.
But some people don't want to get it it seems and that is a pity.
Yes, BEV's are far from a complete replacement for ICE's at the moment.
But in the few years they have become accepted, infrastructure was build, and a lot of research is/was done to get better yield/performance.
We have been reading the stories about Graphene breakthrough for years, yet no one has come with a real product to market.
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130...in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air
With the simple "laws of physics" it would make more sense to put larger/heavier batteries in EV's and increase the charging capability.
Tesla started with 40,60,85 kWh batteries. Currently they are 70,85 and 90 kWh.
So what is the real deal ? faster charging and larger batteries.
A tesla model S already charges 3 times faster than my rav4 with Chademo add on (120 kW vs 40kW)
Tesla is experimenting with liquid cooled charger cables to up the amps while charging.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-could-speed-up-tesla-supercharging-even-more
Ford says the new quick charging standard will be 150 kW: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/01/ford-ev-chief-150-kw-fast-charging-could-be-the-norm/ , faster then the Tesla is currently charging!
Will it be as quick as putting any kind of (compressed/cooled) gas in a ice car/fcv ? No not for a while.
But from the point of (clean) energy efficiency , a BEV will be superiour for the next decades. Because of the above mentioned law of physics.
And if people don't seem to get the point, and want to go with the marketing speak of companies: their choice.
I hope they enjoy the H2 adventure, because that is what it is imho.

 

[Incredulocious]

With the simple "laws of physics" it would make more sense to put larger/heavier batteries in EV's and increase the charging capability.
Will it be as quick as putting any kind of (compressed/cooled) gas in a ice car/fcv ? No not for a while.
But from the point of (clean) energy efficiency , a BEV will be superiour for the next decades. Because of the above mentioned law of physics.

To be clear, the quote about the laws of physics refers to how it will always take a lot of energy to extract hydrogen and to compress it. There is no way around this, no way to improve this.

The future of improving batteries is open-ended though and, as you mentioned, there are various methods already being explored, including the use of graphene. The future of battery storage is much higher energy density: meaning much more energy in the same volume and mass. Higher energy density means not having to make batteries physically bigger or heavier to get more energy into them. It also means faster charging time with existing charging tech and it means less need to charge on long road trips. Imagine having 200 kWh instead of 90 kWh on board!

My biggest beef with hydrogen remains the fact that we'll be forced to buy another expensive fuel in a specific form rather than being able to generate our own however we wish: solar, wind, hydro, etc. That's the beauty of battery electrics, you can get your electricity from any source that's convenient!! (And that source doesn't have to contribute to climate change.)

Heck, you could even install hydrogen fuel cells in your garage and get your electricity from there, but what's the sense of taking perfectly usable electricity and using it to extract and compress hydrogen only to convert it back to electricity with great losses?? You wouldn't do that in your garage, so why do it in your car? Faster fueling is really the only reason and that advantage will become less and less important as batteries improve.

 

[fromport]

To be clear, the quote about the laws of physics refers to how it will always take a lot of energy to extract hydrogen and to compress it. There is no way around this, no way to improve this.

exactly.
Sorry if I wasn't clear (non native English speaker)

But the future of improving batteries is open-ended and, as you mentioned, there are various methods already being explored, including the use of graphene. The future of battery storage is much higher energy density: meaning much more energy in the same volume and mass. Higher energy density means not having to make batteries physically bigger or heavier to get more energy into them. It also means faster charging time with existing charging tech and it means less need to charge on long road trips. Imagine having 200 kWh instead of 90 kWh on board!

And that in smaller volume than current batteries, and maybe even less weight.
But with the current available technology, it is possible to make a 300 miles radius BEV and charge in reasonable time and all the electricity _could_ come from renewable energy.
And you know what ? My bladder range is way less than that. So having to make an extra stop now and then is really not as bad as it sounds ;-)

 

[fromport]

Quoted from the article listed below:

Overall, today's modern gasoline stations clearly have by far the highest throughput for the lowest cost.

Beyond that, however, it appears that DC fast-charging stations for electric cars may be cheaper to build than many analysts have assumed--and that they already provide a far better throughput than the latest hydrogen stations.

Which means the question becomes whether hydrogen stations can increase throughput by a factor of 10 or more to become worthwhile for private industry to install.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-how-many-cars-can-fuel-and-what-will-it-cost

 

[michael]

To be clear, the quote about the laws of physics refers to how it will always take a lot of energy to extract hydrogen and to compress it. There is no way around this, no way to improve this.

The future of improving batteries is open-ended though and, as you mentioned, there are various methods already being explored, including the use of graphene. The future of battery storage is much higher energy density: meaning much more energy in the same volume and mass. Higher energy density means not having to make batteries physically bigger or heavier to get more energy into them. It also means faster charging time with existing charging tech and it means less need to charge on long road trips. Imagine having 200 kWh instead of 90 kWh on board!

My biggest beef with hydrogen remains the fact that we'll be forced to buy another expensive fuel in a specific form rather than being able to generate our own however we wish: solar, wind, hydro, etc. That's the beauty of battery electrics, you can get your electricity from any source that's convenient!! (And that source doesn't have to contribute to climate change.)

Heck, you could even install hydrogen fuel cells in your garage and get your electricity from there, but what's the sense of taking perfectly usable electricity and using it to extract and compress hydrogen only to convert it back to electricity with great losses?? You wouldn't do that in your garage, so why do it in your car? Faster fueling is really the only reason and that advantage will become less and less important as batteries improve.

I totally agree with the statement about buying another fuel...we will be buying it from the same people who now hold us hostage to gasoline and Diesel.

However, I think it unlikely that people will ever be allowed to generate or store hydrogen at their homes....I can't see the fire departments ever permitting this. The company where I work has hydrogen fueling facilities, and the restrictions and precautions that were required were daunting.

See

http://www.hydrogenprize.org/wp-content/uploads/Safety-Planning-for-the-2014-2016-H-Prize-Competition.pdf

For the safety procedures required of contestants for the hydrogen prize.

 

[4EVEREV]

Rather, technology advances will make the production and delivery of hydrogen more economical and more ecologically friendly. The same has happened with EVs. I just think battery technology is much further along.

The infrastructure is more developed; it has become more efficient and reliable. I'm a big fan of EVs but am also excited about FCVs. Clearly, most folks here don't feel the same way. But the orthodoxy among EV diehards is troubling and the failure to realize the potential of Hydrogen is myopic.

And I'm not a troll. I've been on this cite for 2 years. Difference of opinion does not equal being a troll. But I do think my time is up on this cite. Frankly, I don't like the echo chamber and boorish attitudes.

Personally, I don't think you're a troll. But I also don't think hydrogen fuel cells make sense for personal transportation. Due to the pure physics of how hydrogen must be extracted, compressed and then turned into electrical energy, fuel cells will always require much more energy than pure battery electrics to move a vehicle a mile. It's not a question of future technological improvements or battery technology being further along. On top of that, we/you will have to buy the hydrogen.

So, don't color me "myopic". I instead see far ahead to the potential for much improved electrical storage technology (battery or otherwise, but not hydrogen fuel cells). On the other hand, I do see how fuel cells could be a good, cleaner stop gap for large transport vehicles, until electrical storage tech gets better.

I'm sorry we're all "echoing" what you don't want to hear, but that's how we see it. Good luck to you, but I wish no luck on Toyota or others pushing fuel cells on us. I don't think they'll be able to, but I don't want to see the rosy, make-your-own-fuel without-burning-fossil-fuels future stalled.

(Note the spelling of the word you want is "site", not "cite".)

+1

 

[GASKIKR]

Darn, I just stumbled on this thread. I hate being late to the party but I just want to be the guy that calls upon history to teach all the young bucks a lesson. So here goes,

The last time hydrogen was used as a substitute for something was during the operation of Germany's dirigibles. The USA restricted Germany's access to helium and thus Germany had no choice but to find another buoyant gas to fly their big ass blimps. Thus, they settled on hydrogen and probably finished the discussion by saying "...after all, what's the worst that could happen?"

Then bbbbggggghhhhhhhhaaaaaassshhhhhhhhhhhhblagaaaaaaaaaaa it all went up in a fiery storm.

The lesson of the story is that hydrogen is an awful thing to use as long as helium and lithium ion batteries exist.

There, now I feel like I participated even though everyone already left the room. Oh well...

 

[fromport]

A little bit off-topic but I think there is some cynicism / sarcasm in there:

“Diner” | Back to the Future | Presented by Toyota Mirai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVebChGtLlY

 

[4EVEREV]

It seems Toyota has decided to take the horrible design cues of this vehicle and use them on their other cars. Prius, Tacoma, they really ned to get a new design team. If they keep up with these terrible designs they will need a car that runs on sand soon. Fool cells as they have been called since inception are best in stationary applications like local power generation not traction applications. CA should be ashamed of the ARB corruption and waste of taxpayer dollars on this sham project.

 

[Aries]

Sigh.. And I thought this thread would contain technical information about this vehicle. It seems not to. Whether I believe in them or not, I am curious about the workings and implementation of these early specimens. Pictures, tear downs, reverse engineering of CAN busses, etc. Was hopeful to find some of that here.

Maybe the thread title should be updated? At least remove the "(technical)" aspect? I'm not sure the word "info" applies either but ...

 

[fromport]

Sigh.. And I thought this thread would contain technical information about this vehicle. It seems not to. Whether I believe in them or not, I am curious about the workings and implementation of these early specimens. Pictures, tear downs, reverse engineering of CAN busses, etc. Was hopeful to find some of that here.

Maybe the thread title should be updated? At least remove the "(technical)" aspect? I'm not sure the word "info" applies either but ...

It seems you are looking for the mytoyotamirai.com forum ?!

 

[Aries]

It seems you are looking for the mytoyotamirai.com forum ?!

Now that truly is informational - I didn't know there was such a forum! Good info for this thread. Thanks!

 

[fromport]

Now that truly is informational - I didn't know there was such a forum! Good info for this thread. Thanks!

But you were seriously looking for technical information of a car which hasn't been delivered yet, on a rav4ev forum expecting reverse engineering info ?

 

[Aries]

Now that truly is informational - I didn't know there was such a forum! Good info for this thread. Thanks!

But you were seriously looking for technical information of a car which hasn't been delivered yet, on a rav4ev forum expecting reverse engineering info ?

Just kinda hoping the thread might have some tech info as its title suggested. We have a lot of tech savvy, involved, and informed people on these forums. Often a good place to look for people who've made the effort to go to events and take pictures of drive units, controllers, and fun stuff like that!