Toyota 'Mirai' Fuel Cell Sedan

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

That is what I was hoping to explore. As the number of Teslas increase, can we imagine what the load on the grid might be on say the Wednesday evening before Thanksgiving? At what point will we have so many cars charging at so many superchargers that we start having electricity capacity issues?

Well, say 44M travelers, average traveller goes about 600 miles during the weekend, but some of that is by airplane, particularly longer distance.
About 90% of travel is by car. Let's keep it simple and say 300 miles on the Wednesday evening. Let's say cars have 160 miles of November range. Then the average traveler will need to Supercharge, so let's say they all do. Let's say an average of 2 people per car. Now imagine that every car was Supercharging simultaneously at a charging rate of 90kW. Then (44M / 2 ) x 90% x 90kW = 1.782 TW.

Lots of power. In 2011 US nameplate capacity was a bit over 1TW.

Except that it might not really be _that_ much of a problem. Imagine for every Supercharger stall you have an 85kWh battery. Say Tesla gets the price of batteries down to $100/kWh. That's $8.5k for the battery, let's round it up to $10k. That'd add $80k to an 8-stall Supercharger. Not insane, although not too desirable. We know the batteries can easily handle 2C.

To have everyone charge simultaneously, we'd need 22M stalls, which at an average of 8 stalls per site would require 2.75M Supercharger sites, about 22.7 times the number of gas stations. With every stall having an 85kWh battery dumping charge at 170kW and you have a capacity of 3.74TW.

In summary: by the time you have to worry about it, you won't worry about it, because cheap batteries will have helped make the world totally awesome.

 

[renim]

In summary: by the time you have to worry about it, you won't worry about it, because cheap batteries will have helped make the world totally awesome.

As Tesla already has batteries at their Supercharger stations, its already solved and dealt with.

Simple, real simple

 

[gregincal]

Besides which, even if there are problems does anybody think solving them would be more expensive than rolling out the huge number of hydrogen filling stations that would be needed?

 

[Saghost]

Besides which, even if there are problems does anybody think solving them would be more expensive than rolling out the huge number of hydrogen filling stations that would be needed?

Exactly. Keep in mind, the tasks aren't equivalent.

The Supercharger network only had to handle 10% of the miles driven - though it needs to be a little more substantial than that sounds like because a lot of those ten percent are likely driven on the same days. Additionally, the normal yardage for the network is long distance travel - as long as there's enough charging capacity every couple hundred miles, you're covered.

The hydrogen infrastructure would have to cover every mile driven by the FCEVs - meaning you need ten times the capacity at equal efficiency.

Also, folks who drive a typical twenty mile round trip commute and never take road trips need to refuel. That means you need to have stations spread out all over near where people are - no one will want to make a fifty mile trek to the nearest station every week or two.

Both these issues (and a number of others like stack sizing and response time).can be solved by making the FCEV an EREV type - plug in battery sized to match daily driving, small fuel cell stack (can be one third of the Mirai's and no one will ever know) for long trips.

The problem with that approach is that while it makes a better FCEV that's both more practical and cheaper than the current ones, it exposes the end user to all the benefits of direct electric drive and allows easy comparison to driving electric - something hydrogen proponents can't afford given the way things stand now.
Walter

 

[richkae]

Tesla can probably build a 10 stall supercharger station that was completely grid independent for less than it costs to build an H2 station that would serve the same number of vehicles per day.

All prices are guesses.
10 stall supercharger: $150K
600kW of solar: $1800K ( allows fully charging ~50 cars per day with no fuel cost )
800kWh Tesla battery buffer: $400K ( fully charges ~10 cars before empty off stored solar )
400kW microturbine generator for when the battery is depleted and charge demand exceeds solar output: $500K ( 33% efficient which would still be more efficient than an FCHV Capstone Turbine Corporation | Products )
That system can fully charge over 150 cars per day running near max capacity. ( But more likely half charge 300 cars )
But remember that supercharging is only about 5% of the charging a Tesla needs, so it really serves the needs of 3000 cars.

Total is about 3 million bucks. No grid input required. Have grid output to sell excess solar energy when less than 50 cars visit per day.


The literature I have seen says that an H2 station that can deliver 1000kg per day ( which will fuel about 100 cars ) is around 4 million bucks.


So even if you didn't have a grid, and needed to build your supercharger infrastructure standalone with expensive PV, it would still be much much cheaper than building an H2 infrastructure.

 

[Saghost]

Tesla can probably build a 10 stall supercharger station that was completely grid independent for less than it costs to build an H2 station that would serve the same number of vehicles per day.

All prices are guesses.
10 stall supercharger: $150K
600kW of solar: $1800K ( allows fully charging ~50 cars per day with no fuel cost )
800kWh Tesla battery buffer: $400K ( fully charges ~10 cars before empty off stored solar )
400kW microturbine generator for when the battery is depleted and charge demand exceeds solar output: $500K ( 33% efficient which would still be more efficient than an FCHV Capstone Turbine Corporation | Products )
That system can fully charge over 150 cars per day running near max capacity. ( But more likely half charge 300 cars )
But remember that supercharging is only about 5% of the charging a Tesla needs, so it really serves the needs of 3000 cars.

Total is about 3 million bucks. No grid input required. Have grid output to sell excess solar energy when less than 50 cars visit per day.


The literature I have seen says that an H2 station that can deliver 1000kg per day ( which will fuel about 100 cars ) is around 4 million bucks.


So even if you didn't have a grid, and needed to build your supercharger infrastructure standalone with expensive PV, it would still be much much cheaper than building an H2 infrastructure.

Actually, that "number from literature" is probably optimistic. The best hard number I could find recently was from this NREL report from 2013. In it, the then state of the art 2011/2012 refueling stations were $2.65 million to build a station that could produce 160 kg per day. They were predicting big improvements, but I haven't found any evidence those improvements happened.

Given the variable nature of your potential load and the goal to be grid independent, I'd think you'd be better off with a bigger battery pack - one that can at least absorb one day's generation. It also looks like you're expecting to pay $500 per kWh for the pack, though - since I think Tesla pays less than half that, the numbers might work out pretty close to what you have with the bigger pack.

All in all, your point is certainly valid. Working from the same NREL report I mentioned above, I also came to the conclusion that it would cost half as much to install an individual chargepoint station (~$6k) for every car parked in an urban area than it would to install enough hydrogen stations to refuel them.
Walter

 

[green1]

Difference is, Tesla has to pay for each supercharger. Toyota plans to make the taxpayers pay for each H2 station. This is my biggest issue with H2, normally I'd say "let the best technology win" but the government is favouring H2 and is going to ensure that the taxpayer purse is drained to try to fund it, when we all know it's a losing proposition. Once people get a taste for refuelling in their own garage overnight, who in their right mind would want to go back to the days of the gas station?

Of course I'm also strongly against the dangers of placing H2 fuelling stations anywhere near populated areas, (honestly, if you were starting a gasoline infrastructure today you'd never get permission to put a gas station in a residential area, it's only because we've gotten used to them, and H2 is substantially more dangerous. (not to mention the cars should never come within a block or 2 of a house either.)

 

[Thumper]

And the H2 station still has the ongoing cost of producing, delivering and pumping the H2 after the station has been built.

 

[green1]

And the H2 station still has the ongoing cost of producing, delivering and pumping the H2 after the station has been built.

The plan is that that part will be paid by the end users, but probably still subsidised by taxpayers, don't think Toyota had any plan to be out of pocket on any of that!

 

[richkae]

Difference is, Tesla has to pay for each supercharger. Toyota plans to make the taxpayers pay for each H2 station. This is my biggest issue with H2, normally I'd say "let the best technology win" but the government is favouring H2 and is going to ensure that the taxpayer purse is drained to try to fund it, when we all know it's a losing proposition. Once people get a taste for refuelling in their own garage overnight, who in their right mind would want to go back to the days of the gas station?

Of course I'm also strongly against the dangers of placing H2 fuelling stations anywhere near populated areas, (honestly, if you were starting a gasoline infrastructure today you'd never get permission to put a gas station in a residential area, it's only because we've gotten used to them, and H2 is substantially more dangerous. (not to mention the cars should never come within a block or 2 of a house either.)

This is one fundamental reason that I don't believe that they really believe H2 cars are the future.
If they were serious they would realize that they can't succeed without building the refueling infrastructure themselves. You can't trust something so critical to an external entity, least of all government.
I also don't believe that the political will exists to spend the many billions it will take to actually build an H2 infrastructure.


What real reasons could they possible have for the Mirai other than these?:

1) develop pure electric drivetrains which they will eventually need anyway
2) extend the lifetime of their hybrids by participating in the H2 boondoggle
3) marketing exercise to get people into dealerships to buy other cars
4) plausible deniability for why they haven't made EVs
5) hedging the bets in case multiple technical miracles occur that make H2 viable
6) give them ammo to battle CARB and not have to buy ZEV credits

 

[VolkerP]

5) hedging the bets in case multiple technical miracles occur that make H2 viable
6) give them ammo to battle CARB and not have to buy ZEV credits

You can rule out 5) since the poor overall efficiency of a H2 energy supply is in part dictated by laws of physics.
My bet is on 6) since this allows Toyota to sell their existing models under the CARB/ZEV mandate.

 

[RobStark]

Toyota plans $4.2 billion share sale to fund fuel cell r&d

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...s-4-2-billion-share-sale-to-fund-fuel-cell-rd

 

[MikeC]

Toyota plans $4.2 billion share sale to fund fuel cell r&d

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...s-4-2-billion-share-sale-to-fund-fuel-cell-rd

I was wondering when it would be time to short Toyota and I think you just gave me the answer.

People often cite legacy automakers' "deep pockets" as an advantage in responding to Tesla, but it looks like they have to go to the markets for new funding, too.

 

[efusco]

About to start, an Episode of What Drives Us that I'll be appearing on along with Toyota reps to discuss the Mirai.
https://plus.google.com/events/csc7cil2n83tsiq7fmeeqr6r4ks

 

[efusco]

This is Toyota's latest Mirai marketing piece...I don't even know where to start...
[video]https://youtu.be/TFakFh_1XSw[/video]

 

[Johan]

This is Toyota's latest Mirai marketing piece...I don't even know where to start...
[video]https://youtu.be/TFakFh_1XSw[/video]

Poor poor children. So gullable. Just wait 'til they start thinking for themselves.

 

[eloder]

Poor poor children. So gullable. Just wait 'til they start thinking for themselves.

I thought hydrogen was amazing when I was a teenager too.

Good thing I can objectively think for myself and change my opinion when better tech rolls around!

 

[Saghost]

This is Toyota's latest Mirai marketing piece...I don't even know where to start...
[video]https://youtu.be/TFakFh_1XSw[/video]

It was a great emotional video. It's hard to explain efficiency to a teenager, especially in a complex system.

 

[bga]

Hydrogen Economy Truths

As a long time EV enthusiast, I have always found the hydrogen economy perplexing.

Reading numerous 'well to wheels', actually 'wind-turbine to wheels' reports, the unanimous conclusion is that a H2 cycle require approximately 3 times the source energy of a comparable electric distribution and battery system. This fact alone is sufficient to either kill the Hydrogen FCV, or society if we end up investing too much in inefficiently used (non-productive) energy harvesting hardware.

So, why proceed down this path at all?
Surely there must be some winners (and losers) from the adoption of the "hydrogen economy"?

My guess is that the winners include:
a) The existing fossil fuel players who will likely have a part in the 'wellhead' supply of hydrogen.
b) Infrastructure providers that will profit greatly from the delivery network that will need to be built.
c) The car makers that get to supply a complex (high value) product that tethers the customer to their dealer network.

The losers are most likely:
a) The taxpayer who will be paying for the supply infrastructure to be built.
b) The motoring public, who will have the following issues to deal with:
- Expensive, complex motor vehicles.
- High maintenance costs (wait for the first membrane replacement out of warranty).
- High fuel costs. With an overall H2 system efficiency in the order of 30%, we should expect H2 fueling to be 3 to 4 times the cost of electricity.
- Inability to produce their own fuel (via PV for battery systems).
- Inability to fuel at home.

I would have to conclude that the H2 economy is being driven by those that will benefit greatly from its introduction. I am also concerned that it is not clear that society can afford to make the sort of investment that would be needed to realise this hydrogen future. From all observations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to simply maintain the current level of social services that we expect from an advanced economy.

Cheers

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

As a long time EV enthusiast, I have always found the hydrogen economy perplexing.

Reading numerous 'well to wheels', actually 'wind-turbine to wheels' reports, the unanimous conclusion is that a H2 cycle require approximately 3 times the source energy of a comparable electric distribution and battery system. This fact alone is sufficient to either kill the Hydrogen FCV, or society if we end up investing too much in inefficiently used (non-productive) energy harvesting hardware.

So, why proceed down this path at all?
Surely there must be some winners (and losers) from the adoption of the "hydrogen economy"?

My guess is that the winners include:
a) The existing fossil fuel players who will likely have a part in the 'wellhead' supply of hydrogen.
b) Infrastructure providers that will profit greatly from the delivery network that will need to be built.
c) The car makers that get to supply a complex (high value) product that tethers the customer to their dealer network.

The losers are most likely:
a) The taxpayer who will be paying for the supply infrastructure to be built.
b) The motoring public, who will have the following issues to deal with:
- Expensive, complex motor vehicles.
- High maintenance costs (wait for the first membrane replacement out of warranty).
- High fuel costs. With an overall H2 system efficiency in the order of 30%, we should expect H2 fueling to be 3 to 4 times the cost of electricity.
- Inability to produce their own fuel (via PV for battery systems).
- Inability to fuel at home.

I would have to conclude that the H2 economy is being driven by those that will benefit greatly from its introduction. I am also concerned that it is not clear that society can afford to make the sort of investment that would be needed to realise this hydrogen future. From all observations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to simply maintain the current level of social services that we expect from an advanced economy.

Cheers

I don't think it's a big conspiracy theory. It was an idea that seemed reasonable when batteries sucked and it seemed that there was no sustainable alternative. But then lithium ion came along with densities sufficient to create longer range electric cars, and batteries have fallen so much in price that the Mirage just doesn't seem that impressive.