I’ve finally seen enough of these uncamouflaged in the wild to know that they are real. As hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars, they certainly are unique. So are they a preview of the next big thing in alternative-energy cars, or did Toyota make a bad bet on fuel cells? Is the Mirai a future Hydro-Classic or future Deadly Sin?
The 2017 Mirai’s electric motor boasts 153 hp, 247 lb-ft of torque, and with a weight of 4,079 lbs, so it’s certainly no barnstormer. Still, CC’ers know that torque wins out for everyday driveability, so it probably doesn’t disappoint its target buyer. Toyota also claims seating for four, 67/67/67 (equivalent) mpg, a range of 312 miles, and a top speed of 111 mph. Refill takes a ‘snap-your-fingers’ five minutes. Creature comforts include, as the Brits say, “…all the mod cons,” including premium audio, heated steering wheel and seats, and every driving nanny one could hope for.
I can personally attest to the H2O-only emissions claim, as I see trickles of vapor and droplets leave the tailpipe each time a Mirai accelerates to disappear into the roving packs of Prii that it so strongly resembles. Actually, all the futuristic swoops and scoops, which Toyota says are for cooling everything, leave the Mirai at a drag deficit against its stablemate, with a coefficient of 0.29 to the Prius’ 0.25. FunFact: You can use the car to power about 60 kWh of external loads when parked.
The key hurdle to wider acceptance will be infrastructure, with hydrogen stations in-place (or planned in the near-term) covering only trips in and around Southern and Central California; essentially from San Diego, to San Francisco, to Truckee, with one lone station out along I5 for the long-haulers. The Shell Hydrogen station in my neighborhood is a vestige of Toyota’s corporate campus that opened before the automaker’s recent move to Texas.
The Mirai’s list price is some $58k, but even then it probably costs Toyota quite a lot more to make each one. They initially offered the Mirai for a $499 /mo lease with 3 years worth of free fuel and a zero-emissions sticker that earns solo drivers a pass into HOV lanes (a big selling point in California). Sales all were in the double digits per month, so Toyota dropped the lease to $349/mo., which perked things up a bit. As of a month or so ago, a grand total of 2,843 Mirai have been sold world-wide. Not exactly a brisk start.
Did Toyota take the wrong off ramp by betting heavily on fuel cells instead of battery EVs? It could take a very long time to put hydrogen fueling points in everyone’s neighborhood. Hydrogen production is three times less efficient than generating electricity for a BEV. And charging times for BEVs, once the big argument for hydrogen, are dropping dramatically, and will likely be in the single-digit minutes within a couple of years.
Toyota recently had a change of heart, and announced a priority program to develop competitive long-range BEVs. But that will take several years to come to fruition. This is coming from the company that was once the darling of the green crowd, with its pioneering hybrid Prius (1997) and RAV4 EVs, the first generation also dating back to 1997. The second one, using Tesla Model S components, was built at Tesla’s Fremont factory from 2012 to 2014, when Toyota pulled the plug. Did Toyota waste the head start and green mantle it once enjoyed? Or is hydrogen just taking its sweet time?
I have been fascinated by the concept of hydrogen technology, but have never really dug into it to get a handle on cost/practicality vs. total electric. Tesla seemed to be the thing that got electric charging stations out into the world with some frequency, so electric would now seem to have a leg up in infrastructure. But would Toyota be willing to roll out refueling stations for hydrogen? And is a home-refueling station even an option for hydrogen cars? It will be interesting to see the comments of those more educated in these cars than I am.
Home refueling? Got hydrogen service at your house? 🙂
Actually, with a reformer that converts natural gas, it could theoretically be possible. But the costs and the high pressure pump, etc, would make it very expensive.
Toyota is not going to invest in hydrogen infrastructure, except perhaps to offer incentives. It’s really the oil companies that are possibly most interested to make the investment, as they see it as a much better alternative to folks using electricity, since the oil companies make hydrogen from nat gas.
What is surprising me is that the oil companies are not investing in electric charging infrastructure at their existing stations. Sure, they don’t make the power but they have the real estate in place, locations are plentiful and convenient for drivers, there can’t be too great of a cost to add a charger in front of several existing parking spots and why not just add 30-50 % or more to the spot electric price? Maybe I’m naive about the whole thing but one way or the other electric cars are only going to get more traction, it seems like a good opportunity to grow with it and survive instead of just hoping it goes away…
It’s already happening in Europe: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/14/shell-stations-uk-netherlands-will-add-ev-charging-stalls/
And it will inevitably happen here too. Shell has said as much. They want folks stopping in to buy snacks, regardless of what kind of fuel they need.
Smart. Take advantage of the demand at minimal investment cost, seems like a no-brainer. Thanks for the link!
also theoretical, is splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen in your home. there are even some proposals for units that are solar powered. but this is all pie in the sky. i lost my shirt twenty years ago buying stock in ballard. they were promising fuel cells in cars by 2005.
Georgia Tech had a running hydrogen car (test mule) back in the early ’80s when I was there. I want to say it was Ford Escort-based, but having no photos, I can’t say for sure.
I remember seeing LTD test cars powered by hydrogen on TV back in the early nineties. That was before they switched to the rounded bodies.
I’m far from an expert on fuel distribution, but IMHO all electric ( and gas/electric hybrid) seems to be obvious choice in near future. We have had gasoline AND electricity distribution systems in place for over a century. The ability to generate electricity in a bunch of ways makes it the best shot at “universal” availability. A set of standards for voltage, amperage and plug is needed, Except for any electric car made by Apple, Then it would require a proprietary wireless charging station, incompatible with every other electric car and would cost 2wice as much per KwH.?
https://xkcd.com/927/
LOL, I did say “best shot”, of course some jagoff will insist on changing the “standards” every 6 months, I’m waiting for: “Do not attempt to drive while BuickOS 11.3 updates…” ?
Excellent point, James. Hydrogen would have to have a lot more going for it to justify the expensive infrastructure equivalent to what gas and electricity already have.
Also, seeing how some people refuel their cars now, would you trust them with hydrogen?
As pointed out in the article, infrastructure will decide the fate of this technology. EV plugin points are proliferating, and hybrids just need a regular ol’ gas station. The Mirai suggests a shiny new world of cars that tinkle water, but changeover costs will keep them confined to the coast, maybe coasts, IMHO.
I pulled into a gas station recently only to see a guy pumping gas smoking a cigarette. I made a quick exit. Stupid runs deep.
Toyota and Mercedes each have had long-term efforts to develop effective, small, affordable fuel cells for the past 20 years. The good news is that they finally have them. Space-age technology, circa the Apollo rocket-era, comes to your automobile!
Will they change the world? The problem with the current crop of electric cars (and cells phones, et. al) is that the mining the materials for the batteries is horrendous for the local environments and the people who live nearby. And the need to produce the electricity to charge them. Hydrogen doesn’t have that problem, but extracting it from the materials it is chemically bonded with leaves us with two questions: 1) Have we developed a system to provide hydrogen for a large-scale fueling effort? 2) Do you get enough energy back out of the hydrogen as it cost to produce it in the first place?
And then there is the subset issue that the current crop of ruling politicians seem to prefer fantasy versus science in choosing what technologies to back. Perhaps there is a way to cleanly extract hydrogen from coal, but the retrograde thinking that has sadly taken ahold of the country is another yet another obstacle to new technologies like this.
Personally, I hope these succeed. They’d never be a ‘deadly sin’ in my book, but perhaps a lost beacon to a path not travelled.
the mining the materials for the batteries is horrendous for the local environments and the people who live nearby.
Sorry, but you’re spewing old misinformation that was generated 15 years ago by the anti-Prius political operatives. It’s just not true for lithium batteries. Fake news, in other words.
Electricity is/can be created in many different ways, and increasingly so, form renewable sources.
1) Have we developed a system to provide hydrogen for a large-scale fueling effort? 2) Do you get enough energy back out of the hydrogen as it cost to produce it in the first place?
Well, hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas, which raises the question why not fuel cars and trucks with natural gas directly, as it would be more efficient.
Your second question is a bit hard to answer. I’m not sure what you mean. The final cost is what it cost to produce, and likely a profit on top.
You raise an interesting point. What is the advantage of using hydrogen as opposed to natural gas?
An oddly snarky response, Paul. These mining operations for rare elements tend to occur in areas where the benefits of the mining do not go to the local economies.
https://u.osu.edu/2367group3/environmental-concerns/effects-of-mining-lithium/
Now whether the fuel cell saves on these elements is a different discussion, and I don’t know that answer.
The question on hydrogen production is finding ways to produce the gas without spending more energy in producing hydrogen than you will get later in when is burned . The driver towards using hydrogen is to avoid the release of CO2 from burning fuel. The second reason is to lower pollution levels where the energy use occurs, because burning natural gas still creates toxic pollution, including carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, etc. Hydrogen production is not limited to natural gas as a base … in fact, it’s helium that is solely derived from natural gas in commercial production. Hydrogen is available from a multitude of sources, but these need development on their own.
https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production
Whether a natural gas burning engine is more efficient than a fuel cell / electric drive is a question i don’t have an answer to. And if your hydrogen is not produced from natural gas, beside the point.
However, going back to the question of the article, producing a car featuring a new motive technology should never be considered a ‘deadly sin’, even if unsuccessful commercially, unless it’s shown that the manufacturer deliberately misled the consuming public about its benefits , reliability, or safety. Or, perhaps , the development bankrupted the company or started some long downturn. The fact that Toyota has managed to develop and produce this at a cost that is even just barely reasonable should be recognized for its engineering achievement.
My ‘snarky” response about mining is because for years every time the word “Prius” was written on a blog, inevitably one or more commenters would trot out a highly discredited study about the mining for its batteries. let’s just say there are powerful voices out there that feel threatened by EVs today, and did by the Prius in its day.
I don’t have to go into it in great detail, but the US does have lithium deposits/sources, and large ones at that. http://fortune.com/2016/03/29/lithium-tesla-mine-nevada/
Mining is a necessary human activity for all kinds of things we need. And currently, the overwhelming majority of hydrogen is reformed from natural gas. Shall we discuss the environmental impacts of petroleum extraction?
natural gas intrinsically burns quite a bit cleaner than gasoline, hence its use for decades in forklifts and such inside warehouses. And of course through the use of catalytic converters, natural gas burning engines can be very clean.
The question about the Mirai being a DS is that Toyota (in my opinion) made a huge mistake favoring hydrogen over battery EVs, and now has publicly admitted that, and has committed to a catch-up BEV development program. Meanwhile, Tesla has created a huge lead over them. That’s my point. A strategic mistake is a DS, even if it’s a metaphoric one as Toyota is obviously not at risk of actual death.
But I believe their mistake was of rather epic proportions, given that they were once a bold and risk-taking pioneer in EV and hybrid tech.
We don’t know what the Mirai actually costs Toyota. I’m guessing a whole lot more than they’re getting for it, especially at these tiny volumes.
Toyota bet on the wrong horse, and now has to play catch up.
If I may be so bold as to add to PN’s answer:
1) There is no system to make hydrogen generally available. Developing one is complicated by high pressure and hydrogen’s ability to crack most metals.
2) The energy benefit of hydrogen is questionable, since producing it from natural gas or other sources requires a substantial amount of energy (AKA the ethanol paradox).
To put my money where my mouth is, there is a hydrogen fueling station about two miles from my home, but I have absolutely no interest. However, I can hardly wait to plug a Tesla 3 into my garage charger.
Coal is primarily carbon, with no hydrogen in it. Water is where the hydrogen is, although hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) have hydrogen in them.
Coal is/can be used to make hydrogen. from Wikipedia:
For the production of hydrogen from coal, coal gasification is used. The process of coal gasification uses steam and a carefully controlled concentration of gases to break molecular bonds in coal and form a gaseous mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.[14] This source of hydrogen is advantageous since its main product is coal-derived gas which can be used for fuel. The gas obtained from coal gasification can later be used to produce electricity more efficiently and allow a better capture of greenhouse gases than the traditional burning of coal.
Another method for conversion is low temperature and high temperature coal carbonization.[15]
That does not change the “fact” that the water is the source of the hydrogen, not the coal.
Technically correct. Yes, hydrogen is very abundant indeed. It seemed you were contradicting the commenter who asked about using coal to create hydrogen.
My comment was directed at Ed N, who thought somehow hydrogen could be extracted from coal. The basic problem with hydrogen is that it is not available in pure form, but is mostly contained in water, from which it is easily extracted with addition of energy, which could come from coal (dirty and adds to the carbon dioxide problem), or wind-solar energy (clean), or other energy sources.
From the guy who invented the lithium-ion battery: https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/05/goodenough-solid-battery-technology/
I’d love to see hydrogen cars succeed as well, though the infrastructure issues are pretty daunting. Perhaps they’ll find a niche as small urban vehicles, where filling stations can be fairly concentrated. HydroSmart cars, anyone?
Smart cars are only going to be sold as BEVs in the US from now on; no more gas-powered Smarts. The complex and expensive hydrogen storage tanks and the fuel cell all take a fair bit of room, and they’re still very expensive, so that is not likely in the foreseeable future. The Mirai probably costs Toyota a whole lot more than it’s asking for it ($58k).
True. Given the mechanical requirements of the hydrogen system, perhaps a better option would be to power local fleet vehicles. Small delivery vans, that kind of thing.
Why is the argument always which ONE is the best choice? Why not allow a mix of ALL choices, BEV, hydrogen, NG, diesel, and regular fuel? There is seldom one good answer to a complex problem, and perhaps if we give all options on the table a shot, one or two will be better for most, but no one answer will answer all our energy needs.
The way I see it, hydrogen and regular fuels seem to be better options for long haul, while the normal everyday commute seems to be a logical choice for BEVs. That would mean, at least in my mind, that cars would be better served by battery, with trucks and long haul drives handled by hydrogen and fossil fuels. And yes, I get the argument that people want one vehicle that can do it all, but I don’t buy that argument. If 99% of the miles on your DD are back and forth to work, you need a commuter car. You can rent something else for the week you drive 5 hours to a destination, or park your DD at the airport or train station. You do not have to physically own the vehicle you need for one purpose. Take moving vans. Unless you own a moving company, you would always rent rather than buy one, correct?
From where I sit, you have it backwards. What’s the point of investing your hard earned cash into a crappy little clown car for the purpose of using it under the most miserable of circumstance? Luckily, I live around the corner from work but if I suddenly took a job in downtown Portland (where parking/traffic are medieval torture) I live up the road from a park n ride…just light rail it in which is faster and either walk, streetcar or use car2go if that’s not close enough. Logically, pouring money into a hideous POS that’s going to be abused and beat to hell in the daily grind doesn’t make sense. At most, shelling out $3-4K on a reliable beater while keeping something ‘cool’ in the garage is a livable trade off.
As an enthusiast, having to take ownership of an economical penalty box or ANY hybrid/electric is about as appealing as being sawed in half from the groin upward. Anything parked in my garage has to fullfill my needs AND personal gratification. I work hard for my money and owning/driving what I want is part of my reward. A beefy 4×4 or a fast stylish car is in fact a requirement.
I think that a mix of all fuel choices would be a great idea except that a large part of the motoring public are quite ignorant about most anything automotive. Gasoline put into diesel vehicles, and diesel fuel used in place of diesel exhaust fluid are just a couple of issues with people driving company or rental vehicles now. Add a few more choices and some people would be just lost. Not fuel related but this is why the transmission dipstick is going away. Too many dipsticks using the wrong fluid making expensive warranty claims.
The basic problem with hydrogen is that is has to be made which takes energy. Then, to be useful in a vehicle, the fuel tank needs to be high pressure, which can be trouble in a crash. Another problem is that hydrogen can slip through the walls of the containment tanks, although this is a slow process. The advantage is that refueling is quick.
However newer batteries can be recharged to a reasonable level in something like 30 minutes, making battery powered vehicles a good choice. Currently recharging Tesla’s while driving cross-country is possible. What I see is that some standard charging system is needed for electrics before they go much further.
What is a BEV?
BEV A wonderful quirky artsy girl. Shy on the outside, yet complex and misunderstood underneath that shell. Very sexy, big boobs, great curves and loves to give pleasure as much as recieving. Super intelligent and very loyal. A keeper, a BFF, a soulmate
or
Battery Electric Vehicle
I don’t know what they’re smoking in Toyota’s design studios lately. Their current models are… aesthetically challenged…to put it politely. This, however, must be the ugliest thing on four wheels I’ve ever seen…
It actually looks pretty good next to the tail finned, “pre-wrecked” current Prius. Would have been a better looking aesthetic direction for the Prius, but then, if you’re shopping for one of these, aesthetics isn’t exactly priority #1.
I have had visions of a new Prius updated (?) with 59 Chevy tail lights. Might be a fun project if I didn’t already have too many hobbies…
I agree with you. But if you really think about it, no one buys an eco greenie car or just about any other Toyota to look ‘cool’…at least not the way most gearheads would define it. Being conspicuous in caring for mother earth is the whole schtick here…you’re either on board or aren’t. A solid argument could be made that someone who bought a brand new ’95 camry, corolla civic etc and kept it in tune all these years running at peak efficiency (and who uses ALL of their personal items to the end of the useful life) is a lot less wasteful and contributes more meaningfully to reducing their impact than someone who just jumps onto every fad. But then, no one at the farmers market would ever notice.
+1! ? I wish I wrote that .
You’ve never seen French vehicles then.
Agreed, agreed. My place is a Toyota-free zone.
+1000. I’d say the entire auto industry is smoking the same stuff…or sniffing it.
4000 LBS? really? Wow. Pass. I’m just not “with it” enough to want. I’ll be a dinosaur for my remaining years, thanks.
There are new developments in batteries that will make EVs more attractive to “normal” users than they are now, and if a gasoline engine is used as a range extender only, running at constant speed, it can be more efficient than if it turns the wheels.
I don’t want an EV or a hybrid,( although it depends on the hybrid), but they are the future.
Electric cars are the past.
“FunFact: You can use the car to power about 60 kWh of external loads when parked.”
They should be making contractor vans with this tech. And campers.
When I first heard about hydrogen-powered automobiles, two thoughts came to mind: 1) Fuel cell exploding similar to the Apollo 13 service module explosion; and 2) Will it blow up like the Hindenburg in a collision?
Hasn’t Honda been making hydrogen fuel cell cars for almost 10 years? In Torrance, California I saw a Honda hydrogen filling station….hardly utilized but did see ONE Honda being refueled. Also wondering whether the Toyota Mirai can refuel at that Honda station or are they proprietary?
What is Honda’s hydrogen car experience been? How do the Honda and Toyota to hydrogen cars compare?
I can trot over and ask tomorrow, if I remember. While Toyota was still here, the two Japanese automakers had their US headquarters practically next door to one another.
From 2008 to 2014, Honda leased a total of 46 FCX Clarity units in the US.
Its replacement, the Clarity Fuel Cell, just hit the streets a couple of months ago. it is priced similarly, $369 per month for a lease, obviously highly subsidized.
Like Toyota, Honda has seen the error of its ways, and is also releasing a BEV version of the Clarity, although with only an 80 mile range, which is not competitive to the gen2 BEVs now coming on the market.
I admit it: I never saw the Home Computer coming, so my natural ability as a prognosticator is obviously questionable.
Having said that, I think any window of opportunity for hydrogen cars has come and gone, and won’t reappear for 50 or 100 years. Oil is no longer in short supply thanks to fracking and won’t be again for 25 years at a minimum. Natural gas is going to be available for at least 100 years and after that, methane hydrate*. Natural gas (or methane hydrate) can be used directly to fuel cars, converted into electricity, or turned into diesel fuel.** The interim term popular answer, I think, when oil prices do start to rise again will be hybrids ala the Prius. The next will be pure electrics, and/or possibly directly fueled from natural gas.
Given that hydrogen is currently expensive to make and transport, there isn’t a viable economic case for the foreseeable future. However, we are fortunate that we have 50 to 100 years in which to develop technological answers regarding transportation after the hydrocarbons do finally come into short supply, if they ever do.
*Here is a link to information on methane hydrate
http://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/
** I have an acquaintance who is working on a refinery which floats on a barge which takes natural gas from ocean oil wells and turns it into diesel. Right now off-shore gas is often burned off because it is too hard to transport. Turning it into diesel on the spot solves the transport problem.
I’ve come across a few of these parked and on the road in mostly affluent neighborhoods in Southern California. I was jarred at first by the design but it was something of a preview of the wild Toyota styling of late… it actually looks handsome to me now, like a near-Camry sized Prius with restrained (for lack of a better word) styling.
” The Shell Hydrogen station in my neighborhood is a vestige of Toyota’s corporate campus that opened before the automaker’s recent move to Texas.”
The last time I drove by it on 190th street in Torrance, the station was being dismantled.
Oh….I thought that hydrogen station on 190th street was operated by Honda. Didn’t realize it was a Shell station. I stand corrected. Thanks.
The Shell sign remains and it looks to be undergoing a retrofit, with a temporary portable fueling station out back.
That makes more sense.
Was this abortion pressed in the the ugly press? Styled by the ugly programme?
Calling this “homely” is way too kind. It’s vile.
Not trying to pick on your post, but in general:
To all those who hate the styling, let me ask: Which would you prefer? Ugly (to your eyes) or something so bland as to not offend anyone? I would much rather have something that is someone’s vision rather than the compromise done by a committee. This, or a 2012 Camry? At least this was an attempt…..
Oh please, as if this car wasn’t designed by a committee, “oh no, this car is important, lets assign it to our most talented designer and give him or her carte blanche” I guess it’s the old adage success has many fathers, failure is an orphan will be applied – “it’s Bob’s fault, it was his vision!”
If this were someone’s unique vision they wouldn’t simply be copying the hip fake “greenhouse” extensions pioneered by the truly visionary but still hideous BMW i3/i8s. It takes a committe influence to incorporate something that obvious.
Much as I despise Camrys and blandness, if it comes to a choice, I’ll take bland over this mutant abomination.
Wow, I miss a day for a business trip and this big discussion ensues! Excellent everyone.
The “hydrogen economy” has been a boondoggle ever since GWBush’s people funded Detroit to research it.
* Even if trillions were spent building out a hydrogen infrastructure comparable to gasoline or electricity, a substantial fraction of the hydrogen would be lost because it literally passes through the walls of tanks and pipes.
* Hydrogen today is chemically extracted from natural gas in an energy-intensive steam process, with a carbon by-product. Today’s worldwide hydrogen production causes about 5% of the global CO2 emissions (Science Daily 4/8/13). Overall well-to-wheel efficiency is comparable to gasoline-powered cars. Neither is as good as electric, even when the power is generated from natural gas.
* Fuel cells are exotic and fragile. “Technical grade” (five times pure) hydrogen is required. The smallest impurity will poison the fuel cell, permanent damage.
* In the meantime electronic technology continues to advance rapidly, and battery technology is getting up to mass-production scale. Today’s lithium-ion battery is not the final stage of battery technology, there’s better yet to come.
* We don’t need to build an “electric economy”, we already have it.
I just hope Toyota and Honda can recover from their late start on battery electric cars. GM made a big bet and leads the majors now, how about that! Tesla’s coming on fast. I’d hate to see Toyota’s Mirai or Prius Prime in Deadly Sin articles.
How about butt-ugly?!?
As the owner and user of a butt, I resent that remark.
My uncle in California works on one of the great natural hydrogen wells near Camarillo, Ca. He’s bully on the future of hydrogen-powered cars.