Toyota workers assemble the Mirai, which runs off hydrogen, at the automaker's Motomachi plant in Japan on Tuesday. (Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg)
Posted on 02/25/2015 12:04:07 PM PST by ckilmer
Toyota this week officially rolled out what it's betting will mark "a turning point" in automotive history — a sleek, affordable, eco-friendly "future" car that can drive for 300 miles, takes less than five minutes to charge and comes with three years of free fuel.
It's everything haters of gas-guzzling car culture could love. And the biggest name in electric cars hates it.
Toyota's Mirai (meaning "future" in Japanese) will be one of the first mass-market cars to run on hydrogen fuel cells, which convert compressed hydrogen gas to electricity, leaving water vapor as the only exhaust. As opposed to getting plugged in overnight, the sedan will need only about three minutes to get back to full charge, a huge boon for convincing the world's drivers to convert to a cleaner ride.
But the green technology has found a surprisingly forceful critic in Elon Musk, the electric-car pioneer and founder of Tesla Motors, maker of battery-powered cars like the Model S. Musk has called hydrogen fuel cells "extremely silly" and "fool cells," with his main critique being that hydrogen is too difficult to produce, store and turn efficiently to fuel, diverting attention from even better sources of clean energy.
"If you're going to pick an energy source mechanism, hydrogen is an incredibly dumb one to pick," Musk said last month in Detroit. "The best-case hydrogen fuel cell doesn't win against the current-case batteries. It doesn't make sense, and that will become apparent in the next few years."
But Toyota, one of Big Auto's few pioneers of fuel-efficient cars like the Prius hybrid, has not been content to let Musk's aggression stand. Bob Carter, a Toyota senior vice president, slapped back at Musk last month by criticizing his sole focus on battery-powered cars: "If I was in a position where I had all my eggs in one basket, I would perhaps be making those same comments."
The electric-car infighting has opened up a huge division over the future of zero-emission cars. Although they make little sense anywhere else now but California, home of the nation's few hydrogen refueling stations, Toyota and its home country of Japan are investing heavily into ushering in what Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called the world's "hydrogen era."
The Mirai is an absolute oddity even in the world's still-small green car market. A dozen workers in blue hard hats will hand-craft the cars without help of conveyor belt, turning out only three a day, Toyota said. The small-batch operation will roll out 700 this year for the U.S., Japan, Europe, and crank up to 2,000 starting next year.
Toyota plans to sell the Mirai for about $45,000 in the U.S., including about $13,000 in federal and California incentives, starting next year. It will sell to the public in Japan next month.
At 300 miles, the four-seat Mirai offers the longest range of any electric vehicle on the market (and more than Tesla's $80,000 Model S, which gets 265 miles). A full tank of hydrogen, Toyota adds, has enough energy to power the average American home for a week.
But hydrogen fuel cells carry their own challenges. To sell successfully in America, the cars will need a nationwide infrastructure for recharging (a problem Musk has sought to get around through Tesla's national network of "superchargers.") Though its emissions are greener, hydrogen is now mostly sourced from natural gas, which carries its own environmental impacts.
But Toyota has been strong in its defense of hydrogen, saying it will give drivers far quicker refueling times and farther range than the typical battery-powered electric car.
Toyota is not the only automaker pushing hard on fuel cells: The hydrogen-powered Hyundai Tucson is now available in California, and Honda's fuel-cell car is expected to roll out next year.
But Toyota has been one of its biggest boosters, opening its more than 5,000 fuel-cell related patents up for free and saying it wants to build and fund new fueling stations, first in California and then stretching to the east coast. California is investing tens of millions of dollars to build 28 new hydrogen recharging stations, on top of the 10 it was home to as of last year.
Japan has proven to be far more embracing of the "hydrogen society," investing in self-service hydrogen stations, easing fuel-cell regulations and offering about 3 million yen (about $25,200) in incentives to early Mirai buyers. Prime Minister Abe, one of the first to receive a Mirai, said he wants all of Japan's agencies to have one, too.
Although Mirai production began in December, Toyota's president, Akio Toyoda, marked Tuesday as the official roll-out date. Five years ago to the day, a congressional panel grilled Toyoda about the automaker's recalls for unintended acceleration programs, a long embarrassment for the major Japanese brand.
“For us, that date marks a new start,” Toyoda said. “This is not to reflect on the past, but rather to celebrate Toyota’s new start, where we take a fresh step towards the future.”
The other was the Dodge Omni.
But neither of them were Volkswagens or Audis. True, for a time they used VW engine parts (short block) and VW manual transmissions. The basic car was the Simca Horizon. Simca was the French division of Chrysler.
In no way was the Omni/Horizon "identical" to the VW Rabbit/Golf, as you claim. The most you could honestly say was that they were similar.
But your point about Consumer Reports is spot on. They pulled the same stunt with their rollover claim about the Suzuki Samurai. From that link:
" The videos showed, among other things, that the testing personnel had driven the Samurai through the course no fewer than 46 times before getting it to tip up on two wheels on the 47th, a result that was met by laughing and cheering from the group."
From a previous link:
While travelling (sic) at freeway speeds the (Consumer Reports) tester twisted the steering wheel approximately 90 degrees, and then took both hands off the wheel. The O/H failed to display sufficient recovery to satisfy the CR testers."
The CR automobile reliability ratings are highly suspect since they are based on subscriber responses to an annual survey, a "self-selected" sample. CR's subscriber base tends to be far older, better educated, and of higher income than the general population, so statistically, the CR sample is flawed. The process by which the arrive at their ratings from the raw data is never revealed.
Is CR biased? In some cases, without a doubt. Is it intentional? That can be debated, but the bias is there if you look for it.
Is CR useful? Yes, in a way, but only if you understand that it is just one of many data points that can be considered, if you take the time to do some research.
Should CR be taken as gospel? Absolutely not.
Wrong....battery economics will never overcome battery physics...
Just so.
Petrol based fuels require only a can for portability, be it a five gallon jerry can or gas tank. No additional bulk such as any chemical reaction battery requires. The bigger the battery the greater the weight which requires more power to move. Bulk of such robs any vehicle of usable volume for passengers or freight.
At the end of its useful life the gas can or fuel tank require no additional processing to render them environmentally safe, whatever that means on any given day. Recycled cans an tanks easily re-smelted.
As far as providing energy for third world countries, petrol is the only way to go for transportation, heating, cooking and small scale local generation of electricity.
End of story.
Fresh Wind you sound like a car guy.
The point of the talking about Consumer Reports was that they gave Tesla rave reviews last year.
That gave people the impression that engineering/ride/look of the Tesla S was pretty solid.
Is it your contention that the engineering etc of the Tesla S is way over rated. That Consumer Reports review of the Tesla S was unwarranted?
End of story.
...........
Agree that currently gasoline offers the best portability.
The problem with calling this the end of the story is that there are literally 100’s of labs around the world working on improving fuel cells and batteries. When you throw in university graduate programs —that number goes into the 1000’s of labs.
Throw in the power of modern experimental tools —and you get an awful lot of pressure being exerted on the problem.
Given this pressure—I just don’t think it prudent to say “end of story”. People saying this have just been made into total fools by new inventions for the last 150 years.
Fast charging long lived batteries have been in the works for over a century....
I’m telling you...there are certain limitations to storing electricity which can’t be overcome. As long as gasoline is readily available, electric cars simply won’t be economical.
But companies seeking government-mandated sales and hiring people to claim it’s a good idea have a lot fewer limitations.
I’m telling you...there are certain limitations to storing electricity which can’t be overcome. As long as gasoline is readily available, electric cars simply won’t be economical.
..............
Maybe but Tesla is currently working on a giant factory in Reno Nevada which will produce batteries for his cars starting in two years that do 270 miles on a charge at half their current costs. These costs savings will help bring the cost of the next generation of Teslas into the 35k range.
They’re just using economies of scale to solve the problem rather than advanced physics.
As to chemistry/physics I don’t think it right to say that scientists have been working on batteries for 100 years without much improvement. That Tesla’s batteries can do 270 miles has to tell you something.
Get back to me when untold millions of dollars wasted on exotic batteries reach the simplicity, economy, and universal usage obtained by the simple gas can or tank. And the freedom it obtains
Enjoy your hobby knowing that you are aiding and abetting in robbing your fellow citizens with increased taxes, overt and covert. Let the electric revolution occur the old fashion way via the free market and not by government fiat.
BTW did you know there’s a rest stop on the NJ Turnpike named Kilmer after the poet. Appropos of nothing.
All I’m saying is that I don’t necessarily trust CR’s opinion as the final word on any product.
Here’s a discussion of what CR did to the Subaru BRZ:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51307
They gave it as bad an overall reliability rating as they possibly could on the basis of two “problem areas”, specifically body integrity and audio system. At worst, these are annoyance issues, and have nothing to do with the mechanical integrity of the car. Every other rating category was above or much above average.
When they publish stuff like this that makes no sense whatsoever, you develop a certain mistrust of their methodology and motives.
As for the Tesla, yes, from all I’ve read, it’s a great car for what it is.
But it simply isn’t a practical solution for all types of travel that you would need a car for. No pure EV is that.
It’s fine for local use if that’s all you do, or if you can afford an additional conventional vehicle for longer distances.
“I’m telling you...there are certain limitations to storing electricity which can’t be overcome. As long as gasoline is readily available, electric cars simply won’t be economical.” —rottndog
“But it simply isn’t a practical solution for all types of travel that you would need a car for. No pure EV is that. It’s fine for local use if that’s all you do, or if you can afford an additional conventional vehicle for longer distances.” —Fresh Wind
Like ckilmer mentioned, battery prices have been falling quickly, from $800/kWh a few years ago, to around $250 to $300/kWh today (depending on who you ask), to $180/kWh once the GigaFactory is online in a year or so.
I think the most attractive vehicles with a battery are the plug-in hybrids. These have smaller batteries, ranging from 20 to 50 miles, that allow you to do your daily driving on electricity, but they still have a gas engine & tank for whenever you go farther. Since it costs between one-half to one-quarter as much to go 100 miles on electricity than it does on gasoline, these kinds of cars can 1) pay for their price premium in a few years and 2) reduce our OPEC funding by 90%.
.
>> “That gave people the impression that engineering/ride/look of the Tesla S was pretty solid.” <<
.
Total strawman!
That was never the question.
The Tesla is a fine, solid toy, suitable for those wealthy enough to absorb its cost and lack of long distance emergency functionality with a shrug because it is cute and fun.
For a one car family, no plug-in totally electric car will ever be an acceptable or wise choice. A conventional liquid re-fuelable vehicle will always out-perform an electric plug-in when all aspects of transportation are taken into consideration.
.
.
It is the “end of story” for realists.
The hundreds or thousands, or whatever grant suckers “working” on improving electric storage have been at a dead end for 20 years.
That is what the unbiased experts say right now. All of the ideas have been beat to death, and they see nothing promising down the road.
You can exert all the “pressure” you wish on El Capitan but it isn’t going to move one milimeter.
Gasoline and natural gas are where we are, and where we’re going, and as soon as we get your soul mate out of the White Hut we can move on with them.
.
Ideally, the public will be the primary benefactor from a real competition between the different systems, with economic votes, called dollars, determining the eventual victor.
In the real world, as with the Net Neutrality vote yesterday, regulators will be bought and paid for, and will place obstacles in front of some, but not other, options, making the winner a choice made by 3 people, based on who gives the biggest bribes.
We should have been putting heads on pikes years ago.
.
>> “Since it costs between one-half to one-quarter as much to go 100 miles on electricity than it does on gasoline...” <<
.
That is the politically created sham that we have to wipe out before it wipes out all working class Americans! They can’t afford to support the toys of the wealthy on their basic needs incomes.
.
>> “In the real world, as with the Net Neutrality vote yesterday, regulators will be bought and paid for, and will place obstacles in front of some, but not other, options, making the winner a choice made by 3 people, based on who gives the biggest bribes.” <<
.
America 101!
.
Agree totally.
The Tesla is a fine, solid toy, suitable for those wealthy enough to absorb its cost and lack of long distance emergency functionality with a shrug because it is cute and fun.
..................
Actually, the internal combustion engine car started out as a toy for the wealthy. Henry Ford came out with the model T. Mass production brought car prices down far enough for much of the US driving public.That’s actually the model that Tesla is working off of. They’re currently a high end car. In three years they plan to come down to 35 K for the Tesla S—which is high end for the middle class. They’ll do that by way of mass producing car batteries that do 260 miles on a charge. I think in three years the miles@charge will be about 300. That’s still pricy for much of the driving public. But the direction of pricing for electric cars is downward.
“That is the politically created sham that we have to wipe out before it wipes out all working class Americans! They can’t afford to support the toys of the wealthy on their basic needs incomes.” —editor-surveyor
You misunderstood me, those prices are not based on subsidies. Electricity is just dirt cheap compared to gasoline, from around $1.20 per gallon equivalent down to around $0.60 per gallon equivalent, depending on your rate.
If you look at the factors, including $/gallon that we pay at the pump and miles per gallon on a typical car, we pay around 7¢ to 10¢ per mile for gasoline. Electricity costs around 2¢ to 4¢ per mile if you look at how much we pay per kWh on our electric bills and the miles/kWh that electric cars get. I ran the numbers a few weeks ago in more detail here (gas prices are about 20¢ more expensive since then):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3245953/posts?page=111#111
.
>> “You misunderstood me, those prices are not based on subsidies. Electricity is just dirt cheap compared to gasoline” <<
.
Are you deliberately ignoring the herd of elephants in that room?
Electricity for transportation should carry the appropriate taxes to support our highways. It is the wealthier segment that drives the toys that are skipping out on this.
In addition, the electric grid is having to be upgraded at tremendous cost to permit this excess.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.