In Europe, Toyota Will Sell Over 90% Of Mirais In Germany, UK & Denmark

NOV 2 2015 BY MARK KANE 72

Mayor of London Boris Johnson Confirms Transport for London as a First Customer for the Toyota Mirai. Picture by Andrew Parsons / i-Images

Mayor of London Boris Johnson Confirms Transport for London as a First Customer for the Toyota Mirai. Picture by Andrew Parsons / i-Images

Toyota Mirai sales in Europe will be mostly focused on two countries – Germany and UK – due to their hydrogen infrastructure being in the most advanced stage, according to Automotive News Europe  (and also maybe to do with the greater incentives available to Toyota in Germany).

Up to 90% of Mirai, from a total of about 50 in 2015 and 100 in 2016 for Europe, will go Germany/UK.

Germany expects to have 50 stations by the end of this year and 400 by 2023 (total cost estimated at €350 million), while the UK hopes to have 15 by the end of this year and 65 by 2020.

One more important market will be Denmark with 7 stations (12 by end of the year).

One new station will be opened in Belgium, near Toyota’s technical center.

Price of the Mirai in Europe is about €66,000 + local tax. Toyota intends to mainly lease the cars for €1,200 a month in Germany or £600-700 in UK, or 1,050 in Denmark. All without down payment.

Yoshikazu Tanaka, chief engineer for the Mirai, said:

“Mirai customers will not have to worry about the resale value or maintenance of their car because everything will be included in the monthly lease rate.”

Example price per kg of hydrogen in Germany, according to Automotive News Europe, is about €9.5 ($10.5), although we are not sure whether this includes some incentives or not. Full tank needs 5 kg of hydrogen for 312 miles (502 km) of EPA range.

Source: Automotive News Europe

Categories: Toyota

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

72 Comments on "In Europe, Toyota Will Sell Over 90% Of Mirais In Germany, UK & Denmark"

newest oldest most voted

LOL. The perfect IQ test.
These countries are too smart for this car.
Let’s see the results…

What a crock….

H2 at €9.5/kg means this is dirty steam reformed natural gas H2.

Unless of course it is being subsidized on top being untaxed.

I’m sure it will be natural gas in the beginning, just like BEVs are powered by dirty coal now.

The future, however, is plants like these: http://www.siemens.com/press/en/feature/2014/corporate/2014-05-energiepark-mainz.php

My BEV is not powered by dirty coal.

Your local power is mostly dictated by your local geography and local politics. If you live in coal country or a red state, it is a good chance you use coal. If you live far from coal or in a blue state, it is a good chance you only use a small amount of coal.

The same will hold true for FCEVs.

No – the point was that the Hydrogen for FCEV’s are *made of* reformed natural gas!
– Which is a fossil fuel no matter what energy source you use to run the reforming process. Of course it is worse if coal energy is used for this, but even on solar/hydroelectric power, the *raw material* for producing Hydrogen will still be fossil natural gas!

U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source in 2014 (US Energy Information Administration)

Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%
——————————-
Total Fossil Fuels < 68%
Nuclear = 19%
——————————-
Total Non-Renewable Fuels 12.9%

——————————-
Total Non-Renewable Fuels 12.9%

Total Non-Renewable Fuels = 87%

Hydropower = 6%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
——————————-
Total Renewable Fuels = 12.9%

California is on target for 46% renewable hydrogen to be used for transportation.

“California law [SB1505] requires that 33% of hydrogen for transportation come from renewable sources.” After the hydrogen sold for transportation reach a certain level, “SB 1505 calls for an additional 37% reduction in CO2 by using more renewables.”

“ARB found that the currently operational and funded hydrogen network’s renewable implementation is well within compliance with the SB 1505 standard, reaching 46% renewable after all currently-planned stations are built.”

http://cafcp.org/getinvolved/stayconnected/blog/stations_surpass_renewable_hydrogen_requirement

sven said:

“California is on target for 46% renewable hydrogen to be used for transportation.”

And how many unicorns and rainbows does the Government of California plan to hire to make that come true? 😉

Seriously, I wonder how many months it will be before they acknowledge things aren’t exactly going according to plan. Even political organizations can ignore reality only for so long.

Would you care to elaborate? How is it diverging from plan?

In approximately the same way in which the Flat Earth Society’s plan to convince us all the world isn’t an oblate spheroid is failing to come true.

I don’t need to look at every single detail of their laughable claims to know they can’t possibly be true, because unlike some here, I am scientifically literate, and I understand that nobody can simply ignore the Laws of Physics.

Pushmi-Pullyu said:
“And how many unicorns and rainbows does the Government of California plan to hire to make that come true? ?”

It’s been true for the past 5 years. The percentage of renewable hydrogen for previous years is as follows:

2010: 38% renewable hydrogen
2012: 52% renewable hydrogen

So 46% renewable hydrogen for 2015 is easily achievable, sans unicorns and rainbows.

Per CARB’s annual evaluation, page 56:

“Moreover, the historical trend also shows renewable resource utilization for hydrogen has always exceeded the requirement. The minimum renewable content was 38% in 2010, peaked at 52% in 2012, and will be 47% at the end of 2015.”

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2015.pdf

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099459_ca-renewable-hydrogen-rule-forcing-the-carbon-numbers-to-work

You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the plan and the reality… which are getting further and further apart as the wheels come off this boondoggle.

Pushmi-Pullyu,

Living in Kansas has given you a corn-addled brain. CARB has been verifying the amount of renewable hydrogen dispensed from filling California filling stations for many years.

2010: 38% renewable hydrogen
2012: 52% renewable hydrogen

Yet you refuse to believe the figures published by CARB. Do you really think CARB is lying? Are you saying that there is a CARB-BigOil cartel that is involved in a conspiracy to report false renewable hydrogen numbers for California? Are you one of RexxSee’s split personalities? Or are you just a paid troll?

Coal is being shut down nationally.
Cheap Wind and Solar and natural gas are killing it.

Also, the global warming drought is causing communities to rush the shutdown of coal to stop the destruction of fresh water supplies.

So, forget about coal.

so that explains why german auto makers have been developing fcev’s; the governments there are behind the technology.

from a practical standpoint, fcev is a better way to go than bev because the fcev allows a driver to drive emission-free without changing user refueling habits; you refill an fcev much like you would refill and icev and in about the same amount of time (at least in principle; it remains to be seen how well fcev refilling stations can scale to handle multiple customers at 5-10 minutes/refill).

there are many problems to be solved to make fcev’s practical, but there are problems to be solved to make bev’s practical as well. i don’t see how you can get a bev with 300+ miles of range that can be safely recharged in 5-10 minutes. personally, i like the phev option, but i admit that the phev option is not emission-free as are the bev and fcev options.

between the bev and fcev options, i would probably prefer the bev option to the fcev option but i also recognize that the fcev option has better prospects to replace icev’s in a wider range of transportation vehicles.

Yet another howler from no comment- in practice, not in principle.

The big issue for a lot of Europe is that people park on the street and they don’t have chargers install all over the streets. FCEV allows people to fill up fast at a fueling station.

But I don’t think it would be so hard to start installing more and more chargers all over. That plus a decent DC-fast charge infrastructure could solve things.

Also people in Europe more exposed to ISIS type threats. Having a Hydrogen station or car as an easy terror bomb setup already waiting in the street is stupid policy.

“no comment” said:

“i don’t see how you can get a bev with 300+ miles of range that can be safely recharged in 5-10 minutes.”

Fortunately, neither electrical engineers nor EV designers are limited by your lack of imagination.

“It’s not going to happen in a year from now. It’s going to be hard. But I think we can get down to five to 10 minutes.” — J.B. Straubel, Tesla’s Chief Technical Officer

Unfortunately Tesla’s track record when it comes to predictions is rather poor. And the more quickly you charge, the more your battery degrades. Still, I’d love to be able to recharge my EVs more quickly, and it may happen.

Not really working out in practice.
The additives they use to stop dendrite formation look like they’re working pretty well.

the problem is that the charging station that straubel envisions delivers 1,500v and 480a at the charger head…that’s almost 3/4 of a megawatt. there is no way that you would be able to handle such a charger. first of all, you would not be able to install a 3/4 megawatt charger in your home, and no insurance company would write a policy cover a public charging station such that you would be able to walk up and use it to charge an electric vehicle yourself.

Who in his right mind would want a DC quick charger *at home* ?

– at home, you have all the time in the world to charge an EV (12+ hours a day during weekdays, and maybe 20+ hours a day during most weekends)
– at home you don’t have hundreds or thousands of others with whom to share the investment in a DC quick charger
– at home you do not have a megawatt power line
– when being at home you do not drive hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers in one go – when going such long distances you are per definition not at home!

So let us keep these things separate when discussing:
– DC quick chargers are for long distance travel
– AC trickle chargers are for home usage

you don’t need a 720kW charger for home use but you certainly need a lot more than a 120v outlet for home charging. it would take 2 or 3 days to fully recharge a tesla model s from a 120v outlet. based on the driving profile that you described, you *clearly* don’t live in the U.S. during the weekend is when you can do a lot of driving in running errands. “quick charge” is for when you really need a quick charge. for example, stuff happens, you can get into difficulties even a tesla model s if you do an unusual amount of metro area driving and have to run the heat – under those conditions you might get 150 miles on a full charge. under other conditions, the amount of driving that you do daily might exceed the amount of range that you recover in an overnight charge; under other conditions still, you might just forget to recharge (just like you can forget to refill your gas tank with the low fuel light turns on). when you forget to refill a gas tank, a refill takes only 5 minutes, so you refill when you start your driving and it’s… Read more »

Since most charging will be done at home rapid charging stations will still be low use devices. This is how you solve the problem of ‘needing a power station’. You don’t, you need a battery bank on site that will charge up off the grid and then rapidly dispense the electricity when needed. Wasn’t very hard to solve was it?

But thanks to the feed-in tariffs, solar power in Germany is largely found on private homes and businesses, not centralized utilities. So why not just charge up their own EVs with part of it instead of taking the losses of feeding it all back to the grid so it can be converted to H2? It’s not like they want to store hydrogen at their homes.

Another question: do Europeans really drive that many miles per day? I mean, it would be surprising for the typical commute to cross national boundaries no matter how small your country is. Many anti-EV attacks come from Americans who tell incredible stories about their 100-mile commutes with a weird sort of pride, as though they’re brave frontiersmen because they moved as far away from the enemy cities as possible but still exploit those cities for their wages. I don’t think any of that makes sense to Europeans.

For all you closet hydrogen fans out there, here is a map of the 400 hydrogen fueling stations planned for Germany.

http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01b7c7dd11dc970b-popup

Here’s a post of vaporware- Germany doesn’t have $400,000,000 to blow on energy embezzlement. For that matter, they have neither the natural gas NOR the steam.

They’ve got plenty of coal to use… or can just import more natural gas from Russia.

Both seems like great options 😛

Sure, pay Russia for more natural gas, then use electricity to power the reforming equipment and pressurizing equipment to turn that natural gas into compressed hydrogen fuel. And spend billions upon billions of dollars to build out hydrogen fueling stations, each of which only provide fuel for a few dozen cars a day, at a very high maintenance cost. Because that will be so much more practical and cheaper than just using the same electricity (and no gas at all) to charge batteries in a plug-in EV, right?

Oh, wait…

And here I thought the sarcasm was super obvious. 😉

They have plenty of solar and wind, which is what they’re going to use to supply hydrogen. When it comes to bulk energy storage, hydrogen is cheap; much cheaper than using batteries. Germany will use those savings to deploy more solar and wind.

Three Electrics said:

“When it comes to bulk energy storage, hydrogen is cheap; much cheaper than using batteries.”

Right, that’s why it costs $14-15/kg to buy renewable hydrogen fuel.

Oh, wait…

Don’t confuse the the future with the present. Germany has barely begun its energy transformation. Even now, energy surpluses occasionally drive the spot price of electricity south of two cents an hour. Storing that energy with batteries, even for only a day, would triple that cost.

It’s getting a bit tiresome to read your repetitive anti-EV, pro-fool-cell FUD, Three Electrics. About as welcome as a Nazi at a bar mitzvah.

You want to ignore reality, ignore basic economics, ignore science, and ignore the Laws of Physics, and pretend that somehow hydrogen fuel could be cheaply made and cheaply distributed in the future? Okay, it’s a free country, so pretend all you like. Just like you pretend to drive EVs.

But it won’t change reality, nor change the reality of why you post here.

Well, he does have one point when you put Electrolysis of Hydrogen in the perspective of storing excess wind or solar power:
– Electrolysis of Hydrogen easily and cost-effectively scales to industrial scale!

Of course you would get better *energy efficiency* if you store excess energy in batteries, but the investments in battery storage facilities would be tremendously huge.

The company Norsk Hydro has for example industrial scale electrolysis technology that is ~80% effective in converting energy into Hydrogen. Solar and wind power are sometimes free or close to free, especially at sunny and/or windy weekend days. At such periods it makes much more sense to store the excess energy for later sale as Hydrogen then to sell it for little or nothing at all to the grid.

Also, in Denmark (Germany’s northern neighbor country) wind power is often sold to the grid at *negative* prices, since *way* too much wind power is fed into the grid when the autumn/winter storm set in.

Some of this power can be exported to neighbours Norway/Sweden/Germany, but even so, the grid electricity price frequently dips close to (and sometimes below) the price of zero cents per KWh.

Energy storage is really getting more and more necessary in grids where wind/solar power reach a certain percentage level of installed effect.

1 kg Hydrogen has 33kWh. Hydrogen can be generated at 65% efficiency. That means you need 51kWh for 1kg Hydrogen.

Cost for producing reneable energy:
Wind: 6ct/kWh –> 3.06€ kg/H2
Solar: 11ct/kWh –> 5.61€ kg/H2

Producing Hydrogen is not that expensive, even if you add 50% for storage and compression you arrive below 5€/kg H2 if you use wind for H2 production. Texas will be happy.

Germany is being idiots building so many hydrogen stations. What about dcfc? Are they building those? What’s the plan here? Push hydrogen weather it’s a good idea or not? At least even it out with BEV infrastructure…

Governments throwing money away on a wholly unrealistic, wasteful effort to build a “hydrogen highway?

Maybe it’s a sign that Big Oil & Gas companies have way too much influence on those governments. Maybe it’s a sort of “Potemkin village” designed to distract the public from the fact that those governments are actually doing very little or nothing real to end the use of fossil fuels.

Maybe some of both.

Yes we can always pull out the conspiracy theories. This is probably half true, but I think at least 50 percent of the problem is that the decision makers make their decisions based on insufficient information.

If you don’t study the matter too much, fuel cells seem an as good idea as any.

It’s like they feel that it deserves a chance, not looking at the situation from a technical or engineering perspective.

I agree we can’t expect politicians to understand the underlying science, but that’s why governments commission studies, which are done (or at least, should be done) by experts who do understand the issues.

Any study of the “hydrogen highway” concept can be summarized in a very short and succinct manner: “Completely impractical, both economically and technically; for it to succeed, the economic reality of EROI* would have to change radically, and the Laws of Physics would have to be repealed.”

*Energy Return On Investment

So we must look elsewhere for why this boondoggle keeps getting funded by multiple governments.

P.S. — I don’t think it’s at all a “conspiracy” to suggest that Big Oil (or Big Oil & Gas) companies have undue influence on politicians and governments. I think it’s a fact which has been proven time and time again. That influence isn’t at all hidden; it’s pretty open.

For all you closet hydrogen fans out there, here’s where your hydrogen is going to come from:

“Currently, global hydrogen production is 48% from natural gas, 30% from oil, and 18% from coal; water electrolysis accounts for only 4%.”

http://www.fchea.org/

If you live in the U.S., 40% of your BEV’s electricity comes from coal. In some states it’s up to 95%.

Only if you actually operate an EV in those dirty state.
Actually, you might think that they’re not very EV state.
So, again, a non argument.

In those states an FCEV will be greener then a BEV even when powered by natural gas. However, in the long term hydrogen will come from renewable sources. The trend toward renewables replacing coal is the same trend that will replace hydrogen from natural gas with hydrogen from electrolysis. They are one and the same.

Three Electrics said:

“If you live in the U.S., 40% of your BEV’s electricity comes from coal.”

Not even close to true, since 30% of BEV owners use solar power to offset some or all of their EV’s electricity use.

Also: In California in 2014, coal power was 6.4% of the mix. Let’s see now, which State has by far the most EV sales? Oh yeah… California.

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

“In some states it’s up to 95%.”

Well, at least that part of your anti-EV FUD is technically true; it’s 95% in West Virginia, one of only two states where it’s above 90%.

Dude, you should change your handle to “Three Gas Companies”, and acknowledge who is paying your salary.

The hydrogengen-pusher 3 electrics right-wing-repeating anti-EV FUD he keeps promulgating here has been disproven by real scientists over and over again.

See here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars#.Vjl-oufZ00s

California is on target for 46% renewable hydrogen to be used for transportation.

“California law SB1505 requires that 33% of hydrogen for transportation come from renewable sources.”

“In the annual evaluation of the hydrogen station network released last year, ARB found that the currently operational and funded hydrogen network’s renewable implementation is well within compliance with the SB 1505 standard, reaching 46% renewable after all currently-planned stations are built.”

http://cafcp.org/getinvolved/stayconnected/blog/stations_surpass_renewable_hydrogen_requirement

Hydrogen? Its all a lot of hot air.

50 hydrogoen stations here??? Ok but i tell you one thing. They are owned privately, without a single puplic customer allowed. I think we have two hydrogen stations in my city, they are in private property, owned by the bus company here and are used to tank the hydrogen buses they have.

Great, wake we when average Joe is allowed to use them.

The plan is for California to have fifty public (yes, public) stations in the next few years.

Hmmm, how well are those plans developing?

Here’s a quote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In June 2012, the California Energy Commission revoked $27 million in grants for hydrogen filling stations after complaints that the companies authorized to use most of the grant money had largely self-dealt the contracts. By that time, the number of hydrogen filling stations in the state had declined to 23, and only eight of these were “publicly accessible”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[end quote]

Hmmm, not so well then. Gosh, one might almost think there’s some underlying reason, say something in the economics or some practical limits (as in, physics) which are preventing this from going according to plan…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Hydrogen_Highway

Yes the push for hydrogen in CA has been plagued by scandal and corruption.

See here from Tom Elias, an excellent investigative journalist featured in many different newspapers:

http://www.theunion.com/opinion/10552629-113/commission-energy-grant-hydrogen

http://www.redding.com/opinion/tom-elias-hydrogen-highway-grants-fail-the-smell

I did talk about Germany, as the article. 50 stations today seems a lot.

Let me guess the bright Germans with their bright computer code skills for complying pollution test (Only 14+ Million cars effected and counting class actions Australia’s first) with many of their cars and components not made in Germany.

Were not bright enough to buy an Ampera plugin but now want Hydrogen cars?

Why don’t we give the Germans each a gun and they can shot there own foot.

What a joke Hydrogen Fuel celled cars are.
Inefficient and bad for the environment wasting electricity and transports.

Either go Plugin or take public transport silly Europeans

Ampera was and is too expensive to male sense in Europe. Come on its a 4 seater for 35000 euros..

Only the second hand offerings make financial sense. Buy when I showed the 4 seats in the Ampera to my wife she started to laugh so I guess I can forget about that..

for female sense too 😀

In other words: Most Mirai “fool cell” cars will be sold in countries where the government is pushing the “hydrogen highway”, so Toyota can sell cars to the governments of those countries.

Nearly all private citizens are going to continue to respond to these ads by saying “A hydrogen powered car? You’re joking, right?!?”

Elon,

I know you think “fool cell” is clever, but to American English speakers, it just sounds silly. Please stop. It doesn’t reflect well on you.

And please, don’t claim that nearly all private citizens reject FCEVs unless you can cite a poll. Otherwise, it just looks desperate. Nearly all private citizens have no idea what an FCEV is.

Three Electrics said:

“I know you think ‘fool cell’ is clever, but to American English speakers, it just sounds silly.”

Someone here is being silly, all right. 😉

“Nearly all private citizens have no idea what an FCEV is.”

Oops, Three Gas Companies: You slipped up there and posted something about “fool cell” cars that’s actually true! 😀

Try PFCEV, plug fuel cell range extended EV.
More batteries, smaller fuel cell with a reformer. Use methanol, ethanol or diesel.

Yes, a 20-40kWh Battery for extended daily driving and a 30-50kW fuel cell stack would make most sense. Even at speeds of 160km/h (100mph) you do not need more than 40kW average.

Cheap electric driving most of the time and hydrogen fast filling when it is really needed, when you drive more than 500km a day.

PS: A reformer is not needed.

Just compare

“http://cleanenergypartnership.de/h2Tankstellen/”

with

“http://supercharge.info”

and you can easily see that hydrogen has a long and expensive way to go while BEV are already on the run, accellerating and most likely be winning soon…

and to be fair, dont forget alternative plugs:
“https://de.chargemap.com”

I finally got an ev and the only way I’ll buy a fcev is if it gas a VOLT configuration. Meaning that hydrogen would be to guarantee long range (I would still want to be able to Quick charge) .

The problem is that if you look at how little the use of charging stations is you can figure out why this won’t happen. Who will invest in a much more expensive hydrogen pump to have it sit idle 90% of the time because people insist on charging while sleeping at home?