First Five Toyota Mirais Arrive In Europe


Toyota Mirais Arrive In Europe

Toyota Mirais Arrive In Europe

Toyota Mirais Arrive In Europe

Toyota Mirais Arrive In Europe

The future of the automobile Mirai has arrived in Europe.

On August 8 in Bristol, UK and August 10 in Zeebrugge, Belgium, Toyota unloaded first batch of Mirai, the world’s first “mass produced” hydrogen fuel cell sedan.

First 5 cars (3 in UK) is roughly 10% of the total planned deliveries for Europe this year. In 2016, Toyota intends to double the pace by delivering 100 Mirai in Europe.

If the world some day turns to hydrogen fuel cell cars, then this first delivery date could be more important than the date of first deliveries of the hybrid Toyota Prius in Europe 15 years ago. But will the world ever turn to hydrogen?

“Prius means “to go before” – a precursor to a new era of electrified mobility. Today, the first production Toyota Mirai – meaning “the future” in Japanese – destined for the European market has arrived, and, like its elder, it is here to pioneer the next step in clean mobility, using hydrogen as fuel and emitting nothing but water vapour.”

Other markets where Mirai will be available from September in Europe are Germany and Denmark. Price is €66,000 + VAT (Germany). At 19% VAT in Germany, we get a final price of €78,540 ($87,000). For that kind of money, you can get entry level Tesla Model S 70 or even 70D.

Mr Karl Schlicht, Executive Vice-President Toyota Motor Europe said:

“This marks the debut of a new age for clean mobility — a turning point in the history of automobiles. With Mirai, Toyota is working on bringing clean, safe and enjoyable mobility for the next 100 years, thanks to fuel cell technology. We are looking forward to the start of delivery of the first Mirai to customers from September and to see the future taking shape on European roads. As with Prius 15 years ago, we are proud to bring yet another groundbreaking innovation to Europe with Mirai”.

Category: Toyota

Tags: , , ,

72 responses to "First Five Toyota Mirais Arrive In Europe"
  1. Robb Stark says:

    €66k is $72.88k.

    $72.88k-$57.5k= $15.38k Premium in Europe.

    1. Bob says:

      Trade tarifs and VAT

      1. Robb Stark says:

        VAT is not included in €66k figure.

        Sales tax not included in the US $57.5k figure.

        US tariff is 2.5% EU tariff is 10%.

        So differences in tariff account for $4.6k

        There is still a $10.78k European Premium over American price.

    2. R.S says:

      Us cars are cheaper because they “produce” ZEV credits.

  2. Djoni says:

    “Toyota is working on bringing clean, safe and enjoyable mobility for the next 100 years”

    Of course they don’t mention that it’s for their fair share of money that all those consumer will hapilly provide whit each fill up.

    Very enjoyable is true indeed!

  3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “Mass produced”, hmmm. This despite Toyota admitting the fuel cells themselves are at least partially hand-built

    Tesla sold nearly 2500 of its Roadster, which was partially hand-built and therefore not considered a truly “mass produced” EV. Will Toyota wind up selling that many of its Mirai, or will it give up on the dead-end “fool cell” tech before that happens?

    1. Nonda Trimis says:


    2. mr. M says:

      i think i read they want to sell 6000 (within the first 3 years). Which is obviously far higher than a mere 2500 cars. 😉

      1. pete g says:

        6000 cars is 0.02% of Toyota’s sales. The LFA acounted for 0.001% both numbers look very insignificant to me.

    3. pete g says:

      Only 500 LFA were ever built

  4. Nonda Trimis says:

    That is one ugly car. Those openings on the left and right on the front are quite something!

  5. Anon says:

    Counting down the hours, minutes and seconds for the first “Spontaneous Disassembly” of the Mirai’s two 10,000 psi (700 bar) hydrogen tanks…

    1. Fleming says:


    2. ffbj says:


    3. sven says:

      Isn’t it kind of strange that the Honda Clarity, Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell, and Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell have been on the road for a while now and there has not been even one “Spontaneous Disassembly?” Could it be that you’re just spreading FUD?

      1. Anon says:


        Mass production leads to more chances for imperfections in materials, workmanship and design for the drivetrain to exhibit flaws, with an increased likelyhood of horrific conditions occurring that could detonate the tanks.

        A couple test vehicles can easily squeak by, and not display any potential harm that such high pressure drivetrains are capable of, in random, undesirable situations.

        The FUD is pretending that –ANY GAS– contained under such insane pressures, is perfectly safe when the tanks are compromised by either a vehicle fire, defect or delamination of the tanks, or a devastating collision event that compromises them.

        A good example of something similar: The original design of the Model S underbelly. It used thick ballistic grade aluminum to shield the bottom of the car. It was tested and vetted to be more than adequate for protecting the battery pack. Based on their internal testing data, Elon made numerous comments about it’s safety. It took more vehicles on the road, with a wider and more variable range of drivers and unexpected situations, to show the weakness in the design. And as we all know, Tesla rose to the challenge and promptly corrected the problem by over-designing a combination of an extra shield and crushing front deflector to the bottom of every car they’ve built since. Model X might even get something more resilient, due to the expectation of potential off-roading.

        Anyways… We’ll see what Toyota does after theirs goes BOOM. The real world awaits.

        1. sven says:

          “Tesla rose to the challenge and promptly corrected the problem. . . .”

          Unless you drive your Tesla Model S off a cliff. How is it that Toyota can design a Prius so that it doesn’t catch on fire after driving off a cliff, but Tesla can’t do the same with the Model S? Just sayin’. 😉

          1. RexxSee says:

            It only means that this particular Prius in this particular jump did not catch fire.

      2. Djoni says:

        Ain’t kind of strange that no nuclear accident have ever been known happening with year of using it.
        But then came Tchernobyl, Tree miles Island and of course Fukushima.
        And there’s more to come, one day or another.
        It ain’t a question of if, but when.
        Too many thing that have to be right all the time to keep it safe is just a matter of statistic to just one or a couple of time reverse the trend.
        Sometime your second parachute don’t work.
        It’s life!

        1. Ambulator says:

          Chernobyl was an old and dangerous plant.

          Three Mile Island caused some economic loss, but it probably didn’t kill anyone. We learned some lesson, though.

          Fukushima was safe enough. Only two people died during the earthquake compared to 20,000 in the rest of Japan, and none due to radiation. Perhaps a few will eventually die from escaped radiation, but not many compared to the earthquake total. Some land will be contaminated for a few decades.

          We can now make even safer reactors. Yes, eventually there will be more accidents and deaths, but not as many as with any other power source.

          1. RexxSee says:

            Chernobyl was not an old plant, it was a human error. And 1 million deaths and counting, indirectly from it.
            No man’s land for 22 000 Years. cancer, genetic malformation skipping generations…

            Kukushima let go in the Pacific ocean more than 300 tons on highly radio active water a day since 4 years. The food chain is affected, the waters of the west coast are affected, and they don’t know how to stop it from flowing. The reactor will cool down in 40’years. Nuclear disasters are the most censored of all.
            Nuclear is the most stupidest mad apprentice headless nonsense tech developped AND USED by the human race… Followed by fracking.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              RexxSee said:

              “Chernobyl was not an old plant, it was a human error.”

              Yeah, “human error” in stupidly making a decision to build a nuclear power plant without a containment dome.

              “And 1 million deaths and counting, indirectly from it.”

              Are you a shill for Big Oil, posting to spread anti-nuclear hysteria? The World Health Organization estimates 4000 deaths, worldwide, from the Chernobyl disaster. Some anti-nuclear political activists have suggested much higher death tolls, for obvious reasons, but the hysteria you post here is at least 10 times higher than even the most absurd, most inflated claim I’ve ever seen.

              Here’s the reality: Exhaust from coal-fired power plants are estimated to kill between 15,000 to 30,000 Americans every single year, and of course many more worldwide. Compare that to just an estimated 4000 deaths from the worst nuclear reactor disaster ever, and that happened only once… not every year! If humans were rational animals, then decades ago we would have shut down every single coal-fired power plant in the USA and replaced it with a much, much, much safer nuclear power plant.

              And if humans were rational animals, people wouldn’t post hysterical anti-nuclear posts like the one above, either.

              “No man’s land for 22 000 Years. cancer, genetic malformation skipping generations…”

              Maybe on the planet you live on. Here on planet Earth, the vast majority of the Chernobyl evacuation zone is already safe for human habitation again.

              And on a similar subject, 85% of the Fukusihma evacuation zone has a background radiation level no higher than living in Denver, Colorado… which has a cancer rate no higher than the national average. Anti-nuclear hysteria is alive and very well in Japan, too. At least the Japanese have a historical reason to fear nuclear power. We Americans don’t even have that excuse.

            2. Mikael says:

              No energy source gives no damage. But nuclear gives the least damage of all sources for energy, including wind, solar and hydro.

              And it gets even more ridiculous when complaining about an old design that doesn’t exist anymore like the one in Chernobyl. It’s like wanting to ban the Tesla because of electric cars in the early 20th century…or stopping lihtium battery powered cars because of the use of lead acid batteries once upon a time. 🙂

              Stop spreading irrational fear.

              1. Djoni says:

                How about Ukrainian restarting the exact same type of plant use in Tchernobyl because they struggling with high energy cost they can’t avoid without it?
                But there not alone, far from it.
                How about suddenly expanding the lifespan of many reactors simply because they magically gain robustness and longevity over their expected safe life?
                How about the nuclear waste?
                Dumped in the ocean or treated to become MOX, a very bad harmful nuclear fuel!
                Many site leak and the budget are cut, because money is hard to get anywhere and this is just for this generation and not projecting into the hundreds needed for all that waste to become “safe”
                How about the inflating cost of dismantlement that were forecast much, much lower then they actually are?
                You are yourself very “romantic and irrational” if you ever think that human always behave rationally in every decision they make.
                Let’s hear Murphy law of basic logic.
                “If anything could go wrong, it will”
                Unfortunately, it’s possible!

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Do you not understand that many industries, perhaps most industries, cause toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to be dumped into the environment? At least in the nuclear power industry, normal operation contains those toxic materials. Only when there is a rare accident do radioactive materials contaminate the environment. Compare to coal-fired power plants, where in normal operation they spew tons of toxic exhaust into the air every day, and accumulated literally mountains of slag and ash filled toxic substances. The amount of nuclear waste is less than a drop in the bucket by comparison… an infinitesimal amount.

                  In fact, if you’re really worried about radioactive elements contaminating the environment, then you should be agitating for shutting down all coal-fired plants, which — again, in normal operation — emit far more radioactive materials in their exhaust than commercial nuclear plants ever have or ever will!

                  To paraphrase Winston Churchhill: Commercial nuclear power is the most hazardous way to generate electricity… except for all the others.

                  And I get really tired of reading the nonsense that nuclear waste can’t be safely handled. France solved that problem by recycling 90% of the waste, and safely dispersing the rest into tiny particles embedded in stable glass blocks, where they will remain regardless of floods, earthquakes or other natural disasters (see link below).

                  Part of anti-nuclear hysteria is the belief that somehow tiny “invisible” particles of fallout are worse for your health than tiny “invisible” carcinogenic particles emitted by other industries. Or that somehow getting cancer and dying from random exposure to a microscopic bit of fallout is worse than getting cancer and dying from random exposure to a microscopic carcinogenic particle emitted by a coal-fire power plant, or any other industry.

                  So, Djoni, if your concern is truly the effect of industrial exhaust and waste on the environment, then you are taking aim at a very small target, while ignoring some very big targets indeed.

                  link, from PBS’s “Frontline”:
                  “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy”

              2. Priusmaniac says:

                “But nuclear gives the least damage of all sources for energy, including wind, solar and hydro.”

                I really don’t get that one.

      1. Anon says:

        Stop projecting…

        1. sven says:

          Your feelings for Elon are a textbook case of transference. 😉

      1. Anon says:

        It’s a good thing I don’t moderate here…

        1. sven says:

          Why, because you’d have to delete your own inappropriate comments? 😉

  6. Someone out there says:

    “This marks the debut of a new age for clean mobility — a turning point in the history of automobiles”

    No it doesn’t. Not only is this not the first hydrogen cars, they are barely mass produced and there is no saying if they ever will be. If incentive structures changes Toyota may very well scrap the car before it gets to serious mass production. Fuel cell technology will at best be a marginal player because of the costs associated with producing and distributing hydrogen gas.

    A much more correct statement would be to say that the Tesla Roadster was the debut of a new age for clean mobility. Not that the Roadster was the first electric car but it was the starting point for the current switch to electrics. The Roadster was the first car to show that it really is possible to make modern, high performance electric cars and not just golf carts or specialty vehicles.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:


  7. midimal says:

    What did Elon say about F-Cell? Fool-Cell?

    1. Mike777 says:

      He made many of these points;

      Hydrogen Summary of Failure

      Hydrogen stations make excellent explosive terrorist targets.
      Hydrogen stations are very expensive, cost per station: $1 Million, who is going to be forced to pay for this?
      Hydrogen stations not pumping at the 10,000 psi required, you’re only getting Half Charges!

      Difficult to make hydrogen and store it.  
      Hydrogen isn’t a source of energy, you can’t mine it, you can convert something else to hydrogen, like methane, but then you lose energy in the process.  
      Hydrogen from water( in a global drought? ), is extremely inefficient.  
      Hydrogen from methane gives you No Help with global warming, it actually makes things worse.  As methane wells typically leak like sieves
      Hydrogen must be supercooled and compressed to 10,000 psi to store sufficient energy, which requires lots of energy.
      Burning it as a fuel is less than 50% efficient.
      The energy to do all this could be used to directly run an EV from a battery, and get you Twice as far.
      Hydrogen likes to leak.
      Hydrogen has a general problem of metal embrittlement, so you need special tanks.
      Hydrogen leaks as an invisible gas.
      Hydrogen is extremely flammable with an invisible flame.
      Right now hydrogen is a loser vs. current batteries, not to speak of the battery chemistry in the coming solid state batteries.
      Chevy Volt gets better MPG, at a Lower Price, and allows you to use cheap solar energy for your fuel, and hydrogen does not. We will not run out of gas during the EV conversion process.
      Platinum in the fuel cell = expensive.

      Hydrogen time refueling vs. solar.
      Solar: You plug in at your home, Time 60 seconds.
      Hydrogen: You drive 20 minutes, or to California, to the station 10 minute refuel, 20 minutes back home: 50 minutes lost.

      Hydrogen Cars were built on the premise that we’d need a “Bridge Fuel” to EV’s, however battery tech has advanced so rapidly that there is no need for a bridge, especially one as wasteful and expensive as this.

      EV’s running on Solar helps pay off your Solar investment 20%-40% faster = More PROFITS to YOU.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “The energy to do all this could be used to directly run an EV from a battery, and get you Twice as far.”

        That should read: Three to four times as far.

  8. Ken says:

    I can get free electricity at home. Why do i need to travel to a Texaco or Sunoco hydrogen station to pay double the price of gasoline or more to fill up? No thanks. The whole point of an electric car is that its way cheaper than gasoline, propane,cng, diesel or hydrogen. And i can fill up at home for free if you have solar. Even if you don’t its still much cheaper. I stand by my previous comment. Fool cell! And you’re the **** head if you’re being fooled by big oil into buying their latest product. Not me. The only positive thing they can claim about a hydrogen car is thats its Zero emissions also (only sort of). But i didnt build my electric car or buy my Leaf because im worried about the environment, i did it because i drive 25k a year and its much cheaper to drive.

    1. sven says:

      Ken said: “I stand by my previous comment. Fool cell! And you’re the **** head. . . .”

      No, you’re the **** head for coming on this forum and yelling “FOOL” in one comment and “CELL” in the next comment. It’s Moronic, juvenile, and boorish. Maybe one day you’ll finally grow up, start wearing big boy pants, and move out of your mother’s basement. 😀

      1. Ken says:

        @ sven (lower cased as it should be) if thats even your real name. You have big balls hiding behind the screen of your computer. I’ve owned a Mini E, 3 Nissan Leafs, an iMiev, a Zero S, and converted a Geo Convertible and Kawasaki Ninja to electric. So i know what im talking about. Ive been into electric cars for a while now. Ive won the 21st Century Automotive Challenge at Penn State and also the Power of DC a few times. So i know what the f im talking about. Do you even own an electric car or are you just an internet troll? My basement is quite large if you wanna rent it out. I havent lived with my parents since i was about 18 but guess what they drive an electric car too. Even senior citizens who can’t work a computer are smart enough to realize that hydrogen is a joke. Do us all a favor and go play somewhere else on the internet.

        1. sven says:

          No Kenny, you’re the internet troll. You’re just in denial. You came on here and yelled “FOOL” and then yelled “CELL”. Totally trollish behavior.

          You should buy this AC/DC mp3, and whenever you play it you can think of me and get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. 😀

          BTW, sven is short for Svengali. 😉

          1. Ken says:

            Ken is short for Kenneth if you cared. Ill give you my last name and address too if you want so you can drive your hydrogen car over and ill let you drive my collection of elecric vehicles. Oh wait, you can’t because hydrogen cars are still just a couple years away and there are no filling stations. I can drive my electric car to wherever you are, although it may take me a while. At least its possible. Not sure why you don’t capitalize sven but you capitalize Svengali. And i already have Big Balls by AC/DC on cd and my iphone. Its a great song and im not going to ruin it thinking of you. You can listen to one of my favorites Battery by Metallica. Now go to bed please and dream sweet dreams about one day owning a hydrogen car.

            1. sven says:

              I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with me not capitalizing sven. You’re weird.

              Whenever I hear this song, I’ll think of you Kenny:

              ***mod edit(staff)***
              NSFW/younger audiences
              ***mod edit***

  9. James says:


    The hydrogen fuel cell revolution is upon us! YAY!!!


    Ís it just me, or whenever you hear a new tidbit of Mirai news, does it make you sigh heavily and look down at the floor for a second?

    1. GeorgeS says:

      Don’t laugh so hard James.
      We all know you have a Prius….You know a Toyota 🙂

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…whenever you hear a new tidbit of Mirai news, does it make you sigh heavily and look down at the floor for a second?”

      Actually the opposite; it causes me to roll my eyes. Perhaps subconsciously I’m looking to Heaven, wishing for divine intervention to stop this colossal waste of resources, time, and the taxpayer money thrown away building hydrogen fuel stations?

  10. GeorgeS says:

    You’d think after all this time I would be able to hear a comment I have not heard before.

    You guys need to get it straight. Germany is using Hydrogen as a battery for Wind from the North Sea . It’s that simple they are doing it finito, done and they will fuel their cars with it.. It is a denser fuel supply and could handle some weeks of storage from a cranking wind farm……..into the existing NG network og gas pipelines. Germany considers this protection from the USSR because that is where they get their gas.

    Batteries are OK for a daily Solar PV cycle but when the wind cranks for a week they can’t handle the Storage.

    If fuel cells can help with renewables (wind) than they are a good thing where the sun doesn’t shine

    1. RexxSee says:

      The wind does not blow equaly every where at the same time. Electric storage batteries are a good buffer and their price is going down fast. So the Supplies of electricity accumulated can be distributed through the grid Where there is less wind,INSTANTLY AT GREAT DISTANCES FOR PENNIES… Can you say the same for hydrogen?

      1. GeorgeS says:

        You don’t get it.
        The Germans mix it with NG and it just goes into existing tanks and lines. You can dilute up to 20%. It displaces Russian gas.

        The Storage is free. It is the existing NG network.

        All the utility buys is an electrolyzer and pressurizing equipment. No storage req’d it is already in.

        1. Ambulator says:

          Hydrogen is one method for storing excess electricity. It’s not very efficient, but for long term storage it might be viable. What I don’t understand is why you’d use it in a fuel cell to move your car instead of make electricity in a power plant to move your car. When you can use the power directly it’s much more efficient, and still probably a little better even you are going through hydrogen.

    2. sven says:


      Fuel cells are also a good thing where the wind doesn’t blow, but there is an abundance of sunshine. Recently, an “artificial photosynthesis” system produced hydrogen from water with an efficiency in excess of 22% and with a catalyst made of Earth-abundant materials, instead of precious metal catalysts like platinum.

      1. GeorgeS says:

        Exactly Sven. FC’s are just another tool to use if they work. To condemn the whole thing doesn’t make any sense. It is useful in some situations.

        1. Djoni says:

          For some situation for sure!
          As a mean of storing energy at somehow a large scale, it’s valuable especially using the gas piping.
          But, certainly not at all place depending on the safety of the supply, price of energy and the demand for it.
          To propel a car and carrying a dedicated high pressure tank, sure not, and this is something as easy to understand then the above.

      2. Ambulator says:

        I don’t trust that “Earth-abundant” phrase ever since I saw it applied to something using antimony. Antimony is currently cheap, but it is fairly rare. It doesn’t scale well.

        Just tell me what you are using and let me independently investigate how abundant it is.

        1. sven says:

          I don’t know what “earth-abundant” catalyst the researchers above used to get > 22% efficiency. But Panasonic is working on developing a photocatalyst consisting of niobium nitride. Panasonic says “Commercial application will be 2020 at the earliest.”

          1. Ambulator says:

            I wonder how much it costs to run hydrogen and water lines to the panels, and how reliable the compressor is. It sounds expensive compared to photovoltaics. I guess we’ll see when they come to market.

    3. Someone out there says:

      And it is extremely inefficient but it’s better than just throwing the electricity away.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      GeorgeS said:

      “Batteries are OK for a daily Solar PV cycle but when the wind cranks for a week they can’t handle the Storage.”

      Round-trip efficiency using hydrogen generation for short-term energy storage has a terrible efficiency; around 40%, or even at best perhaps 50%. We’re starting to see li-ion batteries used in larger and larger-scale energy storage installations, as the price of batteries continues to fall. Round-trip efficiency using batteries is around 80-85%, about twice as good as using hydrogen.

      As has been said for decades: “Hydrogen is the fuel of the future… and always will be!”

      The time for using batteries for energy storage isn’t the future; it’s now!

      1. Mikael says:

        *sigh*… why don’t you make some calculations on how much batteries would be needed for some storage. Let’s say just a single week of storage in a single country like maybe Germany.

        Please do that.

        Battery storage on a scale like that will not happen.

        But then again, if you repeat the totally unrealistic mantra “solar and battery storage” enough times it might get true.

        1. Djoni says:

          Neither an hydrogen storage plant!
          It’s just too much energy to store economicaly.

          1. Mikael says:

            Actually I’m not 100% sure on that. There is the possibility to put a lot of hydrogen in old salt mines and caverns in the ground.

            I’ve not dug into that all that much, but from the little I’ve seen it seems at least plausible, or at least not something to be disregarded in an instant.

            It might become a part of the solution in some places at least.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Mikael said:

          “…why don’t you make some calculations on how much batteries would be needed for some storage. Let’s say just a single week of storage in a single country like maybe Germany.”

          You’re not making any sense. Why would any region need to install a weeks’ worth of electrical storage? What’s needed to make power generation from any source other than nuclear (which is already as stable 24/7 as it’s possible to get) more practical, efficient and affordable is to average out supply and demand over a 24 hour cycle, which means you need several hours’ worth of storage… not days.

          That would have the biggest impact on solar power, because you can’t generate any solar power at night, period. Wind power is much more problematic. I don’t see that as being useful for anything beyond generating a limited amount of auxiliary power, except in the relatively few areas where the wind really does blow reliably 24/7. But even with wind power in most places, where it’s not cost-effective; where it’s erratic, unreliable, and a poor match to demand — places like Germany — even there, using large-scale battery backups will make wind power more practical, or more precisely: somewhat less impractical.

    5. Phr3d says:

      @GeorgeS: +1

  11. JimGord says:

    “Toyota Delivers Museum Pieces to Europe”

    Hydrogen is DOA totally not viable as a ground transportation fuel on so many levels

  12. Nix says:

    The biggest thing I hate about fuel cell vehicles is that if they fail, fuel cells will be used as a hammer against the entire green energy sector.

    Each time we then try to push for public policy to support any green anything, we will have fuel cell vehicles thrown up in our face.

    Sadly, Toyota and the other fuel cell vehicle makers won’t be there to own any failures and defend other green tech.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      You’re being insufficiently cynical. I think it very nearly certain that one of the primary motives for Toyota marketing “fool cell” cars in the USA is precisely so, after they inevitably won’t sell (in fact, that’s already happening), they can turn around and use that fact as supporting evidence in lobbying CARB to roll back the ZEV mandate yet again, just like it did after GM crushed all the EV1s.

      In other words, it seems very nearly certain to me that Toyota wants to be able to point to poor sales of the Mirai when they whine “The public doesn’t want zero-emission vehicles!”

      Sure, Toyota wants to earn the excessive number of carbon credits that CARB is allowing for “fool cell” vehicles. But surely that does not fully explain the many, many millions of dollars they’ve poured into this dead-end tech. There must be other reasons which have nothing to do with making cars which people actually want to drive. Toyota can’t really be stupid enough to think that ordinary people will actually buy a car which makes the Edsel look practical and popular.

  13. Martin T says:

    Wow x5 Museums in Europe ordered an example each.

    Surely no stupid enough private individual bought these to support the stupid petrol/chemical industry?

    BEV’s are so much more efficient it is simply not even funny ! – Plus one can charge at home (even on solar) imagine that drive on sunshine from your own roof.

    No wonder they are desperate to force this Hydrogen inefficient crap down our throats.
    Blame the USA for encouraging the Japanese government for this rubbish of Hydrogen driving cars.

  14. Priusmaniac says:

    Did anyone notice that this arrival come at the precise moment fracking gas deliveries are contracted at Dunkerque.

  15. Surya says:

    They arrive in Zeebrugge. In Belgium. Where there are exactly zero H2 stations. Creates a great photo op right there 😛