Toyota Mirai Sales In U.S. Hits Milestone Of 250. Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell Exceeds 100

JUN 11 2016 BY MARK KANE 128

Toyota Mirai sales in the U.S. - May 2016

Toyota Mirai sales in the U.S. – May 2016

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai

As of May 2016, Toyota reached the milestone of 250 Mirai fuel cell cars sold in the U.S.  The Mirai first debuted in America in October of 2015.   The highs of the plug-in electric monthly scorecard this is not.

Since its launch, the Mirai has averaged ~31 sales per month, while peak sales (41 units) were reported in both March and April.  This past month (May) ‘almost’ made it three consecutive months at the high, but fell just short at 40 cars moved.

With these results in hand, Toyota’s trailblazers (what the company calls its FCV owners) overtook “the first mass-produced fuel cell vehicle in the U.S. market” – the Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell.  Heading into May, just over 100 hydrogen Hyundais were sold in total.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are often called electric cars due their electric drivetrain, powered by the fuel cell, although those are not plug-ins  (they could be of course, if someone would add the charging capability and expand the on-board battery).  The Toyota Mirai and Honda Clarity Fuel Cell are both capable of exporting power through a CHAdeMO outlet (no word about charging).

Refueling of the Toyota Mirai in the US is possible at one of the relatively rare/specialized hydrogen fuel stations found mostly in California (less than 20 retail units were operation in the state in Q1).

Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell

Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell

Categories: Hyundai, Sales, Toyota

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

128 Comments on "Toyota Mirai Sales In U.S. Hits Milestone Of 250. Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell Exceeds 100"

newest oldest most voted

Here comes sven and the other anti-Tesla hydrogen shills to praise the roaring success of the fool cell cars.

NSA should track the buyers, ISIS would LOVE these bombs on wheels.

Musk cult members firmly believe hydrogen is exactly the same as hydrogen bomb, because Musk said so and it sounds similar 😉

That’s awesome! Cult member is the tagline for those folks who point out how ludicrous (pun intended..?) fuel cells are. The fueling stations for hydrogen are between $1-5 million each. The cost alone says the discussion should go no further.

But what does a Tesla cult disciple know?

Just try to calculate how much it would cost to power Tesla style charger station by batteries to avoid peak power charges. Or how much it will cost if you choose to pay peak power charges at regular $42/kW/month rate like in San Diego. These 2 millions will look a bargain then. Oh, you don’t know what is peak power charge at all? I would expect that, otherwise you would not believe these idiotic ads with cars charged directly from PV.

Gosh, it’s terrible that every single commercial building large enough to need its own on-site transformer (those big green boxes on the grounds) is paying all those peak power charges.

Oh, wait… they’re not.

Nor do Supercharger stations need huge battery buffers. They just need a commercial-level power hookup.

Your FUD is getting more desperate by the day, zzzzzzzzzz. I’d be embarrassed to be making such increasingly silly claims.

If, and I say IF you wanted to use Tesla Supercharger sites backed up by a few 100 kWh Powerpacks you would still be WAY less in cost compared to a multi-million dollar hydrogen station. And it’s laughable that you use a worst-case $42 kWh rate as your representation for power costs everywhere, because here in Nevada it’s .09 cents during peak.

I’ll concede. Your logic is flawless. Good luck betting on hydrogen in the future. Me, I’ll stick to the ‘loser’ of the two, and all my ability to charge at the THOUSANDS of existing charging stations in place.

By the way, what’s your answer to charging your hydrogen car at home like the rest of the EV population currently enjoys? I wake up everyday with a completely topped off car without having to drive to a separate location, one of the many reasons I ditched ICE and will never go back..

Batting 1000 on your Tesla bashing, zzzzzzzzzz. You’ve been wrong every time.

Elon is an engineer, and knows better than to claim a “fool cell” car will explode like a bomb if its fuel tank is ruptured.

I wish those who (like me) want to warn others about the reality of “fool cell” cars, about their utter impracticality now and forever, wouldn’t keep repeating the nonsense about them exploding like a bomb. FCEVs are not the Hindenberg, the physics of the situation make a fuel-air explosion nearly impossible in a “fool cell” car, and the H2 in their tanks contains far less energy than a full tank of gasoline.

There are plenty of good, solid reasons to debunk the scam that Toyota is foisting off on people with the Mirai. We don’t need to make up B.S. about FCEVs exploding like bombs.

The truth will serve us just fine.

electric-car-insider.com

PP> Elon is an engineer, and knows better than to claim a “fool cell” car will explode like a bomb if its fuel tank is ruptured.

A 10,000 PSI tank of anything, even compressed air, will in fact fail in spectacular fashion if ruptured.

The hope is that the carbon fiber composite tank will be strong enough to not rupture in an accident.

I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on this (nor on anything directly related to EVs), but according to what I’ve read, the tanks are designed to fail gently when they fail, not catastrophically. Something about triple-ply carbon fiber construction. So at least in theory, a punctured “fool cell” car’s H2 tank would leak, not explode.

“In 2001, researchers at the University Of Miami’s College of Engineering set fire to the hydrogen in a tank mounted in an SUV and later punctured the fuel line on a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle and set the leaking gas on fire. The burning hydrogen versus gasoline test showed that flames caused ‘severe’ damage to the gasoline vehicle, whereas the hydrogen vehicle was undamaged because the burning hydrogen gas vented up and away from the vehicle.”

Full article here:
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars.html

Except that Musk never said that. What he did say was that hydrogen is a “silly” choice for ground transportation and that hydrogen is a very pernicious molecule that is invisible and difficult to contain and that it embrittles metal. All true

I’m one of the few people here that thinks hydrogen fuel cell cars are actually cool. It’s a clever science project. I just don’t see it ever competing with battery electric cars, even with solar/wind based electrolysis and equal cost. It’s just terribly inefficient. You’re better off dumping the energy into a battery.

Unless the value of faster refueling exceeds the value of energy wasted in conversion and the higher cost of the technology in general, I don’t see hydrogen as being a practical choice.

The only “small” problem with this “genius” logic from one idol is that you can’t dump energy into battery. Such batteries only exist in teslarium dreamland. E.g. Tesla Powerpack list price is around $500/kWh plus installation. You would need $2 million dollars worth of powerpacks to support 1 MW total charging station just for 4 hours, plus rate of electricity per kWh. Grid balancing costs are even higher than these $2 mln. when solar/wind takes significant share. Like in San Diego, $42/kW per month. Or put it in another way, you can get solar/wind Power Purchase Agreement at $0.03-0.04/kWh now, but you will pay some $0.10-$0.40 residential retail price, and you need use retail electricity to charge a car, the silly “grid is free battery” welfare idea is going to fade away soon. Hydrogen is the only 100% green solution that provides full replacement for long distance gas/diesel cars/trucks/buses, not just going up to battery range.

Paying $0.10-0.40 retail has nothing to do with real cost. It’s a means of encouraging conservation and reducing cost for low income households.

When you get EV plans offering $.06/kWh overnight, they’re *still* marked up from wholesale, and delivered with existing idling infrastructure.

Tesla Powerpacks are for niche applications, not for charging EVs. I don’t know where you came up with that idea.

It is all fine when you charge at home from grid (you can sell PV electricity to grid too but it is not related at all) and nobody is trying to dispute that it works fine. This is limited however by the car range. Once you are on road, you need faster charging than overnight, and that doesn’t work so well in economic sense, even if it is easy technically.

@zzzzzzzzzz

You keep trying to make any discussion of FCEVs about Tesla and Elon Musk. It’s not; it’s about physics, the laws of thermodynamics, and about the economic reality of EROI (Energy Return On Investment). The utter impracticality of using pressurized hydrogen gas to fuel a car was well established long before Elon aptly labeled FCEVs “fool cell” cars.

See, for example, this physics.org post from 2006:

http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html

But of course you know this, don’t you zzzzzzzzzz? Because you’ve been told many times, probably dozens of times, yet you never let the actual facts affect what you say about FCEVs. You’re just here to shill for Big Oil.

“If only the world weren’t governed by the unfair and cruel laws of thermodynamics and economics, the hydrogen economy could rule the world.” – HVACman, comment at InsideEVs.com, July 8, 2015

Actually, I encourage ppl like zzzzz and other Tesla/EV haters to buy a fuel cell car, or nice new expensive ice cars, such as MB, Audi, etc. Spend a 100k or at least what you can afford on the car today, and not sell it until 2018 or after.

IOW, these ppl should put their money where their mouths are.
After all, what do u think resale value on those cars will be in 2018 when M3 hits the market hard and fast, model Y is promised for 2019, and a 20k car is promised for 2020?

Another really good series of articles (4 parts) is written by Mux, a forum member of T.net whom in his time at the university actually made hydrogen powered go karts.

http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1

The article is dated in the sence that it was written only last year (2015). So the range of the Mirai and Tucson are ofcourse larger then quoted in the article (300 vs 100).

He’s given a good listing of the practical problems with generation and distribution of hydrogen and the requirements for platinium in the fuel cell which is 3k dollar alone. It’s also a very rare material and the world is currently production constrained, which is a bit of a hassle. They are looking for alternatives ofcourse, but that’s another research project.

The weight argument about the batteries is a bit silly if you look up the road going weight of the Mirai and compare it to something like the Opel Ampera-E. The Mirai is 1850kg, the Opel Ampera-E is 1624kg. If you get half pressure fillups in the Mirai the Ampera-E will outrange you 🙂

“requirements for platinium in the fuel cell which is 3k dollar alone”
This horse-carriage people statements. Seriously, this statement is from last decade, not 2015, and kills any desire to waste time reading the source, as it is known for everybody who wasn’t living in a cave last years that e.g. current Mirai uses around 11 grams of platinum, and latest research may make even these 11 grams optional. Market price from platinum is $31.96/gram. Regular catalytic converter may use some 3-7 grams of platinum or so, so you have just $150-$200 premium over gas car because of extra platinum.

It’s certainly true that the cost of manufacturing fuel cell stacks has come down substantially in the past decade, in the same way that battery prices have come down. Both of those benefit from improved technology.

Sadly for you “hydrogen economy” promoters, the same can’t be said of the cost of producing hydrogen fuel, nor the extreme limitations on H2 fueling stations: Very high coast and very limited number of cars serviced per day. All of that is a result of the basic physical properties of hydrogen, and its unsuitability as a mass transportation fuel. Physical abilities that of course can never be changed, because hydrogen is an element with fixed physical properties.

And that is a fact a Big Oil shill and physics denier like you, ZZZZZZZZZZZZ, will never, ever admit to.

Or, you can buy a crash-damaged Nissan LEAF 24kWh pack for $2k (that’s $83/kWh) and ‘re-purpose’ it…

Itotally agree with you. . Those of you that think that batteries are the solution to everything. ..

Look at the price. .. more, realise that you cannot store electricity in an easy way. Regardless.. .The only way that you can do this in a magnitude is in hydrogen. .

Furthermore, if you want to double the distance with a hydrogen car. .just double the gas. .that’s not much in weight.

..but With batteries??..The weight is linear to distance..which means massive weight! .. and each time you charge the batteries it will degenerates. .. With fuel cells you can use it on bicycles, cars, boats, aeroplanes, trucks… not just one car.. With a 900kg battery. ..

To charge a tesla model s it will take with 10 amperes and 240 volts. .just 48 hours!…

Actually, one place where fuel cells really are economical, is a bloom box. These are Nat gas based fuel cells. For creating a small grid that is say 10 sq miles, you could have storage, such as Eos energy flow battery, or perhaps a h2O energy reservoir, for dealing with AE, and have bloom box serve as backup. The lack of maintrnce makes it ideal for grid backup.

Sure. The problem with “fool cell” cars isn’t the fuel cell; it’s using compressed hydrogen for fuel. That’s one of several facts that Big Oil shills like ZZZZZZZZZZZZ refuse to acknowledge.

* * * * *

“If you’re going to pick an energy storage mechanism, hydrogen is an incredibly dumb one to pick. You should just pick methane. That’s much, much easier. Or propane.”
-–Elon Musk, January 13, 2015

“It’s just terribly inefficient.”

Unfortunately, that’s never stopped anyone. Look at the top-selling “car” in America: the Ford F-150. Followed by the Chevy Silverado. Followed by the Dodge Ram.

I mean, there’s plenty of other reasons, like the fact that you’ll never see a “return on investment” in operating costs over an equivalent gas car, or the initial expense of the vehicle, or the stunning lack of places to refuel, none of which appear to be getting solved.

Fasterthanonecanimagine

I’m also enthusiastic about hydrogen drive technology – not for cars though but for electric planes where heavy batteries are a no-go, possibly also for trucks.

Woah, 250 are just nothing. I’m sad Toyota don’t offer a BEV like Nissan do.

If they made them into an EREV they could get decent uptake. Would also need less H2 stations. This could have made them a viable future choice.

The fact that they didn’t in my opinion makes it obvious that they want the consumer beholden to centralized entities for energy. They don’t want to upset the other half of ICEs – the oil companies.

The problem with making an extended range ev with hydrogen is that it makes the economic case for hydrogen stations even worse. If the vast majority of the driving is done via battery charged at home, it makes demand even more unpredictable and much harder to justify building stations at all.

It also highlights this troublesome question:
what does a plug-in Mirai that gets plugged in at home all the time do that a Chevy Volt can’t? If you use gasoline in your Volt less than 10% of the time, is the CO2 advantage of a Mirai EVEN WITH H2 from renewables at all meaningful?

The Volt’s 15~20% (if we’re talking about the overall market) burning gasoline would still be producing toxic emissions at point of use. You could replace the fuel itself with something that burns cleaner, like ethanol. But, even at Gen 2 Volt level, there would too many miles on the ethanol to be produced sustainably. A market with a combination of long-range BEV and E100-EREV might be able to have clean, sustainable fuel.

Yes, it isn’t very meaningful by itself. But:
1. Volt sales don’t even register in 70 mln yearly gas car world market as it is not cheap car compared to gas equivalents.
2. It isn’t just about cars. It is about developing and scaling up technology that can be used across whole range of cars/trucks/buses.
3. It isn’t just about transportation. Most energy is used not for transportation and not for electric grid. It is about creating hydrogen society and allowing storage of solar/wind energy that isn’t very useful for electric grid now at wide scale.

No, PHFCV’s (or more particularly HFCEREV) would make it easier to provide infrastructure. The problems would be:
– packaging: tough to fit a larger battery, and charging hardware and hydrogen tanks and fuel cell in the car
– cost: larger battery, charger

HFCV key infrastructural issue right now is that because of the total dependence on hydrogen, you will need regular fill-ups, which means that you need a convenient filling station. If there were HFCEREVs, the significant proportion of local driving on the plug would allow there to be fewer filling stations, and would make it easier for people to own one even if a filling stations was a bit out of the way.

Battery would increase weight/cost, so what is the point. Look at Volt, a great car, but price is a bit too high to compete with gas cars.

Honda was working on home hydrogen generators, so you can do it home if you need to. There are many options for decentralized production. For example this would work for some small scale company installation:
http://www.hydrogenprize.org/simplefuel-world-premiere-system-design-unveiling-at-act-expo-a-great-success/

So, have u bought a fuel cell car?
I am guessing that you have not.
You will have some warped excuse about why not.

You really should back up your mouth with your money and buy one.

zzzzzzzzzz said:

“Look at Volt, a great car, but price is a bit too high to compete with gas cars.”

Yet here you are shilling for a plan to use a fuel with a price which is much too high to compete with gasoline-powered cars.

Gee, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you don’t actually believe what you post on the subject.

Oh, wait…

zzzzzzzzzzzz- what is it that you smoke/inhale? Hydrogen? Your argument against the Volt is price yet you champion for fuel cell cars? Have you priced those?? Do you come to these forums to intentionally showcase your agenda?

I’m not car salesmen and I’m not going to sell you a car or latest tech toy or whatever. Go to car dealership (independent or not I dont’ care) if you are looking for sale and can’t find it.

Kootenay EV Family

“If they made them into an EREV they could get decent uptake. Would also need less H2 stations. This could have made them a viable future choice.”

No, that would make them even less economically viable. One of the biggest problems with using compressed H2 as a fuel is the lack of demand for it, because it’s nearly the worst possible choice for a mainstream transportation fuel. Reducing demand even further by using plug-in hybrid FCEVs would make H2 fueling stations even more rare, making such cars even more impractical than they are already.

PuPu is right. What H needs is more stations to entice more FCEV buyers. Fewer stations will inhibit FCEV adoption. Only way FCEV can be competitive against gasoline is through economy of scale of more H stations.

Oddly, public EV charging stations don’t benefit much with economy of scale since electric prices are fixed in most (all?) of US. I doubt anyone will float the price any time soon with Enron experience of the past.

One big problem with a H2 EREV is packaging.

If you look at a cross-section of a HFCV there’s really no space for an engine. The fuel cell stack and supporting cooling and exhaust systems basically take up all the space where the engine normally sits in the front crumple zone.

google link here

Then the tanks take up the remaining space behind and under the back seats with the battery and electronics squeezed in under the front seats. The Mirai even has only 4 seats because of the plumbing needed to the tanks.

google link here

Absolutely right.

OK, if you insist, they made it too:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-10/mercedes-benz-to-start-selling-plug-in-fuel-cell-suv-next-year

I don’t think it is so great idea, as all plugin hybrids I have seen add hefty premium over non-plugin version of the same car, that rarely pays off.
But you have a choice if it works better in your situation, e.g. because of government incentives or hydrogen station being not close to your daily commuting route.

Conspiracy theories about Big Oil sound very dumb here. What it has to do with Toyota or Daimler? Since when all automakers are in some oil cartel or benefit from it? E.g. Nissan tried to push battery cars quite hard even if by these conspiracy theories it is in the same oil cartel too.

“Conspiracy theories about Big Oil sound very dumb here. What it has to do with Toyota or Daimler?”

And yet, here you are, a Big Oil shill, making multiple posts in response to every single InsideEVs article about “fool cell” cars.

Clearly Big Oil thinks it’s worthwhile paying you to do this. So your argument doesn’t hold water, now does it?

If you can’t explain to yourself what is going on in the world without a dozen of paranoid conspiracy theories, it is time to see a doctor.

If you want us to believe you being a shill for Big Oil is a “conspiracy theory”, ZZZZZZZZZ, then you need to be less obvious about it. Much, much less obvious.

All snarkiness aside, I wonder how many Mirais have sold in Japan? If I recall correctly, Toyota said it was gonna make 3000 of these in the first MY, and planned to ramp up production in future years. If they really are gonna produce 3000 of these in the first 12 months of production, I rather suspect they need not bother making any next year. 3000 ought to satisfy what we can laughingly call “demand” for these fool cell cars for some years. “Hydrogen fuel cell cars are often called electric cars due their electric drivetrain, powered by the fuel cell, although those are not plug-ins…” Tch. Nothing in the term “EV” or “electric car” implies it has to have a plug. An “EV” is simply a vehicle which uses electric motors for propulsion, which fuel cell cars certainly do. Hence the term “FCEV”. I do appreciate InsideEVs concentrating its attention on street legal, highway capable plug-in EV passenger cars and light trucks. For example, a small boat with an electric trolling motor is an EV, but that doesn’t mean I’m deeply interested in discussing them. But plug-in passenger car and light truck EVs is only a segment of the… Read more »

Let’s avoid confusion and only call electric cars electric cars, like we call gasoline cars gasoline cars, diesel cars diesel cars and hydrogen cars hydrogen cars, hence the term HFCV. Makes sense right?

After all who really cares there is an electric motor involved somewhere, it’s the energy it uses that defines a car within the framework of the green car discussion.

Appropriate definitions avoid things like calling a Prius an electric car despite the fact that it’s a 100% gasoline powered. Well except for PIP of course, that would be an EV but only to the extend it’s powered by electrons from an external source.

You should call battery powered car a battery car if you want to avoid confusion with other electric or electrified cars. Otherwise you would argue about word meanings all day long.

I will call the car that burns batteries a battery car. Just like gasoline cars burn gasoline, diesel cars burn diesel and hydrogen cars burn hydrogen.

Don’t know of any cars that burn batteries but when someone invents them you called it.

Current hydrogen cars are fuel cell powered and don’t burn hydrogen. I think BMW some years ago tried actually burning hydrogen in internal combustion engine but it never went off.

Okay, so technically fuel cells “oxidize” hydrogen instead of “burning” it. The only difference there is how fast the process of oxidation occurs.

It’s a slow burn. Kinda like what I feel when I read posts full of lies and half-truths written by Big Oil shills.

Check under your bed or in closet, there may be some Big Oil agent hiding to get on you in dark :/

Might as well come out of the closet, ZZZZZZZZZ. We know you’re in there.

You’re not fooling anyone.

Chris O asked:

“After all who really cares there is an electric motor involved somewhere…”

Everyone interested in engineering or energy efficiency cares. Including me.

Sure but the green car discussion isn’t about interesting powertrain concepts but about energy so it makes sense to use an energy centric definition for EVs.

You were doing so well… and then you went and spoilt it…

It is *really* simple. A real EV doesn’t have an exhaust pipe.

End of.

Technically HFCVs do have exhaust pipes, except water comes out of it….

Ultimately the green car discussion is about energy so it makes sense to use the form in which they take their energy as the criterion to keep different car types apart.

Martin Winlow said:

“It is *really* simple. A real EV doesn’t have an exhaust pipe.”

Only if you’re one of the “purists” who are trying to redefine the term “EV” to mean only “BEV”. BEV is a perfectly good abbreviation, and so is EV. No need to confuse the two, and no point in trying to get everyone else to go along with your attempts to redefine terms. Ain’t gonna happen.

A Volt is a PHEV, and has a tailpipe.

A Mirai is a FCEV, and has a tailpipe.

In both cases, the letters “EV” mean exactly the same as they do in “BEV”. That’s because the term “Electric Vehicle” has to do with the engineering of the powertrain… and not with the energy source, nor whether the energy comes from an onboard or off-board source.

If “EV” actually meant “BEV”, then the term “BEV” wouldn’t be used on InsideEVs.

Exactly! Not only that, but, on my Electric Pontiac Firefly (Geo Metro, for some), even though it had a license plate that said ‘NOGAS96V’, and ‘www.myelectricfly.com in bright yellow letters on a black rear number, I was once asked, “Is that car electric?” by a Young man, to which I replied, “Yes it is, how did you figure that out?” His answer: “There was no tailpipe!”

So, people understand ‘Electric Cars’ have no tailpipes, and license plates or web sites on them are less relevant than lack of tailpipes!

Wooooh! 250! 250, baby, 250!

(The Volt probably sold that many in 4 days.)

And model 3 did that in less than 4 minutes.

Impressive considering that there has not been a single Model 3 sold and will not be sold for a year or so.

I almost feel sorry for the Mirai. It is already handicapped by being a fuel cell car . . . did they have to make it extra bad by making the design look like a Star Wars StormTrooper?

This pile of poo looks like one too. Seriously though, do EV’s and FCEV’s have to be butt ugly? This makes my 2011 Leaf look beautiful, and that’s not easy to do.

Mane (Joe)…message received,

We will work on it in the future…this week has been a bit stressed/understaffed and has definitely had an effect.

So…no 400K waiting list?

They say you can sell a few thousand of anything but once you ran out of people who would buy “anything” and out of fleets willing to absorb these white elephants HFCVs should make for a very tough sell as people willing to pay a premium for something with no serious upsides compared to alternatives like gasoline an plug-ins an myriad downsides will get hard to find.

Yes. Those who think sales of the Mirai are going to significantly increase in coming years are almost certainly headed for disappointment.

My original prediction was that Toyota would mass produce this car for no more than three years, and I see nothing to cause me to change that prediction.

Interesting definition of mass produced.

Well, I did waffle over using the term “mass produced”, but these cars are made on a mass production line, even if parts of the cars (like the fuel cell stack) are hand-assembled.

Seriously, is there a good descriptive term for “partially hand-built and partially mass produced”?

Toyota, in partnership with the Franklin mint is doing a very Limited production run. Once these are gone, they are gone forever 🙂

😀 😀 😀

Thanks for the belly laugh, Windbourne! I needed that.

If the crude oil business sags the multi-national oil companies will simply buy up natural gas leases and start reforming natural gas for the “hydrogen economy”.

Several years go, Exxon and some other oil companies made significant nat. gas investments. These investments were made because gas fired electrical plants were replacing the old coal fired plants. Also, there was a lot of excitement about natural gas due to the big increase in fracking and huge volumes of gas suddenly becoming part of U.S. reserves.

It boils down to this: the oil companies will not even bat an eye when the big switch is flipped from oil to hydrogen. Mega Oil has tons of money. They could easily set themselves up in the hydrogen business.

And I’m absolutely sure this is exactly what they have in the back of their minds as “the big push” for hydrogen gets rolling.

There’s NEVER going to be a big switch, or any switch to hydrogen.

The VOLT solves the problem neatly with the current infrastructure, at a lower cost, and with no BOMB-on-Wheels solution.

The Volt, you charge up at home for 50 miles, and then if you need more you use the current gas infrastructure.

Hydrogen is Never Going to Happen.
But, sure, Toyota, Lose Money.

If you talk natural gas, this conspiracy theory doesn’t hold water. The same natural gas is used to power electric grid, Big Energy (as all these companies are “energy” now, not “oil”) loves electric grid. And it is much easier to produce hydrogen from whatever source in decentralized fashion, as it provides cheap storage option. With electric grid, you are just stuck with inefficient and dirty process of burning natural gas, as you don’t have enough realistic options to store solar/wind for grid that requires 100% availability.

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact. Big Oil & Gas companies are promoting FCEVs. Cheveron and Shell Hydrogen are among the publicly listed backers of the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Backers of Japan’s Hydrogen Highway include numerous gas & oil companies. And dear reader, if you have even the slightest doubt that’s true, just check the respective articles at Wikipedia, and see for yourself who’s backing those projects.

Only a Big Oil shill would make the false claim that Big Oil doesn’t care if people switch to electricity to power their cars. Sure, a lot of grid electricity comes from natural gas. But BEVs are about 3.5 times as efficient in their use of energy as gasmobiles, which by itself would guarantee a much, much smaller income for Big Energy companies. And, of course, when it comes to grid power, natural gas has plenty of competition, such as hydroelectric and nuclear power.

It’s no coincidence that Big Oil has funded anti-nuclear activism, too.

Another big pile of nonsense from Musk cult member.
Yes all big energy companies work on energy related projects and are interested in them. It includes power plants too that are necessary for electric grid. You may say that your battery car is powered by Enron criminals (or was until Enron went poof). Since when it is news?

Your whining has become rather shrill.

What is your business really to spam and troll every fuel cell article? You are not interested in this technology and have no clue about it. Some form of obsessive Paranoia? Just forget it and go away if you don’t feel somehow threatened by it and firmly believe it will fade away soon. People like just discourage any kind of electric car adoption as normal persons don’t want to be associated with bunch of obsessive fanatics.

zzzzzzzzzz

“What is your business really to spam and troll every fuel cell article?”

Looked in the mirror lately, dude?

If you would stop posting physics-denier propaganda and Big Oil shilling posts in response to every single article related to fool cell cars on InsideEVs, then there would be no need for me or anyone else to refute your lies and half-truths.

But then, you wouldn’t get paid by Big Oil for posting, now would you? It does make your motive here rather transparent, though.

Just a minute please.
Is this 250 “sales” or it is lend or else?

These are mostly leases. Some $500/mo including fuel for either Mirai or Tucson or Clarity soon.

+1

I find this very misleading. How can you say sold when you are basically only renting it? They are all leases with no option to buy after the lease, aren’t they?

To be fair, all auto companies count leases as “sales”.

Not everything Toyota says about its “fool cell” cars is misinformation and half-truths. Just most of it.

True but in most cases the car will never return to the manufacturer after the lease – in the case of Mirai it does. Just like EV1.

No. Hyundai doesn’t provide this option. You can buy Mirai at once or after lease. Most people would not want, it is fast evolving technology that may be out of date after 3 years. The same is with battery cars.

Just go back to sleep, and give us all a break. Your somnambulistic meanderings are meaningless.

So the Mirai is selling. Cannot say I am much surprised. Some people seem to believe in the technology after all. Not many on this site it seems…

There will be a place for hydrogen. I just hope it will mainly be for those vehicles where batteries are not so readily usable (pickups, trucks, tractors etc), rather than small sedans like the Mirai. Having said that, the Riversimple seems a workable approach, too.

Joe, per: “There will be a place for hydrogen. I just hope it will mainly be for those vehicles where batteries are not so readily usable (pickups, trucks, tractors etc), rather than small sedans like the Mirai.” let’s pick tractors, on a farm. How would a farmer put in a H2 fueling station? Would they just put one in, or would they need to put in multiple locations? Or would the Tractor have to return to base each time to refuel? Sure, truck stops could start adding expensive H2 Fueling facilities, for big rigs, and pickups could fuel there, but that would not help tractors. I suspect Farm tractors will soon begin a process of building Diesel Hybrid Drive Systems, like some large truck makers have begun, and those will later become Plug-In Hybrids in due time, with gradually extended All Electric Range and Run Time, before going All electric in some 15-25 years. A farmer could more easily install a 10-100 kW Wind Turbine and similar capacity Solar panel Arrays, and even on large farms, distribute them around for close access to recharge tractors as needed, since even farmers take breaks to eat. The Trailers that are towed by… Read more »

Hydrogen should work in any environment where fleets are involved, such as Riversimple, as a previous post alluded to.

This isn’t an efficient River-simple car.
It won’t work.

For years, predating the Mirai, there have been about two dozen “research vehicle” hydrogen-powered fleets scattered across the U.S. I would guess most of the sales of the Mirai are going to those existing fleets.

The reason the tech never took off is because it’s wholly impractical in both engineering and economic terms.

Toyota making a limited production “fool cell” car, and the State of California wasting some taxpayer funds on building a few H2 fueling stations, each of which can only fuel maybe 2-3 dozen cars a day at best, isn’t going to change the reality, which would require changing the laws of physics.

You are free. Yes, you are free forever from the gas station. Now, you can plug in at home. You can also charge your car at work. You can even charge for “free” if you have solar. And, in the not too distant future, inductive chargers will be installed at numerous Big Box locations near you.

Knowing all that, why would anyone in their right mind want to enslave themselves for another 100 years to the oil companies by pressing for uneconomical, fossil fuel based hydrogen ?

Electric grid is not powered by pink unicorns. It is powered by the same fossil fuel companies or as they call know themselves “Energy Companies” as they are not necessary stuck with fossil fuel if you insist. You have much less alternatives with electric grid – it is natural monopoly with not enough long term energy storage options.

I’m sure this will come as a big surprise to those Canadians who get about 90% of their grid energy from hydroelectric, the French who get about 85% of their grid energy from nuclear power, and anyone who has a significant home solar energy installation.

I’m sure it’s a nightmare for a Big Oil shill like you, that the world is moving to decentralized power generation, which will permanently end the Big Oil & Gas cartel’s near-monopoly on providing energy for transportation.

Go solar! Go nuclear! No more fossil fuels!

z…, you keep saying electricity is from fossil fuel as if that’s equivalent to FC. Do the math, and you use less (much less) fossil fuel to power BEV than FCEV. One of these days, I’ll finish my blog on energy and just point to the math.

Combined cycle generation=60%
Distribution=92%
BEV car charging/battery discharging=76%
BEV total = about 42%

Reform nat gas H generation=80%
Distribution (including compress) of H: 75%
FC=55%
FCEV total = about 33%

This is being very generous with H/FC case. In reality, Mirai is 1.8 mi/kWh (300 / (5*33.7)) while Leaf is 3.6 mi/kWh (80/22), and FC would have to be about half as efficient at 38%

Yes, it is all true, if you ignore grid maintenance/balancing costs, that raise price (and full system efficiency too) from $0.03/kWh wholesale purchase to some $0.10 (cheap) or $0.30 for charging. But turns all the calculations around. Anyway, simple efficiency calculations are not substitute for complete cost analysis. You may push the numbers one way or another by changing initial assumptions, but small efficiency differences are less important than total cost of ownership including initial cost, that may be more than fuel price. And you may be ready to pay double price just get a car or truck that does everything that you need to do, not just some 90% of what it needs to do. Anyway, yes, it is fine to run efficient enough Leaf for commuting and I never denied it. The problem arises when you want more than commuting as most people expect from their cars (and it isn’t just about the cars). The electric grid can’t easily provide fast enough charging, costs are prohibitive. Now most people with battery cars I know just keep another ICE car for backup. But it costs money/resources to make second car, and environmental benefit of all this becomes doubtful. Sharing/renting… Read more »

I share your point of view. I have nothing against Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, only the enslavement resulting from centralized distribution.
Electricity is different, as roof top solar provides choice and prevents a pure monopoly like gas, diesel, natural gas, and hydrogen generated from fossil fuels.
I would be bullish on hydrogen if hydrogen could be generated from roof top solar, stored safely in my house, and transferred safely into my Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle. In addition, the vehicle would need a way to safely store the hydrogen. If all this could be done, then HFCV would be a decent solution. All of this assumes we don’t have a problem supplying fresh water to the population … which we know is going to present challenges in the future.
The technology is kinda cool, but has massive obstacles to overcome. In the meantime, battery tech is usable today.

I don’t think we need clean (fresh) water supplies for hydrogen from electrolysis. I think waste water would work perfectly well.

There are a lot of permanent barriers to making hydrogen fuel practical, affordable, and suitable for widespread use, but that’s not one of them.

I don’t think it has to be oil company controlled as the Riversimple notion points out, see also the InsideEV Riversimple discussion as well as this discussion on Riversimple ( http://myimiev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3011 ), which has both pros and cons as well as the Aberdeen case, which appears successful.

to EV Owner,

The Riverside business plan does not sell H2 cars to the public. According to them, you will just rent your car from them forever, but you will never be able to own it.

Sort of like being a renter all your life but never be able to own a home.

No thanks. I prefer to own and maintain my own car rather than pay rent to some corporation.

So, I’m guessing the Hyundai Tuscon is only sold in Tuscon?

Sorry, “Tucson”.

Lol

electric-car-insider.com

It will be fascinating to see what the repair bills are like once these are out of warranty. I wonder how many fully qualified service technicians there are in the US?

Who is buying these albatross? I would wager it is testing houses (such as GE’s) and fleets. Can’t be the public; why buy a long range vehicle that can’t go anywhere.

LOL. 250.

We have sold literally “dozens” of these vehicles and are on track to sell “dozens” more.

But, unlike ICEs or BEVs, your range is localized by a very limited re-fueling infrastructure.

Yeah. These suckers are flying off the shelves.

It’s a very small shelf… and my guess is it will be even smaller next year.

Why isn’t the Mirai included on monthly sales charts here at Inside EVs? I actually didn’t realize it was selling as well as it is. I would have thought sales figures would be on par with the i-Miev. So I learned something here.

Each month we do mention the Mirai’s sales separately (usually a note under the recap), but it is not tallied on the scorecard.

We really don’t want to get into a debate as to what the definition of what is an “electric vehicle” and where to draw the line is…so the scorecard/recap is therefore titled “Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard“, just so there is no confusion, (=

Look at the “About” page for this website. It says:

“If It Doesn’t Have A Plug, It Doesn’t Appear At InsideEVs!”

There are lots of EVs not tracked here. For example, most train locomotives are diesel-electric serial EVs. Just not plug-in EVs.

Edit: That should read “…most train locomotives are diesel-electric serial hybrid EVs”.

Went to a gas station this last month to get air for my tires. They had a hydrogen refueling station there to service these hundreds of cars. Had to ask the nice station attendant to turn on the air 5 separate times, before he could get the air compressor to “switch on”. The remote key fob he had was for “some reason” not activating the unit in the side parking area. I walked by those hydrogen pumps 10 times before my Leaf got an air fill. Had to finally buy a drink to let the attendant know I was a paying customer. Finally, I got what I came for. Not going to hurry back, anytime soon, to that business or franchise. The guy couldn’t have been “nicer” about my situation. Now, I have a new appreciation for Hydrogen stations!

Did you see any actual FCEV fueling while you were there?

Just curious.

Not during the 15 minutes I was there. Drive buy there quite often and, I have yet to see or really look out for the Toyota or Hyundai. I have seen a few FC out in the wild.

We have only one good air station left at a gas station near me. It always has a line.

So I went and spent like $40 at Target for a small air generator. It’s like the size of two tissue boxes and plugs into the wall. Best money I ever spent. Takes about 30 seconds to top of each tire.

Now with our EV and EREV and home air station I have even less reasons to go to gas stations.

In what *possible* sense is 250 sales a ‘milestone’? I suppose if you thought the idea of just *one* person being stupid enough to actually buy of these completely farcical cars was *completely* miraculous, you might think that 250 sales was sufficiently remarkable to warrant an article…

But it’s actually just very, very silly.

Martin Winlow asked:

“In what *possible* sense is 250 sales a ‘milestone’?”

I rather suspect that whatever InsideEVs editor wrote that title for this article was being rather snarky; using the term “milestone” to ironically highlight just how few of these fool cell cars have been sold, despite all Toyota’s hype about hydrogen being “the future of transportation”.

As a reminder, the InsideEVs staff had no intention of covering “fool cell” cars, as the focus of this website is plug-in EVs. But a persistent few who post here (Hi, sven! Hi, ZZZZZZZZZZ!) kept writing complaints to the staff, so they finally started covering the subject. However, that doesn’t mean InsideEVs staff are happy about being pressured into it, and perhaps that has affected the tone of the coverage.

Personally, I think snarkiness is entirely appropriate when covering this horrendous boondoggle, this result of corruption which is stealing tax money from American and Japanese taxpayers to benefit Big Oil.

the battery vs fuel cell debate is completely faith based. Its quite insane how people argue one way and then the next. The laws of thermodynamics, energy return on investment, all manner of wise cracks and snappy slogans what a lot of nonsense.

If it was all about energy efficiency we’d all be driving twizy’s, the best fuel for energy returned for energy input is coal, solar panels are one of the least efficient forms of generation. You can play numbers all day to make any illogical point you like but it comes down to what is the cheapest mix of technologies that offer the lowest environmental impact that the masses will accept. If we don’t offer an alternative to the part of the population that want to drive for 2 weeks and then fill up once for 10 min, they will continue to burn petrol which will come at a greater and greater environmental cost. The FCEV is not an alternative to an EV it is an alternative to a petrol car. They are a lot less efficient than an EV but anyone who thinks a grid based on RE is going to be short of capacity is deluded.

Just_Chris said: “The laws of thermodynamics, energy return on investment, all manner of wise cracks and snappy slogans what a lot of nonsense.” Starting your argument by indicating an astounding lack of understanding of the subject at hand, probably isn’t the best way to persuade anyone to bother reading what you have to say. “If it was all about energy efficiency we’d all be driving twizy’s Oh, why stop there? We’d all be riding bicycles. Might as well take your silly argument to its (il)logical conclusion. It’s typical for those who are not scientifically literate to be confused over the many different meanings of the term “efficiency”. Here you’re confusing the efficiency of using a small vehicle with the term “efficiency” as it’s generally used in discussions of EV tech. That is, thermodynamic energy efficiency, or the efficiency in converting potential energy into useful work. “…the best fuel for energy returned for energy input is coal…” Yes, but — correct me if I’m wrong — that’s primarily because coal doesn’t need to be processed after mining, so the energy invested is very low. But that same lack of processing makes it unsuitable for a transportation fuel. Chunks of rocks are… Read more »

250 !! Can you imagine?

Since 40% of plug-ins are sold in California, an interesting comparison would be this market. An even more conservative approach would be comparing the LA, SF, SD markets there.

One of the most compelling arguments which was mentioned above is why they don’t make an fuel cell EREV. If they did, it would kill the need for the hydrogen stations and it would only further educate the brilliance of the Chevy Volt.

The only true battle ground is for heavy transportation. Don’t count plug-ins out of that fight just yet.

Per “One of the most compelling arguments which was mentioned above is why they don’t make an fuel cell EREV. If they did, it would kill the need for the hydrogen stations and it would only further educate the brilliance of the Chevy Volt.”, if there are a total of 350 FCV’s out there now, or maybe a few more with the Honda Clarity, should making the FC-EREV, make such cars more usable by the owner, I think sales would be 2-5x as many, putting less need for H2 stations in the City, but more need for them between Cities’, exactly where the quicker fueling or filling argument has value, since, plugging in at home, and unplugging in the morning, is even quicker, but H2 Fueling in the City, where you ave to go out of your way to fuel up, but on the Highway can be quicker than using a 30-40 minute DC QC stop

Sad really that Toyota lost its way after the Rav4ev those were cool… but for the glaring omission of the DC QC which has since been remedied by the Quick Charge Power co. Had Toyota evolved the RAV4ev they would have been a leader in this game. Instead they are selling a science project that can’t even be fully refilled by the Big Oil installed fueling facilities.

Well all this proves is that there are at least 250 fools in the USA. Who knew?
Except that many Mirais have been “sold” to hydrogen infrastructure companies and related hydrogen supply chain companies as well as complete fools who would buy or lease a car with an expiry date printed on the refuelling cap “Do not refuel after September 2029”
Hydrogen makes no sense whatsoever as a transportation fuel and I am exhausted going over the reasons why physics and chemistry rule it out. It is easier to follow Elon’s path which is that “it will become evident soon enough”.

In other news, the Nissan Leaf, which has less than half the range, and which takes 6x as long to refuel in the best of circumstances, sold more units in the 4th month of its production, than the first 8 months of the Mirai.

Oh, and that month, there was this minor little national disaster in Japan that kind of held production back a bit.

Strangely though, has anyone seen any stories in the mainstream media like this: http://business.time.com/2012/09/07/is-it-time-to-declare-the-nissan-leaf-a-flop/

Or like this:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/coal-powered-all-electric-car-dirtier-than-gasoline-study-1.2148922

It seems to me that the Mirai and the FCX Clarity are completely immune from criticism in these mediums, or maybe they’re just not selling enough for anyone to care.

Oh, sure. Some Big Oil & Gas companies have such obscene levels of profit that they can easily afford to fund faux “think tanks” which spew out a constant stream of “studies” which “prove” that EVs are bad for the environment or “prove” that hydrogen-fueled cars are better. They also write articles which are offered to media outlets. The Wall Street Journal, for example, is notorious for frequently running “hit pieces” attacking EVs. Since investigative journalism is on the wane, many media outlets — even ordinary newspapers across the country — often accept these propaganda pieces and run them with little or no editing, simply because they don’t have time to write enough articles to fill the paper themselves. Here’s one article about how widespread the problem is: http://www.plugincars.com/electric-cars-dirtier-gas-cars-concludes-wall-street-journal-op-ed-126685.html * * * * Much of this pro-Big-Oil propaganda cites as a primary source a faux study, “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles,” which appears in the Journal of Industrial Ecology from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Robert Llewellyn, of “Fully Charged” fame, did some investigative journalism of his own, and discovered a shocking amount of faulty premises in that faux study. Premises which go… Read more »