Nissan, Savari, UC Berkeley and City of Sunnyvale collaborate on real-world V2X testbed with DSRC
JRC proposing new harmonized test protocols for PEM fuel cells in hydrogen vehicles

Toyota Mirai fuel cell vehicle driven for 16 hours/day for 107 days in road test in Germany

Toyota’s new hydrogen fuel cell car, the Mirai, successfully completed a 100,000 kilometer (62,000-mile) European road test. The test started on 21 September 2015 and finished on 10 February 2016. Every day for 107 days, the Mirai was on the road for 16 hours.

The car was refueled nearly 400 times with just over 1,000 kg of hydrogen, its tires changed twice, and its front brake pads replaced. No mechanical breakdowns were reported.

Responsibility for the road test was given to KJ Tech Services GmbH of Hamburg. Toyota specified the total distance the Mirai should cover, as well as the amount of time spent on different types of road: in the city, on rural roads, on motorways, and on German autobahns with no speed limit.

To meet these specifications, KJ Tech Services carefully calculated a single route in and around Hamburg, and organized a team of eight drivers working in two shifts per day, six days a week.

The Mirai performed excellently with no mechanical breakdowns. The fuel cell operated with 100% reliability. This was also the case during a week in which the outside temperature dropped to minus 20 degrees Centigrade, when no problems with cold starts were reported.

—KJ Tech Services Project Manager Patrick Hake



This may be enough to convince anti-FCEVs that Toyota's Mirai is an excellent all weather reliable FC vehicle.

It would qualify as a taxis vehicle to operate 24/7 and 150,000+ Km/year?


No Harvey, it simply's a car. Big deal.

It doesn't change anything regarding the short comings of HFCVs.


A potential very clean running, all weather, extended range, excellent, affordable CAR in all countries-places where H2 is made with REs?

The Achilles heel of fuel cell vehicles is the cost of the fuel and infrastructure. Until there is widespread infrastructure, private passenger FCVs are DOA.

There isn't any way to get there cheaply with current technology. Even 1,000 high volume stations clustered in a major metro are would cost $5 billion to build, and run operating deficits in the hundreds of millions for at lease a decade. Several more billion over the decade.

That's the issue that no H2 cheerleader can address. There isn't any cost effective answer.
That's why H2 is $13.50 - $16.50 per kg in California, and even that is selling at a loss. No matter if the stations are subsidized by government or industry - at the end of the day, the consumer always pays.


Many EU countries (Germany, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc) are going ahead with a thin H2 stations network.

USA's West Coast States could easily do as well if not better followed by many others as FCEVs sale pick up.

The number of FCEVs will grow much quicker than BEVs supporters believe and the price of H2 will drop from an overpriced $13/Kg to under $5/Kg shortly after 2020 or so? By that time, many FCEVs will do up to 100 mpKg and will be competitive with equivalent ICEVs and extended range BEVs?

The extended range BEVs and FCEVs rivalry has not even started and is as long way from being over.

Up to $500B for a decent clean H2 stations network for USA is very doable. It is a question of national priority?

Pulling out of IS-ISIL-Daesh countries and using the hugh savings to build a better-greater-cleaner USA is very doable.

Harvey, I agree that US spending could be better applied than the morbidly obese military budget. But I think you overestimate the level of rationality here. Surely Canadian newspapers are covering the lunacy and you can get the gist of it.

But even if we were prepared to spend less on swords, and more on plowshares, it's not rational to invest 100x more than you have to in a national fueling infrastructure. Even if H2 could reach $5 kg, and I've already shown numerically several times why it won't, rational people won't pay 2.5x more than they would for EV fuel. US doesn't need a CA solution, the weather favors EVs here.

Regarding the rivalry, maybe you missed the comments by Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche reported today with his views about the likely outcome of that competition.


e-c-i-c: I know where you stand and I partly agree with you that mid-range good weather BEVs are cheaper to operate.

However, all weather extended range BEVs (with essential 150+ kWh battery pack) would be very heavy, would take 60+ minutes to recharge, would cost twice (2X) as much as an equivalent FCEV and would cost as much if not more to drive 20K to 30 Km/year?

The cost of clean H2 station networks and H2 per Kg and FCEVs will go down quickly by 2020 or so.

Families with 2+ cars could use both technologies? The mid-range BEV for short distances and the FCEV for longer trips.

Yes, but what will prevent longer range Plug-in Hybrids from attracting those prospective FCV drivers?

If hydrogen vehicle does not have a compelling advantage, very few people will buy one. Without critical mass, there is no way to succeed. H2 station operators will not keep the doors open and lose money indefinitely.

Hyundai and Toyota have not done well with sales anywhere in the world. Less than 100 each in the US. What will change to turn that around? Even the currently planned number of stations is not enough to give most people confidence that the potential range will be useful.

Meanwhile, all automakers are building tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of PHEVs. By 2020, millions will be on the road.

The hydrogen future, I'm afraid, is just a mirage.


PHEVs are a good interim solution for extended range but if we are serious about GHG and pollution reduction, all ICEs will have to go, including PHEVs.

Two clean solutions remain...BEVs an FCEVs.

FCEVs and clean H2 stations have 10+ years to catch up but they will during the next decade.

HD> all ICEs will have to go, including PHEVs

Although I agree in theory, the practical reality is they won't if the cost of the alternative is prohibitive. That's why current FCVs use hydrogen derived from methane.

Wishing won't make it so.

With long AER PHEVs available, FCVs can not make a superior and convincing case. These vehicles have to actually win in the marketplace.


What you are missing in this circular arguement Is that homeowners and future communitiy solar farms could make there own hydrogen from water for less then$5/kg
thats $ 0.50/10 miles the average commute. BEV will never be able to compete with that price point. the electricty to go 10 miles is over $0.50 plus the cost of battery pack will be double that of fuel cell stacks . Platinum will go the way of the dodo bird with the new catalysts coming out of the labs on this site. fuel cell stacks only need to be 50 kw power
with ultracaps to give the electric motor the extra juice

Solarsurfer, are you under the impression that you'll be able to compress H2 to 10,000 PSI and store it at your home?

Where are you reading credible technical journals that give you the expectation that a hydrogen production system capable of producing and storing 10,000 PSI H2 will be cheaper than solar PV and batteries?

The comments to this entry are closed.