Why the Toyota Mirai May Flop

[For more information regarding the Toyota Mirai, see Clean Car Comparison: Model S vs. Mirai.]

Since Toyota’s announcement of the September release of its hydrogen-powered Mirai sedan, there’s been a lot of press and social media chatter regarding this ground-breaking new vehicle. Hydrogen proponents and environmentalists far and wide are hailing this innovative car for its clean exhaust and edgy design. Toyota even calls it a “turning point.”

The Religious Debate

However, there’s a long and ongoing debate within the circles of automobile enthusiasts and clean energy advocates regarding hydrogen fuel cell cars. On one side of the issue are fans of all-electric vehicles, like the Nissan LEAF and Tesla Model S, who think hydrogen is a half-baked and inefficient tech that may never be truly economical, clean, or competitive.

Brian Cooley, when hosting an episode of CNET on Cars, said the Mirai is being released “At a time when most people think hydrogen fuel cell is either yesterday’s failed experiment or distant tomorrow’s technological witch.”

why-the-toyota-mirai-may-flop-gooey-rabinski-5

Conversely, hard-core hydrogen proponents believe that electric cars (EVs) are mostly hype that are based on trendy sex appeal, technophilia, and the impulses of ignorant tree huggers. EV opponents also cite the replacement expense and relatively short lifespan of batteries, which don’t last as long as internal combustion engines, but are much less expensive to operate and maintain.

The Mirai, which in Japanese means “future,” is a bold and controversial step for the world’s number one automaker. I’m generally a fan of Toyota’s vehicles. I got car envy when the company’s Prius first hit the streets, and have admired the quirky and ubiquitous hybrid as a powerful statement of how battery technology can improve—and eventually replace—internal combustion engines.

High Costs, Limited Availability

But there are several problems with the current Mirai. Most notable is acquisition cost: It will start at $58,000. This pricing is more befitting one of Toyota’s other brands, Lexus. In fact, for roughly the same cash ($61,300), one could get their hands on the significantly more luxurious Lexus GS 450h, a hybrid vehicle sporting 34 MPG, 338 HP, and acceleration from zero to sixty in only 5.6 seconds. The Mirai delivers only 153 HP and does the 0-60 jaunt in a sluggish nine seconds.

In fact, for those who care more about performance than saving the environment, the Corvette Stingray is available for only $54,000, $4,000 less than the Mirai. More expensive than a Corvette? Really, Toyota?

Regardless of relative values, few middle class consumers will be able to afford or justify a four-seat sedan costing $60K.

why-the-toyota-mirai-may-flop-gooey-rabinski-4

Also, only 200 units of this limited-production vehicle will be made available in California in the fourth quarter of 2015. Toyota reported that it anticipates only 3,000 Mirais will be on American roads by the end of 2017. In a country where 16.5 million vehicles are sold each year, the Mirai is arguably a media stunt on the part of Toyota. In fact, some experts argue that Toyota is simply trying to satisfy government fuel economy regulations so it can continue to sell its gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.

Another problem with the Mirai will be fuel prices, which—at the very few fueling stations available—will be nearly identical to that of gasoline. Temporarily, however, fuel will be…free. That’s right. But guess why. According to Motor Trend, “[Fuel will] be free because presently, there’s no certified way to meter hydrogen’s dispensing.” And you thought Toyota was just being generous.

“What happens when the shoe drops after three years and Mirai drivers start paying for their fuel? At the moment, hydrogen is costing between $9 and $10 per kilogram; assuming it isn’t subsidized, the Mirai could end up costing about twice per mile what the Prius v currently does,” reported Motor Trend.

Wow. Twice as expensive to fuel than a Prius v (which gets 44 MPG). Is this really progress?

Lack of Fueling Stations

There’s also the problem of the lack of hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. According to AutoBlog.com, in early 2014, Toyota’s Lexus division “had to retract a pro-hydrogen ad…when it was discovered that the ad made incorrect claims about [hydrogen], including that there were ’20 states with an established infrastructure for hydrogen [refueling].'”

why-the-toyota-mirai-may-flop-gooey-rabinski-2

There are actually only three states with hydrogen fueling stations in the United States. And two of the three feature only a single station. The folks at Toyota and Lexus apparently can’t be bothered with the facts; they’re too busy revolutionizing the world with impractical, ridiculously expensive cars.

In the words of a colleague from Los Angeles who’s a senior advisor for electric mobility and battery storage, “The thing that dawned on me when I first saw the Mirai was: This is the end of Toyota.” According to a friend in Portland, Oregon who owns two Nissan LEAFs and an electric bus, the Mirai “…may become the Betamax of electric cars.”


The Dialog

I recently commented on a post from a Facebook friend’s timeline regarding the forthcoming Mirai. The following exchange features Thomas Earl Moore, a project scientist at NASA Goddard and Tesla Model S owner.

Thomas Earl Moore: There are only about 30 hydrogen filling stations in existence right now, all in southern Calif. versus 300 Supercharger stations [for Tesla vehicles] all over the world, thousands and thousands of public charging stations, and millions of potential home chargers.

At present, you can only take a round trip to half your range in a hydrogen car, and will have to return to one of those stations because you are never going to get hydrogen delivered to your home, because of what you also pointed out. The stations cost $2-3M a pop to build, so the hydrogen sellers are looking for public funding of them.

Curt Robbins: Hi Thomas. Are there really 30 hydrogen refueling stations? I checked the California Fuel Cell Partnership website. 60 were listed, but—upon further inspection—most were under construction or planned. Only nine were actually available for use.

TM: Curt, I was guessing based on recent reading. I thought the claim was somewhat higher than that, but it’s interesting that it’s still mostly wishful thinking!

CR: Thomas, I was shocked by the low number too. I know that California’s Governor Jerry Brown, in 2013, signed a law that funds $20M a year to build 100 hydrogen fueling stations in Cali by 2024 (not exactly an aggressive construction schedule; only about nine stations per year).

why-the-toyota-mirai-may-flop-gooey-rabinski

With all due respect, regarding Duncan Fowler above saying “locally is definitely the key word”: It’s really not. The only true math is “well-to-wheels,” considering the entire power generation food chain.

All electricity generated via coal is crap in terms of carbon footprint, so I agree with anyone who suggests that an EV that is charged from a coal power plant is of little environmental benefit (burning coal is the dirtiest form of power in the world). To Mr. Fowler’s point, a coal-powered EV delivers very little benefit to one’s local environment because the coal-burning power plant x-number of miles away pumps poisonous exhaust into the air, which then creates smog, acid rain, and other nasty side effects that directly impact your home, community, and neighboring crops (and eventually travel to other communities and combine with the exhaust from other dirty power plants).

In fact, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide [CO2] emissions.” Even more than cars. If these plants are generating the electricity that fuels electric cars, we still have a major problem.

Sorry for the long post, but this topic is neither trivial nor simple.

Better ≠ Best

Brian Fowler: I give Toyota credit for taking a step in WHATEVER direction in an effort to decrease the need to burn fossil fuels, and whatever technology comes out on top, be it electric or fuel cell, or whatever, it is something the entire planet needs, the sooner the better.

TM: Right, Brian. They got the Prius right for its time and who knows, someone may figure out how to make hydrogen work better than it currently does. My suspicion is the Japanese are trying to avoid building more nuke plants….

CR: I agree, Brian, that the world simply needs to be rid of fossil fuels. Considering melting ice caps and other evidence of climate change, you’re certainly correct in wanting this sooner rather than later.

However, just because an approach (hydrogen, or Mirai’s implementation of it) is better doesn’t mean it’s our best option. Many hydrogen pundits suggest that forthcoming (currently in development) hydrogen production and storage technologies will revolutionize the industry and make it a clearly superior option for all types of vehicles. If so, I’m all for it.

why-the-toyota-mirai-may-flop-gooey-rabinski-8

But I doubt Tesla Motors would bet the farm on a $5 billion battery factory in Reno (that won’t be complete until 2017) if this was the case. The company certainly has the resources to purchase emerging technology companies or license patents. I’m not claiming Tesla is perfect, but they are very focused, intelligent, and determined. I don’t the company would go the electric-only route if it was inferior to hydrogen.

Hard Numbers

Given current and foreseeable tech, don’t give Toyota too much credit. As part of my book research, I just got off the phone with Wally Rippel, who worked on GM’s EV1 and the Tesla Roadster. When the efficiency loss not only for the power grid, but also for storage in the EV battery and other mechanisms is considered, EVs have a 70% overall efficiency. When one compares 70% full energy lifecycle efficiency in an EV to the 20% energy lifecycle efficiency of a hydrogen vehicle (current tech and infrastructure, which the Mirai leverages), the reality comes to light.

Many argue that Toyota is simply playing the regulation game (with California’s CARB mandate and the U.S. Government’s CAFE standards) and producing the Mirai so it can continue to sell it’s entire vehicle fleet into the largest car market in the U.S.: California. I won’t argue the nuances of that issue because I’m a technology writer and consumer advocate, not a political scientist or marketing strategist.

why-the-toyota-mirai-may-flop-gooey-rabinski-7

But on the technical side, if you do an objective well-to-wheels analysis of the situation (or, as Mr. Rippel suggested to me, a “wind-to-wheels” consideration), the only benefit of the Mirai is no local emissions and a somewhat cleaner—but not truly clean, like solar or wind—energy source in the form of hydrogen.

Since most hydrogen in the U.S. is produced from methane, a natural gas, ownership of the Mirai still consumes fossil fuels. In fact, in the total energy lifecycle, hydrogen from methane produces about 50% of the CO2 made from the burning of gasoline in an internal combustion engine (according to Tim Lipman, co-Director of UC Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research Center).

In its current state, the Mirai—and all hydrogen fuel cell vehicles—still produce CO2 when the method by which their hydrogen fuel is produced is taken into account. Even though it’s only half of what is released by conventional cars, it’s still significant. Lesson: Don’t believe the hype.

I’ll save the rest for the book, lest this get even longer. But it again emphasizes that achieving truly sustainable energy for personal transportation is complicated and more than meets the eye. Fueling the Mirai will cost as much or more than gas-powered vehicles and the car will be priced at $60K when it debuts in September. I don’t see how this is a move in the right direction.

Only in Los Angeles

TM: With a bit more research I find there are a dozen or so stations in the U.S. [Moore then linked to a Wikipedia article regarding hydrogen fueling stations in the United States].

CR: Hi Thomas. According to the Department of Energy, there are 13 hydrogen refueling stations in the U.S., but with 11 in Southern California and only two outside the state: One in Wallingford, Connecticut and another in Columbia, South Carolina. And that’s it.

why-the-toyota-mirai-may-flop-gooey-rabinski-6

Assuming these stations are accessible, we have 13 hydrogen fueling stations in a nation with 254 million passenger vehicles (according to a 2007 U.S. Department of Transportation study; one blogger’s unofficial estimate claims 305 million as of 2014). The state of California alone has nearly 10,000 gasoline stations.

Yet, the Mirai goes on sale in September. But how is this supposed to work? As you pointed out, Thomas, an EV can be plugged into any electrical outlet in the United States (tens of billions of them). The ubiquity of the charging locations for EVs is clear. Electric vehicles have a monumental advantage over hydrogen cars in this respect.

I’ll again emphasize “same team,” that we’re all trying to rid ourselves of fossil fuels and adopt clean, sustainable energy for our homes and cars. But my brain cannot wrap around the present-day practicality of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. If someone can convince me otherwise—via the Mirai or any hydrogen car—please, I want to be educated.

So far, no one has been able to do that.

curtsig2 - trans
Curt Robbins


Curt Robbins is author of the following books from Amazon Kindle:

You can follow him on Twitter at @CurtARobbins, read his automotive-related blog posts on CarNewsCafe, his AV-related posts at rAVe Publications, and view his photos on Flickr.

Advertisements

Common Confusion in Home Theater: Part 2

3d1As part of my mini-series of blog posts regarding topics of common confusion in home theater, below I cover speaker resistance and analog vs. digital amps in AV receivers. This series features excerpts from my new Kindle book Home Theater for the Internet Age.

  • Part 1: Volume in a zero dB world, updating firmware, and the disadvantages of Blu-ray
  • Part 3: PCM vs. bitstream and Blu-ray player upscaling/upconversion
  • Part 4: THX certification, DLNA network access, and distortion and THD
  • Part 5: HDMI (including cable length and controversial expensive cables)
  • Part 6: Closed-back vs. open-back around-ear headphones
  • Part 7: Understanding your room and room dynamics
  • Part 8: Room correction, speaker position, and more room dynamics
  • Part 9: Ethernet, component separates, and broadband internet routers

curtsig2 - trans
Curt Robbins


Speaker Resistance: 4 ohm vs. 8 ohm

When it comes to amplification wattage, the general rule is that more is better. But, as mentioned, the clarity and lack of distortion of the audio and video produced by any receiver is as important as the sheer power level. While bigger is typically better, the proper receiver selection involves knowing the speakers you’re getting. In terms of power and electrical current, there are two types of speakers: 4 ohm and 8 ohm. In a nutshell, 4 ohm speakers require less power than their 8 ohm siblings. Technically, 4 ohm speakers feature lower resistance, allowing more electrical current from your amplifier to flow through them.

When researching and shopping for AV receivers, you may find amplification power quoted as two different wattage numbers, one when paired with 4 ohm speakers (the higher figure) and another for 8 ohm models. If a manufacturer or reviewer quotes only one number, it’s traditionally the lower wattage, reflecting the case of driving more common 8 ohm speakers. Beware: Don’t read the higher 4 ohms wattage number and mistake it for the 8 ohm figure. This could convince you that you were purchasing much more power than you were actually getting, possibly allowing your speakers to lag and not reach their full potential.

To get an idea of the difference in power output from an amplifier when powering 4 ohm and 8 ohm speakers, consider that an average 125-watt amp (receiver) when pushing 8 ohm speakers will provide roughly 200 watts when connected to a lower impedance speaker of only 4 ohm. If your speaker selection includes 8 ohm models, you’ll want to investigate if your AV receiver candidates will sufficiently power your particular high-resistance choice. This is an area where personal testimonials—taken with a grain of salt and easily found on YouTube and web forums—are a great way to learn from the mistakes and successes of others.

Generally, especially if you have 8 ohm speakers, you want 100 or more watts per channel (but, again, this is highly dependent on your particular speakers and their specs). Although this book doesn’t delve into the nuances of volts, amps, and watts, it should be noted that multi-channel amplifiers that provide audio to at least five speakers in your home theater pump more watts per channel when driving only a stereo, or two-channel arrangement (the available power is simply spread over fewer channels). Thus, your research project becomes even more complex, because receivers show different performance levels when operating in five channels (movies) or two channels (music and much TV programming). Are you listening to a Led Zeppelin CD or watching The LEGO Movie on Blu-ray? And at what volume? Your receiver, when paired with your speakers, should provide enough clean power to be good at both.

Note that some digital amps can’t power 4 ohm speakers, going only as low as 6 ohm. Carefully compare the specs of the speakers and receiver you choose to power them to ensure that you won’t run into any roadblocks (or have to fall back on a reseller’s return policy).

Digital vs. Analog Amps

Just as display technology is rapidly advancing, with OLED and 4K on the horizon, so too are other areas of home theater technology, specifically receivers and amplifiers. AV receivers have traditionally included analog amplifiers, called Class A/B amps, a technology in use for the past few decades. When digital amps, called Class D, first appeared, their expense put them out of the reach of the average consumer. Pioneer Elite’s first receiver featuring a digital amp, in 2008 (only six years ago), was $7,000.

Like all technology, this highly efficient binary amplification has become much more affordable and begun appearing in receivers priced under $1,500 (sometimes with sub-$1,000 street prices). Digital amplification basically does more with less, minimizing power consumption while producing more accurate, robust amplification when necessary. The advantages of digital amps are especially apparent at louder volumes and when the unit is being taxed, delivering in the neighborhood of 80-90% efficiency. This means that 80-90% of the energy consumed by the digital amp is converted into more powerful sound produced by your speakers (compare this with Class A/B analog amps that, while often producing stellar sonic performance, average 30-60% efficiency). However, preference between Class A/B and Class D digital amps is subjective. Not everyone prefers digital amps.

If Tesla is the next step in the evolution of the automobile, then Class D is the new species in the evolution of affordable home theater amplification. While there will always be those who prefer old school analog (sometimes really old school, as in the case of expensive retro tube amps), digital power processing is the wave of the future. Many who complain about performance issues will be pleasantly surprised with the high-quality and affordable models that will pour onto the market during the next decade.

However, you need to remember: There’s a lot more to a receiver than its amplifier class. As you’ll hear echoed throughout this book, I’d rather have a receiver featuring a really good Class A/B amp than one with a mediocre Class D type. The quality of the audio produced by a receiver when paired with your particular speakers—not whether it features analog or digital amplification—is the real issue.


Curt Robbins is author of the following books from Amazon Kindle:

You can follow him on Twitter at @CurtRobbins, read his AV-related blog posts at rAVe Publications, and view his photos on Flickr.

Understanding Password Vaulting

securityIn my continuing series of excerpts from my new book Understanding Personal Data Security, I’m covering password generators and password vaulting. In the previous post, Password Basics, you learned that not only should you have a completely different password for each of your online accounts, but that you also should change those passwords on a regular basis (every six months, actually).

Nobody does this. And it’s understandable why. Most of us have a dozen or more online accounts—from Facebook and LinkedIn to our office workstation, bank accounts, email, and Dropbox. How can one possibly maintain strong passwords that are necessarily complex (and, therefore, difficult to remember) for each and every online account? And then change them every six months? If this is what’s necessary to properly protect our data, accounts, and identity from malicious hackers, how can we achieve such a daunting, impractical goal?

The answer lies in password vaulting. Apps that perform this function are also known as password managers. I’ve thrown in a section on password generators to help ensure that you’re vaulting a strong, difficult-to-crack password in the first place.

curtsig2 - trans
Curt Robbins


Password Generators

Password generators are websites, applications, or mobile apps that help you create strong and randomly generated passwords. Good password generators follow all the rules of strong passwords, including length, sophistication/complexity, and uniqueness.

Examples of good password generators include Norton Identity Safe Password Generator, random.org, the Strong Password Generator, PC Tools Password Generator, Sticky Password, and the Free Password Generator.

The password generator at random.org, when instructed to create a strong password of 20 characters in length, produced “KAm3S6DFSwra2w4z8mVt.” Note that this password contains no recognizable words or number segments (such as “sandwich” or “78910”). The problem with this password? It’s difficult to remember. This is where a password vault app that remembers for you is an indispensable tool.

vault-960

If you have to choose between a difficult-to-crack password and one that’s easy to remember, always choose the strong password and leverage either your memory or a software tool to help you. A password that’s easy to remember but cracked with little effort is basically worthless. Let me say that again: Basically worthless.

Password/Passphrase Vaulting

Password vaulting is the practice of storing many different passwords or passphrases behind a single, strong “master password,” typically via a software application (sometimes called a password manager). This is good practice because it’s a security compromise to use either the same password—regardless of its strength—on multiple accounts or to write them down on physical paper.

Consider installing such a password vault app on your smartphone, because this is the device you will typically have with you at all times. Some password management software and services offer cloud-based syncing across multiple devices, meaning you can access your passwords from any device, including a laptop or tablet. However, this also potentially compromises your security because your passwords are being stored in the cloud (personally, this makes me nervous and is something I don’t do).

fire damage for blog

With a password vault, you need remember only a single strong password to access all of your others. By not having to worry about your ability to remember all of these complex passwords, you can create much stronger and completely unique passwords for all of your accounts. Many security experts would say this is the only practical way to ensure strong passwords on all of your online accounts—especially those that you update religiously every six months and that are truly complex.

Recommended password vaulting apps include LastPass (free or premium accounts available for all platforms), Password Genie ($15/year for desktop computers, mobile apps available), Dashlane (well-reviewed, with both free and $30/year premium editions), RoboForm (which offers both password management and form filling functions for $10/year), KeePass (freeware), DirectPass (from Trend Micro, free for up to five passwords, $15/year for unlimited), Sticky Password ($12/year), and Norton Identity Safe (warns of weak passwords and is free).

Your Password Challenge

Your challenge is creating and using passwords and passphrases that are easy for you to remember (or easy to access, such as with vaulting) while being very long or complex and difficult to crack. The use of password vault software obviously negates the need to remember passwords.

However, not all passwords need to be easy to remember. For example, your home wi-fi network password can be very difficult and long, because you input it only once, for the most part. A workstation login ID and password you type into your computer at work a dozen or more times per day, on the other hand, needs to be easy to remember and practical to type in at a moment’s notice (like with your boss hovering over your shoulder asking for data). These are very different types of passwords in terms of your need to memorize them and the frequency with which they are input.

Stanford University Password Rules

Stanford University in 2014 revised its password rules, encouraging students, staff, and faculty to utilize passphrases, not passwords. I’m a big fan of the Stanford password rules. They’re a great compromise between practicality (your ability to actually remember the password) and effectiveness (how well the password/passphrase keeps out hackers). If everyone simply followed these rules, their data and accounts would be much more secure.

stanford-password-policy-640x2000

In a nutshell, Stanford relaxes the strictness requirements of passwords/passphrases as they increase in length. For example, shorter passwords (eight to 15 characters) must include a mix of letters, numbers, and punctuation symbols. Passwords longer than 20 characters, however, feature no restrictions (they don’t require the use of mixed case, numbers, or symbols) because their length alone gives them the strength they need. Stanford’s standards are listed below.

  • 8-11 characters: Mixed case letters, numbers, and symbols
  • 12-15 characters: Mixed case letters and numbers
  • 16-19 characters: Mixed case letters
  • 20+ characters: No restrictions

According to tech site Ars Technica, “By allowing extremely long passcodes and relaxing character complexity requirements as length increases, the new standards may make it easier to choose passwords that resist the most common types of cracking attacks.”


Curt Robbins is author of the following books from Amazon Kindle:

You can follow him on Twitter at @CurtARobbins, read his AV-related blog posts at rAVe Publications, and view his photos on Flickr.