Toyota negative on batteries because it has more experience than other others on them

Just to add its not just the Chairman of the board or Craig scott that issue these misleading anti-plug-in messages.

Remember Toyota and the fuel cell lobby (CFCP) rigged the system in 2013 to change the rules so that you would get a regulatory loophole to only make 1/3 as many fcv as short range bevs (9zev credits versus 3zev credits). This allows toyota to make only 3000 fcv from 2015-2017 and satisfy the zev regulations. Here is how toyota's Lexus vice president spins this to pretend plug-in hybrids (granted only partial credit like the prius and 0zev credits) are really just a regulatory trick.

Lexus Bypassing Plug-In Hybrids, Looking At Fuel Cells, Maybe EVs

Ofcourse chevy has data showing that people are plugiing in their volts, but perhaps he is talking about making a 11 mile range phv and he has data showing people don't plug in the prius plug-in. I doubt that is what the data shows though.

How does Lexus save the environment? Why its with the Lexus GSh and LSh, I mean with the weight savings of not having it a plug-in you get 31 mpg and 20 mpg respectively.
Compare Side-by-Side
That is much better than those crippled plug-ins that no one will plug-in unless you force them like the prius phv (50mpg), volt(37mpg (41 on gen II later this year)), i3-rex (39 mpg), fusion energi (38mpg). Hmm whoops, I'm sure I can find the one that gets rotten mileage like the LSh. how about the i8 (28 mpg) well at least that is lower than the gsh, you know the hybrids that lexus is saving the universe with. I have no complaint about the cth, ish, or esh but go up in hp and these plug-ins don't get pokyier and less efficient than a lexus hybrid, it aids their fuel economy.

My question is why when you are working out regulatory loopholes for hydrogen cars, would you draw so much attention to your lobbying by putting out absolutely misleading statements about plug-ins. I mean I expect that in a few years when we don't have tens of thousands of happy fuel cell customers the press is going to look back at how they published the giberish lobby line and talk about how no one wants fuel cells. Some in toyota have been quick lately to lower expectations, but when these clowns keep talking as if fuel cells will take off tomorrow it just makes you ask why they are being a Lutz.

 

they have to make back the 16 billion dollar government fine somehow.

 

PriusChat, a year and a half ago: It's official Toyota is fool speed fuel cells for compliance after ...

 

So I'm thinking ha-ha....then I think of where the hydrogen actually does go. Think about it.

 

Toyota may be negative on batteries, but I'm positive about them. This was a run I did this past weekend to the shore. I had the A/C cranking and still can't complain.

 

Thanks I forgot about that old thread, but now that it;s over a year latter we can see if the prediction in the editorial looks true or not.

Back then CARB was predicting 50,000 fcv by the end of 2017, now others including toyota are predicting compliance levels of 20,000 by the end of 2020 for many of the reasons listed, japan is predicting 6000 fuel cell vehicles in the same time period. The north east is claiming that they will sell more than california and japan combined, but of course the eastern states don't even have one working public hydrogen station north of the mason dixon line. No one is planning on making fcv in the numbers the north east is claiming.

For the tucson fcv it seems dead on
Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell Global Sales Below Target, Company Admits
part of the problem is the infrasturcture as mentioned here stations regularly go down for maintenance, and they aren't built to fill many cars that may get fixed as more of the $220M is spent to build and maintain stations. Part is the price of the lease which seems very high compared to the gasoline model.

Toyota plans 5700 by the end of 2017, 3000 in the US (you an see why that 50,000 number needed to drop). Yep these are compliance numbers. The safety waiver in the US ends in 2017, so that may be it until a redesign, or maybe toyota will get another waiver. Toyota says they can produce 3000 per year after 2018 if there is demand.

If fuel cells are going to take off and compete its going to be the next generation or later. Don't let these Lutz's fool you. fuel cells may take off in 10 or 20 or 100 years or never, but they aren't going sell in competitive numbers to plug-ins in the next decade. There are too many problems with infrastructure even in japan where safety regulations are being cut to speed this up. I think the president of toyota knows this, why else would he have made the company so much money with tesla. There is a lot of anti-plug-in sentiment in the old corporate culture though, and it leaks out in these silly like the mirai will sell like the prius, or people will buy phevs and never plug them in..

 

Follow the emission.

The cleanest PHEV (Plugin Prius) is about as clean as 51 MPG gas car. Every other PHEVs are worse with the national grid-mix electricity.

We have yet to see well-to-wheel emission of Mirai but per Toyota's calculation, it is going to be cleaner. I am glad Toyota found a way to satisfy the regulation and get the result (instead of doing dog and pony show with oversized plugins).

Very good. 147 MPGe on EV and 41 MPG on gas. Overall, 55 MPGe, not so good.

Did you drive it like a PiP (EV below 62 mph) or like a Volt?

 

Why do you continue to use such illogical statements?
Using the national grid mix is incorrect in this, in that the comparison is between plug-ins and FCVs. And FCVs are only available in CA. For a true comparison you should compare using the CA grid, not national.

 

RESPONSE: Tesla GAVE UP ON SWAPPING BATTERIES. They are instead building out their charging stations.

Obviously, battery powered and fuel-cell powered cars have the same problem: lack of infrastructure for long-distance driving.

Tesla is solving the problem by gradually building out its nationwide charging stations. But other battery powered cars will still have the problem. The Nissan Leaf and BMW i3 still have range problems because of this. The BMW i3 solves it by packing in a gas burning generator for its battery to tack on an additional 150 miles of range. The Nissan Leaf is out of luck.

Fuel-Cell cars are HYBRID CARS. They burn hydrogen instead of gas. Toyota is betting on fuel cell because it thinks it can help build a nationwide network of fuel cell stations - just like Tesla is building out its charging stations.

And unlike Tesla charging stations, you don't have to spend an hour or four waiting while your car recharges. Hydrogen-fuel cells are recharged in seconds. The wait to charge a Tesla is the most nut numbing aspect of Tesla. If you have to travel 1000 miles a day, figure waiting 6 hours a day charging the Tesla while you wait. It is worse in the winter.

Hydrogen fuel-cell cars are going to be inherently cleaner than battery cars because in coal-dependent states, your Tesla is being charged at the expense of tons of pollution into the environment, whereas hydrogen can be provided by the oil companies and other companies (e.g. solar) a lot cleaner than coal. So if you want true zero pollution Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are the way to go.

 

If you cannot charge it outside the home on a long trip, then you have NO INFRASTRUCTURE.

If you have to worry about range - i.e. range anxiety - then you have NO INFRASTRUCTURE.

 

what you say is correct, but we're all trying to figure out where we're going to be in 10-20 years.

 

It is exactly data like this that convinced me years ago to stop arguing over which Alt car tech is a little less polluting, and focus on the important goal: CLEANING UP THE GRID. All the money spent on HFCVs and *EV rebates will have so much better returns when invested in grid infrastructure that leads to an explosion of clean energy production and efficient energy use.

 

someone needs to call al gore.

 

The thread is starting to read like a broken CD-player(*) repeating the same assertions. Time to head over to greencar congress and/or hybrid cars.

Bob Wilson

* - in respect for those who never had to deal with plastic platters and needle pickups.

 

The amount of incorrect information in your post is truly impressive.
I will address just the first two.

Tesla did give up on swapping batteries, because almost nobody used it.

Battery powered and fuel cell powered vehicles have some of the same problems, but not to the same extent.
The long distance infrastructure is light years ahead of the FCV long distance infrastructure, but both do need improvement.
What you fail to mention is that FCVs also suffer from lack of short distance infrastructure, in a huge way. EVs short distance infrastructure is mostly in place but needs to continue to grow.

 

I drove it like a normal car, with CC on on the Parkway.

 

because Lexus/Toyota spin it that way to make their car not look like it personifies ridiculousness. Their philosophy now is, if you can't make it great or at least close to the competition, then make the competition look worse through ads. That's what Lutz used to do, when GM got caught with their pants down . . . having no competition against the Prius.
.

 

As opposed to now, when they still have no competitor to the Prius.

 

True - nothing but the Prius gets 50mpg blended . . . . but at least they're no longer slamming HEV's & PHEV's. Therein lies a huge irony - as Lexus/Toyota seems hell bent on cutting of their nose vis a vis advertising their natural gas/hydrogen car is better than their PiP. I never thought I'd see the day
.

 

Tesla's battery swap program is pretty much dead - Fortune
Yes and no

Mostly right volt, i3-rex, ford energi, prius phv switch to gas.
Tesla is the only practical long trip bev, and if people need battery swap and ask for it they will probably build it.
Nissan, Ford, and Chevy say they are building longer range bevs in the next 5 years, then its up to them to get Quick chargers, use the tesla network, or build swap stations.

No not in the plans. Toyota has loaned companies money in the US, but it mainly has lobbied for taxpayers or oil companies to build and pay for the stations. It is a tougher problem because without a way to refuel at home, you need these stations, and they are much more expensive than a supercharger.

Say you have a 240 mile 70d and start with it chartered. You should be able to make 7x average 30 minute stops to fill it to 80%. That is 3.5 hours. If you average 65 mph that trip will take 15.5 hours of driving, so it moves it to 19 hours. Tesla thinks drivers would rather do that then pay for battery swap, and if you buy a 90d it has more range so probably 1 less stop. In a prius say you stop every 4 hours instead for a total of 1.5 hours instead its 17 hours but you need to buy 20 gallons of gasoline.. Some Prius drivers would choose to waste the 2 hours if they didn't have to use or pay for that gas. For those with strong bladders and no need to rest, yes you could hold your pee stop twice and mainly eat in the car and do it in 16 hours. Others will pick hybrids, diesels, or phevs if they do this trip often, a long range bev is not for everyone.

They can work out the kinks but currently if you are the third car at a hydrogen fueling station you can wait for an hour or more. If you want to take a thousand mile trip, you need to be followed by a hydrogen truck. There are no plans for a 1000 mile fueling structure. 10 years from now there may be, but then again 10 years from now there may battery swap station, though both are doubtful.

Here is the problem for the next decade, it is doubtful there will be any fuel cell vehicles sold in a coal dependant state because their tax payers are not lining up to pay for the infrastructure. In 30 years, we may no longer have coal states, as the new epa rules make it difficult to build a new coal plant, and over 70% of them are over 30 years old. Fuel cells could be viable in 15 years, and the next presidient and congress could encourage coal, but I wouldn't take either bet. Building infrastructure to charge plug-ins with renewable is much cheaper than building infrastructure to fill fcv with renewable hydrogen. I'd like to go the cheaper route and test these beasts with the less expensive methane SMR hydrogen, since taxpayers are paying for it, and see if anyone wants the fuel cell vehicles. If they do then we can ask if they would pay for for renewable hydrogen, which with all the R&D money the DOE is devoting may be cheaper to build in the future.