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

Actually this has been ventilated ~50-60 years ago, and it scales down to the size to fit the car. The small nuclear reactor with small turbine would take less space then Murai's FC and tanks, and the amount of energy will be enough for the life of the car.

But socially this would never be accepted. It is hard to make the case when you take into consideration of what might happen in case of the accident or the possible usage by terrorist. And general public is paranoid, small leak from nuclear plant will generate more noise than tons of mercury and radioactive dust blown into atmosphere by coal plant.

 

Why must someone else take responsibility for our own well being?

Our country is horribly behind in the acceptance of renewables.

I just got back from a trip to Germany & Austria. Seeing how common solar & wind is there makes us look like really bad, like young children selfishly complaining. It's embarrassing.

We should be doing it ourselves, creating that electricity locally for immediate consumption along with hydrogen storage.

 

...and/or stationary utility battery storage as they become practical and cost effective.

 

As a hybrid pioneer brand, can't blame Toyota for having design flaws (there are, I suppose). Toyota has been home of their batteries, responsible for their manufacturing, and until now, they been proven the best at their job. In Europe HV batteries are 10 yr warranted, are there other manufacturers around even close?

 

Well toyota has been doing this "physics" claim for awhile. When they statted it wasn't supposed to be possible to build a 300 mile (based on california's description (old epa)) bev. Then they claimed only tesla, which is a small niche, but now the mirai will sell much less than tesla.

Here is how scott tried to twist the now crazy toyota claim to forbes.
Toyota On Mirai Vs. Tesla: Battery Electric Vehicles Have 'Fundamental' Physics Problem - Forbes

Here they have the subtle twist of "cost", bur don't really talk about "cost of fuel cells".
Toyota On Mirai Vs. Tesla: Battery Electric Vehicles Have 'Fundamental' Physics Problem - Forbes

Note the mirai does not come to the performance or convenience of the tesla S 90d. It would cost substantially more to build a fuel cell car to do this, and much more to build hydrogen stations versus battery swap. So what physical problem does he see? For the toyota dealership model a bev would probably give too little maintenance revenue, otherwise its complete giberish.

What? I thought the goal was 300 miles on the old epa. If its 400 miles then I guess the mirai fails too. Why the changing yardstick? Because the fuel cell lobby can't really claim there is a physics problem only a cost problem, and the cost problem for fuel cells is much bigger today.

The volt and model S seem to be fairly competitively priced even without government subsidies. In 10 years with smaller, lighter, less expensive batteries plug-ins don't seem to have any limitation.

 

Well yes, San yo had the same warranty. The warranty is really about the cells. Panasonic, Toyota's partner bought sanyo to create a monopoly in nimh.

Panasonic makes 3 types of cells for lithium. Tesla uses a different type than Toyota. Samsung and LG and Nissan/NEC all make different cells. All are warranted the same as Toyota. Toyota is a car company not a battery company. Vertical integration did not really work out great for gm in the long run, so Toyota's claim that its vertical integration means it produces the best is highly suspect. The tesla and gen II volt battery designs seem to say batteries are just fine for plug-ins and there is not a physics limitation, to fast fueling (battery swap in bev, or gasoline in a phev) or range.

 

But do you actually only spend 20 minutes out of your car during that 22+hr drive?
I can 'power' through the 600 mile drive to my parents with just 2 rest stops. It isn't comfortable to do so, and I bet most people are underestimating how much time they spend stretching the legs on such long trips. Yet a BEV can still be too much time charging for such trips. Good thing we also have plug in hybrids for those.

Toyota, CARB, and the rest of the fuel cell lobby are trying to frame the discussion as FCEVs vs. BEVs when it is really FCEVs vs. PHVs.

It's there if you bought a Tesla. Since no other BEV available today really isn't suited for a long trip, by which I mean greater than the majority's round trip commute, the lack of fast DC/Supercharger charging for all brands isn't a huge issue. The current cars benefit from a network of level 2 public chargers to expand the tasks an owner can use them for, and to assuage range anxiety those new to the technology, which might be the more important reason for them now.

Such a network will also make future econo BEVs with small batteries and short range a viable market. Which seems to be the only BEVs Toyota envisions. But the coming 150 and 200 mile range BEVs really don't need that network to work within their home range. They are at the destination point of day trips and weekend getaways. For the longer, multi-state trips like bisco and I drive, the 200 mile range is too short. it can work with DC fast charging, but the number of stops and charging time makes them much less appealing than the 250 and 300 mile BEV.

By the time the 300 mile BEV becomes just low end luxury car expensive, the advances in battery packaging will make EREV type plugs more do able in terms of space compromises, and blended PHVs may be as bad the hybrids of today in that regard. The Al-air battery may be common place as a range extender by then too. It likely will have to stop more often for a water than a gasoline fill, but that is still far more attractive to the public than DC fast charging.

So a fast DC charging network isn't in place for non-Teslas, but PHVs and BEVs don't really need one to work and be a success like a non-plug FCEV.

But their focus on hydrogen implies that they are ignoring the research and advances in carbon free, renewable fuels for ICEs. Well, they are still working on ICEs, but their handling of the Prius PHV gives the impression that they don't care for anything with a plug. Hopefully, the next gen one will be a correction to that. As long as they are willing to keep on making an selling ICEs, not supporting PHVs is hypocritical in planning for a carbon free future. In 20 to 50 years, fuel cells may dominate, but they may not be filled with hydrogen.

 

If you look at the context of the Toyota hydrogen, hybrid, bev slides it was when Toyota was claiming $1200/kwh and thought a 50 mile city bev (Eq) was what the market wanted. You might note that the gen II volt has the same aer of the EQ, and is priced bellow what toyota said it needed to make the EQ a success.

Anyone that believes those old slides isn't looking at the costs or tech of the world today. BMW, which is a high cost producer, charges $4000 for their ice option. I'm sure prices of batteries will be sub $360/kwh and range extenders under $4K on any future cars. That means it is not physics that stops toyota, its old thinking. China is pushing methanol (which can be made renewably) to run in engines. A methanol phev might be a lot cheaper to own and operate than a fcv, and until that renewable methanol is built it can run on sunshine, wind, and gasoline.

 

I may be underestimating the existing infrastructure a bit.
But solely based on the cost of a Tesla, I don't use them as an example. Buying a Tesla if only based on the cost, is still far from a mainstream event for most people. But they've done a great job promoting the charging infrastructure they have already created. Nissan has also done a pretty good job with the Leaf, and it's getting better.

It's also hard to quantify how much of this is a Chicken or the Egg scenario. Slow growing popularity of Electric Cars, means conservative growth and adoption of public charging stations, or lack of a large amount of visible public charging stations hinders the popularity of electric cars?

In either case, I think both Tesla and Nissan have done a pretty good job of at least promoting the idea, that if you buy their electric vehicle, you'll be able to charge it, not only at home but also on the road.

But I still believe that public infrastructure needs to be more visible and robust.

 

The econo BEVs I envisioned in my previous post are cars like the iMiEV, but costing around the price of an ICE Spark. Small, but cheap enough to be attractive to bought by a sizable number of the population as an additional car for commuting only. Their lower range means a the existence of convinent public charging or not has a measurable impact of adoption.

The fact that it is hard to quantify the chicken or egg in regards to how much a charging network helps with BEV adoption just helps to illustrate the advantage they have over FCEVs. I'm sure having it helps in most cases, but it isn't needed.

The early BEV adopter may be willing to put up with short ranges, low speeds, and long recharge times in order to drive one. The early FCEV adopter can be just as willing as the BEV one in terms of sacrifices for the car, but he still can't get one in a hydrogen station isn't close enough. Tesla and Nissan didn't have to take applications from people, and then decide if they were worthy of a the car. If you had the means, you could get the car. Even if your only means of charging meant waiting nearly a day to go from empty to full. They may advise youy that a BEV isn't the best fit, but they wouldn't deny you the car.

 

I think you are misunderstanding the big lie the fuel cell lobby is still trying to tell you. They are claiming that the problem with bevs are physics or some other crazy scheme. Definitely the price of a tesla is high, but would your rather spend $60,000 (price after incentives) for a model S 70 that you could refuel at home, or hundreds of billions to build the infrastructure for hydrogen because it lets you use public stations that will be built with public money.

Let me tell you, with only 200 mirai getting sold in california this year, it is not a mainstream event. Trying to pretend building stations with tax payer money makes it more mainstream is not really believable. Even if toyota could compell the country to spend money to build stations everywhere, how many would be willing to part with over $50K for a 4 seater that takes over 8 seconds to reach 60 mph? Mainstream indeed. Major fail!

 

we only spend 10-15 minutes fueling up and using the loo. if there were chargers at the hotels in virginia and georgia that you could reserve with the room, where we could get a 600 mile charge (750 in february?) i'd be cool with that. plus a larger charger network for spur of the moment trips along the way.

at 300 miles, we're a long way from most anyone feeling comfortable with a northeast to southeast road trip, except the most die hard zythryn's.

 

It should be Hybrids, PHVs, FCEVs vs the rest with diesels on the sideline rooting for both.

Bob Wilson

 

Yea, but look at the bright side - once the FC lobby gets 10x more hydrogen cars on the road - say TEN thousand cars, that huge cost e will look pretty good!

It means that in ten years or so - It'll have only cost $300K per car - a bargain in anyone's book - unless they need more money.

.

 

If I'm going to spend $300 K on a vehicle, it better be:


Bob Wilson

 

lol

Let's say the US spends $250 million in california funds and $1B in federal funds in the next 10 years on the federal level and get 50,000 cars. That will only be $25,000 per car. The other is sunk cost. But ....

how many plug-ins will have sold at that time? Why keep making the pre-commercial test more expensive because toyota has a lot of lobbyists telling the government plug-ins won't sell.

Survey: Buyers Willing To Pay 60% More For A Tesla, 83% Percent Would Recommend Tesla To Friends
Analysts: Global Market For Tesla Model S, X & 3 Is Approximately 19 Million

It seems analsts diagree with toyota here. Toyota and GM paid for a survey saying that you need to have a plug-in $28,000 less than a gasoline car for refuel convieniece. CARB agreed.
Simple ways to reduce cost of the test
1) remove conflict of interest. Remove CARB and CEC from the fuel cell lobby. FIne employess of CARB or CEC from using lobbying the DOE in conflicts of interest.

2) Restrict test to southern california until 10,000 vehicles actually appear on the road

3) Remove renewable restrictions. Everyone knows that having renewables for the test payed for completely by taxpayers does not mean renewables would be in a non taxpayer funded roll out.

 

Then again - that's a 1,200 mile or more - 22-23 hour drive. Not many of the 99% driving public doing that on a regular basis. Most of us, when nearing the 300 mile mark are ready to get out - stretch - pee - & maybe a bite to eat anyway. It's already is being done on the super charger network.

OOOPS
guess I should have read ahead -
great minds think alike

One more edit -
Toyota's ongoing disdain for plug-in is going to take an intriguing turn, I feel. We all hope the next generation pip will have a longer range traction pack. We have come to expect that from each new generation. Such improvements though, will fly in the face of their love affair with hydrogen. I hate to sound gloomy, but this looks like a foreshadowing / excuse Toyota will use if when the 2nd gen pip is finally revealed. It will NOT make sense to make the pip too much better. A much improved pip would after all, make this latest Toyota pr statement look idiotic or ignorant. You choose.
.

 

I would change that qualifier from "most anyone" to "a few".
I know of many Tesla owners that are taking road trips rather than plane trips.
I know of BEV owners that temporarily traded their short range BEV with a friend for a Tesla in order to take a longer road trip.

I'm not all that "die-hard" when it comes to trips. I haven't charged anywhere on trips other than superchargers. I know of others that fit that description better than I who took cross country trips using RV parks and level 2 chargers entirely.

For some, a 300 mile BEV does not work for them. For the majority, I suspect it will.
Within a few years we will see how popular the 150-200 miles range, sub $40k BEVs are.

 

At this point, it's just too early.
I'm really for the advancement, the investigation and the experiment of nearly any and all alternatives.

I prefer to not look at the situation through the prism of Tesla and Electric vs. Mirai and Fuel Cell. Even though the auto industry may create this very competition.

And honestly, I don't much care how the infrastructure for either format get's put in place. As I earlier said:

At this point neither Electric Vehicles nor Fuel Cell vehicles are mainstream, even though I might give the edge to Nissan and The Leaf and Tesla. I'm NOT pretending building fuel cell stations with tax payer money makes it more mainstream.

But for either electric vehicles or fuel cell vehicles until that infrastructure exists and is recognized neither really has the chance of becoming mainstream.

People are always resistant to the idea of "Tax Payer" money being spent, on nearly anything. I avoid politics. But it seems to me that if tax payer money get's spent to build a viable fuel cell infrastructure, and in building that infrastructure it leads to a real viable, wide spread alternative to petrol fuel powered vehicles? Then in relationship to history, one could say tax payer money has easily been spent on far more trivial and far more horrible things. .

My speculation, is 20-30+ years from now, the majority of the world won't be operating luxury car priced Tesla's or 50k plus priced Mirai. But it is quite possible that transportation is fueled by either charged batteries or Hydrogen Fuel Cells. And I'm 100% sure that when and if that day arrives the infrastructure to support that technology will be in place, whether it's infancy was supported by private business building Charging Stations or Tax Payer money building Hydrogen Fuel Cell Stations.

 

That time at a stop will likely put a hundred miles in a Tesla battery from a Supercharger.
600 miles? You are mad. That would completely cover my trip to NC, but I'm not going to wear diapers in order to avoid stopping. I think you'll more than the diehards are taking long trips in their Model S right now. The time that charging would add to my trip is only a little longer than the time I take for breaks and refueling already.

I try to point that out in other threads.