Toyota and Lexus Still Hating on Plug-Ins and EVs

Ok, please give me the "correct" numbers then.
And regarding avg consumption, there is no confusion: if it is to draw power from the grid in 12 minutes, avg consumption of a household is not apples to apples, peak/nominal power is.

Not mistaken, above post #67 shows pattern of trips.
I believe electric car users may prove me right, they don't do quick charges regularly.

 

Tesla super chargers have been used to charge about 10% of Model S fleet miles.
So yes, 200 mile range EV owners seem to be using Superchargers infrequently.

Anecdotally, we are a bit under 10%.

 

Gasoline cars don't fill up every night at home though. A Tesla S leaves home in the morning with 200+ miles. Since the majority of commutes in the US is around 40 miles, which is why GM targeted it for the Volt's range, the Tesla and many of the other BEVs don't need quick chargers, and can do their charging at home. A gasoline car can 'charge' up faster, but the person has to leave earlier in the morning, or take time when heading home to do so. Then they may have to deal with weather while waiting for the tank to fill.

The S85D can do 270 miles on a charge now, so 310mi(500km) is very likely. That could do the 600mi trip to my parents with one full quick charge, plus one to two quick charge stops for bathroom breaks. A 120kW Supercharger can add 170 miles in 30min. 50 to 60 miles during a 10min rest stop is probably reasonable. The full recharge will be done during the stop to eat. Waiting won't be a chore then.

No, it can't do a marathon cross country trip like an ICE, but very few people do that. Very few people drive more than 200 or even 100 miles day to day. And BEV adoption isn't going to mean the outlawing of ICEs. The majority of plugins will likely still have one for the near future.

Non-plugins, including FCVs, need quick refuel times, because they have to be taken to a station for fuel. There is no option for them to not have to take a pit stop some where besides home and work to refuel the car. Slow charging for plugins at home, and maybe at work, is the normal way they get refueled. Quick charging is not needed. It is wanted by those who want to for go gasoline on their ocassional long trips, but not needed. Then most people with a BEV will have another vehicle in the household.

 

Toyota's Tanaka was estimating 500 kw peak power sometime in the future, Tesla's current tech is 135kw, the current tech in japan is 50kw and they have 3000 of them. That is about the average power of 350 houses in the US, so I can see it being 1000 houses in Japan.

1) They are comparing peak to average, which is very distorting. If we use Japanese average of 6200 miles/per year a 100 mpge plug-in will only use 48% on average than this Japanese household. Even with huge penetration of 20% of japanese households buying plug-ins power would only need to grow 10% for the cars, this will take at least 10 years, so power would only need to grow less than 1% a year. In the US using 15,000 mile trips they use 42% as much as an average house.

2) Mr. Tanaka number of 500 kw seems reasonable if we are using EPA cycle, but this is really high if he is talking Japanese cycle. This is typical fuel cell talk, providing the worst statistics from each country for plug-ins. The leaf goes 67% further on the JC08 test than the epa 5 cycle. Still I find 500 kw reasonable for a stall. During a peak hour perhaps that stall will fill 5 cars.

3) Adding peak power is fairly cheap by adding ocgt natural gas power plants, but it is likely japan would put in more expensive ccgt which costs about $1/watt in Texas to build, Let's say it costs double in Japan as an high estimate. Adding 500 MW (smallest particle fast cycling ccgt plant) which is 59% efficient when powering over 40% would cover 1000 such chargers. If all 3000 of japans L3 spots were upgraded (moving some for demand) you would need about 3 of these plants. This should cost less than $3B and actually stabilize the Japanese grid. Let's say in a peak weak 10% of Japanese plug-ins charge on these spots in a 10 hour period. This number can be reduced further by charging more during peak as Utilities often do. Tesla giving away free charging charges only 10% of miles and its a novelty. You could service 5x10/10% or 500 cars on each spot. Those 3000 chargers could service 1.5 M fast charging plug-in cars. The extra power plants in the US would cost $1000/car in Japan at most $2000/car and would stabilize the Japanese grid. Let's say it needs to be paid for in 10 years, instead of the typical us accounting 30, that is only $200/car/year for new power plant infrastructure. Chargers don't need to be upgraded fast or all at once. These new fast cycling natural gas plants make it much easier to add renewables to the grid.

4) Plug-ins with 10% fast charging every week would not hurt the grid or use a great deal of fossil fuel. As numbers get into millions per year power plants and quick chargers could be added for a small additional charge per car charged either when the car is purchased, and/or when it is charged.

 

I understood everything when you said Deutsche Bank. Those gangsters, the european-nation's destroyers, and you don't lose an opportunity to advertise their agenda as I see. You are one of those guys who modulate public opinion as the mafia wish- an agent with great skill on brainwash-advertising about Chinese environmental policies too. In the meantime, no word about China's mammoth plan to build some extraordinary huge number of new nuclear reactors inside China in the next 15 years and beyond. Already they are in the making of four reactors. Considering Germany and China are core strategic partners- Germany's industrial base is China, Deutsche Bank agent's role will be crucial, as "the alliance" shall not be forced to release a significant "update" to their PR agenda about nuclear reactors.

Ah that trick! Real agent skill there. This intentional separation between plants for plug-in electricity production and plants for non-plug-in electricity production. When it is obvious, for power companies it is a big headache they have to deal, either its about houses, or industrial units, or cars. But I understand your worry to keep plug-in public relations away from the dirty power.
Good show from you and a thoughtful try to brainwash. In the meantime, without public attention, next June one out of four new LP singles in the making, will enter the US Hit charts, featuring a music band from Tennessee Valley. Song title "Watts Bar Unit 2".

 

Actually you need to pick your losers, and you are all over the map. Here is what Toyota is saying. They are saying Hydrogen fuel cells vehicles will add renewable to the grid and those renewables will fuel hydrogen production. I am saying if you are using this accounting for hydrogen, you can also use it for plug-ins. Der Spiegal pretty much ripped this fuel cell argument appart. I know you like to piss on all sources, but have no sources of your own. At least open your eyes and see the false comparisons. Still hydrogen may in the future help substitute natural gas and renewable electricity for oil, so I don't count it out. It needs some major technical breakthroughs. Can we at least agree same rules for renewables for plug-ins and fcv?

I also gave you average fossil fuel in the country used today for the charge depletion phase of plug-ins. Certainly giving facts is not an attempt to brainwash. If you could type normally instead of shouting in different colors. Please use today's mix. What is distorting is pretending that future mixes with more electric cars will cause the US to build more coal plants. That just is not in the cards with current costs and regulations. Costs are pushing ccgt natural gas, wind, and solar for new power.

I am not a coal apologist. IMHO most of these plants should be shed in the next 20 years. Did you know that the TVA is shutting down 8 coal plants?
Tennessee Valley Authority to close 8 coal-fired power units - The Washington Post

I do think that it isn't wise to quickly throw away all the coal plants. But we can over a reasonable time replace them with other sources of energy. Assign the avearge today or marginal to plug-ins, the problem comes when anti-plug-in people pick and choose simply the worst state where plug-ins aren't sold, or pretend we are going to build a huge amount of coal plants to service the plug-in fleet.

I like the idea of substituting oil, which is likely to be much more expensive 20 years from now, for less scarce natural gas, wind, solar, and yes even a little bit of coal if proper pollution control is on the plants.

 

Very positive, AG.

 

All those colors may have set me off in a negative direction. Or maybe it was because he called my source, which includes many people I work with a bunch of criminals. Or perhaps it was because he was expecting the TVA to be building a lot of new coal, when the oranization, because of lawsuit, is shutting down 8 coal plants.

But yes I could have phrased it differently.

 

Cost of natural gas in Japan peaked at over x4 times of that in US. Adding peak power isn't cheap in Japan and Korea.

Not necessarily. Much of the renewable energy generated during time not suitable for charging plug-ins. Solar is generated during the day, wind peak around sunrise and sunset, and when do you charge your plug-in, at night? When everything shut down except for those coal plants?

You dismissing Hydrogen in favor of plug-ins but in reality it is no more as delivery medium of the same cycle. Yes you could use batteries to store electricity for night time, but why? hydrogen is cheaper and has higher energy density than batteries. And it could be produced bio-chemically from organic matter, chemically from natural gas and coal.

 

Here you have it: "electric car users". Not the "car users" - point proven?

 

Agree with everything as long as you stop calling EV a car. Car it is not as in current state it is incapable replacing a real car in function.

Commuter tool? maybe.. but then bicycles make even better commuters. Why to spend 30-80K on glorified golf cart, if less then %1 of that would buy you more efficient commuter tool. Tool which would make healthier while you use it?

 

Differently or not - imo it wouldn't matter.
.

 

Well I gave you an estimate of building the plants - and used more expensive fast cycling ccgt around 59% efficiency can ramp up or down 10% of power (50MW in a 500MW system) in a minute type of plant. This capacity should cost less than $200/car/year assuming peak 10% of cars charge weekly at 10 hours of the week (out of 168 hours) and 10 year payback. The rest of charging is not at the same time or is slower.

Yes natural gas is expensive in Japan
Japan Liquefied Natural Gas Import Price (Monthly, USD per Million Btu)
$14.28 USD in March for MMBTU, lets say it goes up to $20 per MMBTU. A MMBTU is just over 293 kwh, and a GGE is 33.7 kwh. That makes it $20 x 33.7/293 = $2.30 /GGE of natural gas.

Of course it needs to get from the depot to the power plant, and has losses once it is produce in the grid, so for grins lets say instead of 59% efficiency its 40% which is estimating more losses than are likely. Price of the natural gas infrastructure and profits on the new power plant were included in the price of the plant allocated to cars.

$2.40 /GGE @depot /40% efficiency depot to the plug = $6 /GGE at the plug for fuel for this plug-in. In Japan a 100 mpge plug-in (tesla model S 70D) will need 62 gge/year for the typical 6200 mile/year Japanese distance, at the plug which works out to $372 of natural gas and say $200 of infrastructure or $572/year infrastructure + fuel. After 10 years all that infrastructure is there and doesn't need to be paid for again.

The price of gasoline is $4.24 in Japan right now. A 50 mpg epa aqua or prius liftback would consume 124 gallons of gasoline on that same 6200 miles. That would cost $525 a year.

That means if oil stays low and natural gas prices go up a lot, and Japan doesn't care about the economic insecurity of relying on OPEC then there is no reason to push plug-ins over hybrids. OF course the Japanese government is worried about all of these things. That extra natural gas infrastructure can more easily meld with new renewables coming on the Japanese grid, that was one reason I amortized the cost so quickly, but then the fuel costs will go down.

The only conclusion is improving the electrical infrastructure for plug-ins can be paid for almost completely with oil savings over a 10 year period. The infrastructure is not really very expensive at all for plug-ins. The number of L3 stations currently working, if upgraded to 250 kw, say 10 years from now could satisfy 750,000 long range bevs, 1.5M if upgraded to 500kw chargers. If Say long range bevs are 50% of the plug-in market, and slower charging phevs and short range bevs like the rest make up 50% of the market. Japan can truely add this infrastructure cheaply. They are also providing fuel cell hydrogen, at about $4M/station (again Japan is more expensive than the US) that can service 100 cars a day, which may be able to service 700 cars a week. That infrastructure if divided by cars and 10 years cost $570/year. Cost of hydrogen is approximately $10/GGE and a 62 mile /kg fcv on a 6200 mile Japanese cycle would cost $620/year. Infrastructure and fuel are more expensive. With some technical breakthroughs and enough money I think they can over come some of these costs, but for now claiming plug-in infrastructure is expensive while fcv will be much cheaper doesn't look at the numbers, even in Japan.

 

Further confusing. Please explain the differences.
I'm a car user of a 1993 Toyota Carina E that never exceeds 50km in one day trip. The longer trips are with the Prius. That makes me a "car user" I hope?

 

Compared to the U.S. - about 2X as many people in Japan don't own a car at all. Couple that notion with less Japanese (than U.S. drivers) can afford a high priced ($75,000 ... alleged ... if you sell enough to bring costs down) fuel cel car .... yes ... I called it a car ... sorry.
So - where does this mass production idea pan out, that if you have enough buyers to bring a 6 figure price tag - hydrogen car price down to "only" $75,000? With less drivers? With less money to spend on a 6 figure car? Thinking about prospective hydrogen car buyers & beyond costs of hydrogen refill stations & thinking beyond the cost of natural gas to distill the hydrogen - whether it's cheeper than plugin's ..... Who are these large numbers of people that will be able to afford the expensive car, in order to bring down the cost to "only" $75,000? Has such an event ever happened in all of history?
.

 

Solar City is doing it, and so is Toyota with old hybrid packs, but that is more for peak shaving and reducing electric bills.

Of course, hydrogen generation and a fuel cell could be used for the same purpose, but likely will lose out to the battery in pure efficiency. Not sure about about life cycle costs. For use in cars though, the hydrogen needs to be compressed, and then transported to where the cars are. Transporting electricity to a plugin, even from batteries, though people plugin when they get home and will get some of the wind power directly, is much simpler. Distributed electrolysis may be cheaper than piping or trucking hydrogen to stations, for an increase in the stations price tag.

They are cars though. A glorified golf cart would be a NEV with a top speed of 25 to 35mph. 80% or more of a gasoline car's miles are as commuter tools for most people. And if the government mandated a 5 gallon max tank size in the interest of increased fire safety, they wouldn't become less of a car. Just because BEVs don't meet your needs doesn't make them non-cars.

Sorry, I am not biking thirty miles one way to work. Actually longer since I'd have to avoid the highway where 60mph+ is the norm. My wife could have biked, or used a NEV, for a job she had. It was only a mile away Except she would have had to go a 55mph posted road for a stretch to get there, which had a half shoulder at most.

I realize a BEV won't work for many, but it doesn't have too. Most households have more than one car. A BEV replacing the commuter tool petrol in those households will save a lot of gasoline.

 

It would be like saying to drug addict: "you know what your problem is? you don't drink enough sake!". Why on earth Japanese would consider substituting one (oil) dependency on another one (natural gas)? At least with oil there isn't additional infrastructure to build, it is all here. I suppose they could have Gazprom pipeline built, but how that would fly in current political climate?

It isn't aqua they have to compete with; kei car and more so public transportation. Majority of japanese drivers do not drive on daily basis, they take JR or subway.

Putting that aside we shouldn't confuse: what is good for Japan isn't the same what is good for Toyota (and vice-versa). Think, Japan is the only country which has a law does not allowing for range extenders to exceed EV range.

 

If 50% of income goes to housing & transportation costs .... and 1/3 of that 50% is housing, that'd mean 16% goes to transportation costs. Time payments over 4yrs, say $10k down, still leaves (including interest) about $70k of debt .... about $17,500/year. So if $17,500 is 1/6 of your income towards a car payment - the average joe only needs to earn $110,000/yr .... and that will enable a large enough # of buyers to make this work - if you got infrastructure.
.

 

So we agree that as some find bicycling impractical, others may find BEV equally so?

EV (or FCEV) are great idea, unfortunately they are not practical yet. And the technology costs too much, both out of pocket and in tax money.

 

So why do you have an umbrella? Winter boots? 80% of the time you don't need them, right?