Toyota and Lexus Still Hating on Plug-Ins and EVs

There are several micro reactors available. A town in Alaska wanted to use the Toshiba model, but I think they were denied the permits.
Long term test of Thorium-Plutonium fuel started | PriusChat

There are also plans for a modular nuclear plant. The reactor core is a sealed unit. When it dies, just pull it out and pop in a new one.

 

SUN

 

1.You and other agents here, don't leave a change to deceive, do you? So you are calling US military army incompetent in terms of storage security technology compared to public market? You are hilarious and stinky too! Because I distinguish a hidden intention in your wording, to propose allocating to US military army, all the nuclear waste and tailings of US, Russian and each country territory, from which US imports all that ridiculous 80% of uranium! Well, you could also allocate coal mining/plants/waste to military army too! If military activities are excluded from the numbers of these "Environmental reports" and Govt standards as you claim, then you would be able to brainwash people about the "clean grid" and the "clean plug-in car". Then, you should be a good candidate for the medal of the greatest deception, agent Trollbait. It definitely sounds a more convenient plan than your business trip to Fukushima to prove I am wrong by providing some video of your swimming/diving in the damaged nuclear reactor pool.

2.As usual, you call toyota a lier, because they claim mirai is a hybrid. But you don't have problem calling sport800 gas-turbine concept a HYBRID. You are a veteran here and you certainly know the toyota Sports800 gas-turbine hybrid. You know also how it works. It uses gas to produce electricity via engine-generator to feed the electric motor.
You also know that Mirai uses hydrogen to produce electricity via fuel cell to feed the electric motor. Only difference here is the fuel being used. In both cases, engines use oxygen+fuel and have exhaust emissions.

If Mirai is an EV then Sports800 gas-turbine hybrid would have been an EV too!

3.And what is this hilarious claim that hydrogen is not a fuel?
Hydrogen is used as a fuel for gasoline engines too. Mazda RX-8 Hydrogen is an example.

4.You claim how in the future electrical grid will become cleaner, but when you refer to hydrogen production you stick to what has been used to produce hydrogen until today. You do everything to manipulate public opinion against toyota's hydrogen plan and in favour of your clients plug-in EV plans.
You are a S-C-A-M-M-E-R.

 

I've been away to grab the popcorn bag.
Please continue!

 

and here I thought hydrogen cars run on natural gas. For auto applications, isn't that the only way to reasonably bring the hydrogen distillation process down to quasi affordability - at least in this day & age (discounting the conservative cost of the hundreds of billions in infrastructure, of course) ?
.

 

First, you need counseling and medication for your paranoia.

I was merely stating the fact that the US government has made itself exempt from much of the environmental and safety regulations. Work at a government site and are worried about the work place safety, OSHA can't help you. The military has had past issues with both. Some that had nothing to do with nuclear radiation.

Is Fukushima all you got? Think you don't need to bring up Chernobyl or mention TMI? Using accidents at nuclear power plants while ignoring the daily standard operating procedures for coal power plants just further illustrates your irrational fixation on the dangers of nuclear power. No one has died as result of the Fukushima accident. A hydroelectric dam collaspe lead to the deaths of 171,000 people in China. Will there be increased rated of cancer from it? Yes, and the cases attributed to it will likely be in the thousands over the coming decades. Latent deaths due to coal pollution is estimated to be 10,000 to 30,000 a year in the US.

The isotopes that escaped into the environment from Fukushima will linger for quite some time. So will the arsenic, cadium, mercury, lead, and other toxins in the 4 million cubic meters of coal ash slurry that covered 300 acres of land and the Emory river when the containment dam failed in Kingston. That hasn't been completely cleaned, nor will it be. Instead the TVA just has to monitor the wildlife for 30 years. Of course that is all in addition to what goes up and out the smoke stack of a coal plant every minute.

If you want to go swimming in coal ash slurry, there is some still in the Emory river, and plenty of huge, open ponds of the stuff near any coal plant. I would likely get arrested long before I reached Fukushima's flooded basement. Which goes back to the main point, the lower amount of nuclear waste from daily operations is contained and guarded. The job could be done better, but it is still much better than how we handle the greater amount of coal waste and emissions.
What is the worst kind of power plant disaster? Hint: It's not nuclear.
Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First I've heard of the Sports800, but it sounds like a basic serial hybrid. It burns a fuel for its heat to generate a motive force. The motive force spins some copper windings within a magentic field to make electricity for a motor. The Prius makes use of the same basic principle. It just also has a direct connection between the ICE and the wheels. Serial hybrids are a much older technology with gasoline-electric locomotives used back around WWI and the Owen Magnetic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia car available during the same era.

A battery contains chemicals that produce an electric current when they react. A fuel cell produces electricity directly from a chemical reaction. It even has an anode and cathode like a battery. Unlike a battery, the reactants, hydrogen and oxygen, and product, water, just aren't internal as with a battery. At least with traditional batteries that is. A metal air battery uses environmental oxygen and water as a fuel to make electricity.

They all make electricity, but no motive force. Without an electric motor to use that electricity, the car is only moving when pushed. A hybrid produces a motive force with both the ICE and motor. Take out the motor, and there is still an ICE that could possibly make the car move.

I didn't call Toyota a liar, but every company trying to sell something is lying to some degree. The Prius and their hybrid system have been very successful for Toyota. They hope to transfer that success to their FCV through branding with HSD. They are free to do so, and I wouldn't expect Xerox to use a different brand name for their non-copier products. But no other car company calls their FCV a hybrid, and neither does neutral third parties like Argonne National Labs, the DOE, and SAE.

Hydrogen isn't fuel because we have to make it from something else. While it isn't enough to meet demand, gasoline is a fraction of petroleum that can simply be distilled off. I guess it could be called a fuel when made from natural gas or coal. As a fuel, it loses the clean and sustainable benefits though. When made renewably by electrolysis or similar it is an energy carrier. We've taken electric energy and converted it hydrogen so that the energy can be used elsewhere or at a later date.

Hydrogen is likely to made from natural gas simply because that is the cheapest way to make it. Making it from cleaner sources requires people willing to pay for it and/or a government mandate. California has the mandate, but they don't post the price per kilogram, and the car companies are picking up their customers' hydrogen tab. So we have no idea if the public would be willing to pay the price.

People are already paying more for cleaner electric by choice, and there are mandates and incentives in place to also spur on clean electric development. The gird is also already in place. So it will be cheaper cleaning it up and updating it, than building a whole new infrastructure as with hydrogen.

it would be great if I was getting paid for this, but I have no clients, and am just here for personal reasons.

 

That was rather refreshing, actually. Tell it like it is! But remember, he who smelt it, dealt it.

 

Apparently there are no directly attributable human deaths yet from the plant failure (not counting the original earthquake and tsunami damage). But, one of the "Fukushima 50" has died of a cancer supposedly not connected to any radiation he might have received.

I haven't looked carefully at what SAE or the labs say about that but I personally think it's fair to characterize today's FCVs as hybrid-like in their design. Their hybrid-like batteries serve much the same role that they do in ICE hybrids and give many of the same efficiency benefits. This is one reason why it is bogus to make efficiency comparisons between FCVs and conventional gas cars. They should really be compared to gas hybrids.

 

you mean cow poop is a waste of, uh, er, hmm

 

Cow poop has to be processed in quite expensive steps, and let's not forget the breeding/feeding cattle energy and resources upstream.

 

The battery in a FCV is more to make up for a deficiency; a fuel cell can't ramp output up or down fast enough to keep pace with the demands of a car. The battery is a buffer to match available power to what the driver asks. If hybrids used Sterling engines, a comparison could be made. The battery also allows the use of regenerative braking that helps with overall efficiency. Then some of Mazda's cars also have regen braking. We don't call them hybrids.

FCVs and BEVs have the exact same, single source drivetrain. Hybrids have a drive train that blends an ICE one to an usually electric one. I mentioned metal air batteries before. An Al-air one will likely show up as a range extender for a BEV in the near future. It is a battery that supplies electricity to the motor. If we simply refer to such a car as a hybrid because it has two electrical sources on board, we should do so for a BEV that has a Li-ion and NiMH battery. We should definitily call Chevy's bi-fuel CNG/gasoline Impala a hybrid then.

As of now, hybrid is used to describe a vehicle that adds a second propulsion type to a traditional ICE. FCV's don't do that, and have just a straight electric propulsion system.

But they give us ice cream. That's enough hand wave those costs in my opinion.

If the poop is going to be converted to energy, it is more efficient to do so on the farm for its needs, or perhaps a local co-opt.

 

And for good reason...

Mazda's system holds a maximum of 0.007 kWh in a small capacitor which it can release at a maximum rate of 300-700 Watts for a minute or two to help supply power to the car's 12-Volt accessory system. It does not directly provide motive power to the car. It basically helps to offset some of the alternator load on the gas engine.

Mazda introduces supercapacitor-type regenerative braking - SAE International

The Mirai, meanwhile, gets most of the advantages of a full hybrid from its hugely bigger battery which is capable of putting out up to around 30,000 Watts.

Although the Mirai's pack does not offset the exact same set of performance weaknesses of an ICE it is largely equivalent in effect.

 

The iEloop regen system does provide the car with a tangible improvement in overall efficiency. If using techniques that are also used on a HEV for improved efficiency are what it takes to call a FCV a hybrid, then Mazdas with iEloop are hybrids. It has a bigger battery, and was the first commercial car with regenerative braking, perhaps we should just call them all BEVs after the EV1.

Take the fuel cell and hydrogen tanks out of a FCV and replace them with a low C primary battery. When that battery's output is enough to meet the demands of the driver, it directly powers the traction motor. When demand exceeds its output, the smaller rechargeable battery covers the difference. The rechargeable pack is charged by regen braking and primary battery during times driver demand is lower than its output.

Now some random passerby on the street asks if its a hybrid like the Prius. How do you answer?

 

So, you retreat from your previous claim about the validity of taking into account military sites as a example of storing/handling dangerous radioactive waste. You felt so badly the urge to DEFEND your plug-in agenda that you brought an irrelevant excuse into debate, just to move away from this embarrassing issue.
...and you continue in the same pattern
You are trying and trying and trying again to make it a debate of coal vs nuclear! But its hopeless, because both are ugly and should be banned.
...and you continue in the same pattern
This is your reply to my claim that if mirai is an EV then sports800 gas-turbine is an EV too.

So you basically answer "Yeah! I know that! But look at the prius! It works like that! And then you talk about the prius and you conclude

You knew that the only difference between sports800 gas-turbine and Mirai is the fuel. Since, you would have sound fool to directly answer me and call the Sports800 gas-turbine an EV, you chose prius to prove your wording. Typical seller behaviour, agent Trollbait!
Fact is that Mirai transforms hydrogen gas to electricity just like Sports800 transforms gasoline to electricity. That alone makes Mirai a hybrid, like Sports800.
...and you continue

I am sick of your lies.

My brain is boiling, trying to understand what do you mean. Anyway, you have confidence. After your swimming to nuclear reactor pools remember to take a trip on a volcano. Until then don't even try to answer me. There is no reason to debate wasting my valuable time.

I mean it, don't even try to reply to me. I won't answer.

 

Yes, about 5% or 1-2 mpg which makes it worth doing because of the limited addition cost. A full hybrid system including a ~1.5 kWh hybrid battery pack increases efficiency over a conventional car by 35-55%.

I understand the concern about terminology, but I think it's fair to say that FCVs are "hybrid-like" or usefully analogous in some ways to a full hybrid design even if not technically defined as hybrids.

 

Promise??

 

You might try the "ignore user" feature. Just click on the user avatar and hit the ignore user link. It is very effective and well done.

Hummmm, where did he go? Oh yea, ignore user. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

Do a Google search of certain PC screen names, they are not only posting in PC.

Work for a Social Media Management company? Social Media Marketing - Get Paid From Social Media Jobs !

 

I just don't see how poorly handled and regulated radioactive waste from operations that have nothing to do with power generation have a bearing on the discussion of pollution caused by nuclear power plants. There is also a fair amount of radioactive waste from research and medical use. I wouldn't use examples of how well or not that waste is handled for discussing nuclear power either.

And yet this is the first time you mention coal at all after multiple references of the dangers of nuclear power.

Renewable electric sources for electricity are not ready to supply the grid 100%. Then when they are, there will still be environmental and public health damage from their manufacture. So unless you are living in the woods like Mick Dodge*, it is a game of pick your poison. I see coal as the worst. Then natural gas or nuclear depending on specific priorities and applications.

Since Japan is turning away from nuclear, how do you feel about them making hydrogen from coal?

*Even then, camp fires emit particulates and some other pollutants while running the risk of a forest fire.

Then you agree the Mirai isn't a hybrid then. I'm glad we can agree on something.

I was clear on the differences besides the fuel in responses to you and others. feel free to go back and reread them. I am in no rush.

I have been called a terrorist for not agreeing that ethanol in gasoline is the absolute worse thing ever. So you can spare yourself some typing time, and probably mental stress, if you just dropped trying to link me to the MiB, Illuminati, or whatever conspiracy you think I am part of.

Above, "I was clear on the differences besides the fuel in responses to you and others. feel free to go back and reread them. I am in no rush."
While you are rereading my posts, why don't you also find somebody else besides Toyota that is calling fuel cell vehicles hybrids.

And I am tired of your selective reading ability. But at least you stopped with the multi-colored posts.

I don't see the difficulty. We don't have a pipeline to the sun or Jupiter for hydrogen. So if we want hydrogen for cars, we have to break the chemical bonds tying it up to other elements here on Earth. In short, make it from natural gas, coal, poop, or water.

One can hope, but I think my screen name is going to live up to its non-intended purpose.

 

In regards to regenerative braking, it first appeared on a BEV, and is available to consumers on an ICEV. It doesn't even have to involve electricity. So it isn't the sole domain of hybrids. When it comes to describing how the battery pack of a FCV is used as a buffer, I think hybrid-like is fair to use. Though, you might then have to describe how it works on a hybrid.

I just take exception to when a FCV is called an actual hybrid. I understand why Toyota does it, but it just spreads confusion and is a disservice to the public. There is still plenty of misconceptions floating around about hybrids themselves. Why tack those on to your FCV and compound upon them? Toyota releases have stated that the fuel cell is directly anagolous to the ICE in a hybrid.

The FCV should be straight forward to describe to the public. I mean, BEV working's are actually easier to describe than an ICEV's. You charge the battery, that electricity spins the motor, and makes the car go. For a FCV, just say it works like a BEV, but makes electricity from hydrogen instead of charging up from an outlet.