Featured Long-Range EVs Are The Antithesis Of Efficiency And Sustainability

Thanks for the updated numbers, I saw them in a later post of yours on the sign in a pdf. I only had US and Japan where all plug-in hybrids have decreased including toyota's, and was only looking at toyota not toyota/lexus. When we pull out the prime (since its a plug-in) and earlier prius phv, I see 25% increase for toyota + lexus, 11% from toyota. That's a 4.7% average annual growth rate, which is quite disappointing compared to my hopes back then, but much better than I had thought.

Since some of the hybrids now are using lithium instead of nimh, I have not seen any factory expansion of toyota's nimh production. That is why I said they didn't need to invest in battery production to make those hybrids. They likely had all the nimh factories they needed in 2013 (they had expanded quite a bit until then). They have invested a little for the prime and some of the hybrids in lithium. Still it looks like from their recent announcements they will be spending more on lithium battery production for phevs and bev, and that is a good thing. As I posted earlier it takes about 3 years to bring a high volume battery plant on line, depending on when they started we could see more in 2022 or earlier. I really expect most will be built on the new platform that is just being developed now, so I don't expect really high volume in bevs or phevs from toyota until 2024 given their past product introduction strategy. They are a fast follower and I applaud that they are going to join. This is opposite the supposition of the headline of the post. They are talking about 4.5M hybrids in 2025 and 1M plug-ins and fcv per year. My guess is the latter number will be easier than the former unless many of those hybrids are of the mild type for the european market instead of full hybrids as toyota is producing today.

 

Well, not all hybrids are made the same, and power-split designs like the HSD may not make the best use of resources. You point out that the Prius motors are powerful enough to make it a BEV, and some people have done so. The reason for that is that power-split designs need oversized motors to work properly. The Ioniq is about as efficient as a Prius, but it uses a parallel hybrid system. Keeping a traditional transmission allows the use of less powerful motors, thus smaller magnets and less copper. In Toyota's defense, parallel full hybrids that were consumer acceptable weren't possible when the Prius came out.

Then we can make do with less rare earth minerals for motors. The Model S and X specifically avoided their use with induction motors, and the gen2 Volt used a basic 'iron' magnet in one of its motors. There are trade offs, induction motors are less efficient. Then there are other options. Improved cooling of motors, more specifically, the magnets, will allow the use of less rare earths. Using a multispeed transmission on a plug in will allow the use of a smaller motor.

Expecting car companies to exceed regulations is unrealistic, and ignores basic human behavior. A typical individual can't even obey speed limits. Toyota uses the same engine and emission controls in the Prii sold in all fifty states, yet they only apply the minimum required emission controls warranty outside CARB states.

On board emission testing is a recent development. It is still expensive, and adds weight. Monitoring operating engine parameters may yield a good approximation of emissions, but it is still an approximation.

People wanting to lower CO2 emissions. That is why Europe has issues with it now, because they were concerned with powering carbon dioxide from transportation long before hybrids were available. Remember, the Prius came out, in just Japan, in 1997. Globally, hybrids have only been an option for twenty years.

 

if the hfcv people could lay out their case, i could at least try to understand it. but i haven't seen any scientific data point to the future of hydrogen in personal vehicles.

not so with bev's, there's all kind of data, and proven improvements in batteries, motors, charging time and renewable energy

 

In fairness, FCEVs have been improving since GM first unveiled the Electrovan. Today's FCEVs use air instead of needing to also carry tanks of pure oxygen for instant. With mass production, the cars could cost as much as a hybrid. For that to happen with hydrogen fueled ones, the refueling infrastructure needs to be in place first. That hurdle is more economic than technical.

 

making hydrogen, transporting hydrogen, storing hydrogen at filling stations for mass transportation, all more difficult and expensive than electrons

 

Yep, but fuel cells themselves aren't limited to hydrogen.
Hydrogen was chosen because the most developed type of fuel cell runs of it, and it has virtually the same emission benefits for the car as a BEV.

You are. The Prius was a product of the government of Japan's low emission vehicle program, which started in the '70s.

When it comes to diesels, Toyota may be as bad as the rest.
Japan Releases (Nasty) Diesel Test Results, Germany Sits On Them

 

Bob Wilson

 

I've participated in other threads, with other articles and authors proclaiming the hidden evils and absolute futility of an electric car future.

I guess I could cut and paste my answer.

But really?

Seem's somewhat strange that I've seen 2-3 recent pieces with one thing in common, all proclaiming that Electric Cars aren't the future.

Call me suspicious, but when I hear one note repeated?
I wonder who's paying the band.

 

This news cycle was likely started off by a post from Emission Analytics, a company that provides on road emission testing. Aside from simply generating site traffic, I see no ulterior motive for them. The post, and the blog that inspired them to do this, refer to battery shortages as a temporary thing. The message isn't that plug ins are a poor use of resources, but that hybrids are a better one when supplies are tight. The difference is subtle, and many could miss it.

We were to use the conclusions presented as gospel on how to use the battery supply for cars, we shouldn't be making full hybrids in addition to plug ins. For a set amount of batteries, mild hybrids will do the most in reducing carbon emissions from cars.

The actual conclusion of the post was that we shouldn't favor one approach through policy. The old "don't pick the winner."

Hybrids are 14 times better than battery electric vehicles at reducing real-world carbon dioxide emissions — Emissions Analytics

Others, like the OP article, saw this as a chance to spread their own, self-serving take.

 

.... all very true, possibly. Then, still, wouldn't we additionally be left with $15/liter fuel - either via re-fueling from sourced NON-renewables (not even counting sequestering lots of C02 / coal ash), or alternatively, 4X the inefficiency wind/solar generated electricity - (compared to efficiency of just putting that same juice into an EV's battery) ?
.

 

The prices in California reflect the hydrogen being 30% renewable. It would be cheaper if it was all made from natural gas.

The only thing hydrogen has going for it is tailpipe emissions. It is a horrible choice for transportation. However, that does not mean fuel cells aren't an option. They can run on other fuels, and they potentially can be more efficient than an ICE.

 

Well some is cheaper by electrolysis, but that reflects grid emissions, some by natural gas, some from other carbon based fuels like coal. I would say california's renewable mandate simply makes the experiment more expensive as a means of greenwashing. The bulk of the california experiment investing has already taken place, and results are poor so far. We should get a new status report in July or august, but IIRC california only has $80 million more to spend on infrastructure. There are 40 hydrogen stations in california and 24 being built. Those 64 have taken a lot of the money, they anticipate 64 stations by the end of next year. That's enough for roughly 4x the fcv on california's roads. Who will buy the cars. Currently there are 6855 fcv (cars, suvs, busses, shuttles) in california, and 3034 in Japan. These are by far the 2 biggest markets. Japan is investing a lot more, and we will see next year if they make a big splash in time for the olympics, or its like the busses in vancouver.

We all know the least expensive fuels to distribute when oil is out of the equation are electricity and methanol. Both can be made and distributed less expensively than hydrogen, but both are mostly made by fossil fuel or nuclear today.

Even if you are 80% efficient reforming methanol on board for a pem fuel cell then a mirai would get 67 mpge x 80% or 54 mpge, this is about the same as a prime or camry hybrid would get on methanol. Flex fuel hybrids and phevs would likely be less expensive than fcv, but sure when the fcv costs come down its possible. Toyota's dynamic force engines are 41% efficient which likely is as efficient as fuel cells running methanol.
Compare Side-by-Side

 

Starting with natural gas, a CNG Camry hybrid would use as much of the fossil fuel as a Mirai. Possibly less, I can't recall if I included the energy to compress and chill the gases.

When I speak of fuel cells as option for cars, it is in a future where most on the road are a plug in of some type. With the balancing of efficiency, emissions, NVM, and packaging, a fuel cell may end up working as a range extender. But there will also be other options by that time.