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

Toyota is framing it this way. They seem to repeat that tesla is destined for failure (hmm, but akio toyoda bought a stake in tesla and owns a roadster) because people want fuel cell cars. That is what some of us are fighting.

You don't care if it costs hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to get hydrogen infrastructure in place? I'm sure you mean something different.

Tesla appears to have infrastructure in place in 2018.
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

That suggests that a tesla model 3 can be just as mainstream as the gen II prius, no matter what laws of physics toyota seems to be pretending exist. The push back against Toyota is not because they favor fcv, its because they seem so dishonest when it comes to discussing real plug-in potential. Remember when Lutz railed against hybrids? I think Toyota is having its Lutz moment.

 

Nope, really on one level I don't care.

First of all "Billions of Taxpayer Dollars" hasn't been determined. That's pretty much a Anti-Fuel Cell Lobby battle cry. So we can take that poster down right now. How many Tax Payer Dollars ever actually get spent vs. what we get for them in return is mostly ether right now.

And to me? Like I said, historically we have spent and wasted billions of dollars on many things I would strongly oppose. If we REALLY did build a nationwide hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure using tax payer money, private investment or LOTS OF BAKE SALES...I'd be hard pressed to criticize it.

I suspect a real tax payer based investment into Fuel Cell infrastructure will get aborted by your very attitude. My greatest fear is a 1/2 hearted or compromise investment that really won't be enough. Enough to be "show" for those in the government that want to show support for new technologies, meager and frugal enough and small enough in scope that those that want it to fail or fear "wasted tax payer money" can claim victory in keeping it in check. My guess is we never have to look back and either applaud the investment or bemoan the wasted billions of dollars. If it isn't a game changing investment, it will be a failure and held up every time anyone tries again in the future.

I think a lot of people are blowing Toyota's statements out of proportion and using them as either fuel for what they believe or as fuel to burn against what they don't believe.

And I think that's a waste of time. Toyota HAS invested into The Mirai, so what would you expect them to say today?
On the eve of it's launch they aren't going to come out and say they think EV's and Battery Technology is the future.

Again I think it's too early in the game to come to conclusions. I'm NOT offended that Toyota has built the Mirai. Even if I like TESLA and think EV vehicles are great.

Toyota is a big enough automaker...easily...that they can make any statements they want. If the future unfolds or unexpected advancements in charging or battery technology significantly change the playing field? Toyota can adapt and be right in that game. Just because today some representatives within Toyota are saying they prefer fuel cell over battery technology, doesn't mean that is a written in stone edict either for humanity or Toyota.

 

You are misreading what has driven the anit-FCEV sentiment here. The fuel cell itself can be a big boon for cleaner air. The push back against them is because CARB is picking them as the winner through policy and incentives when plug in hybrids can achieve 90% or so of CARB's stated goals of improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions. And they can an immediate impact simply do to price. Thousands of PHV are sold every year in California, and they are saying only a few hundred Mirai will get sold.

On top of that, FCEV's simply aren't ready for comercialization. California is spending hundreds of millions, not just on new stations, but to upgrade the old ones still out there. The old ones can't meet the 3 minute refuel target. Some can't even completely fill a car using the current 10k psi tanks. Japan will likely be moving to a 12k psi standard. The Mirai already has tanks that can handle that pressure, but will California have then spend more money upgrading hydrogen stations. A Dutch group has a system of prefilling the tanks with pressurized water to make refueling even faster; that will need new tanks and stations. Volvo recently unveiled an fuel cell running on diesel, and research is ongoing to mini onboard reformers to fuel FCEVs with natural gas directly instead of hydrogen. Metal hydride fuel cells are already available for powering cell phones and other small electronics. And there are fuel cells powered directly by methanol.

So fuel cells may work out in the future, but pushing them out now will likely lead to spending more money upgrading the stations or even switching to a different fuel. When plug in batteries improved, people didn't have to put in a new EVSE.

 

On the note of fueling...
CA Fuel-Cell Car Drivers Say Hydrogen Fuel Unavailable, Stations Don't Work

Fuel Cells are awesome, for stationary storage.
They are very good for fleet vehicles that require minimal infrastructure.
And one day, they may be good for cars. But that is a long way off (dare I say ten more years).

 

i know one guy from canadia who drives straight through. what vehicle would make it all the way without refueling, fcv?

 

i didn't say we stopped twice, i said we refuel twice. we stop about 10 or 12 times, but there are no charging stations on i95.

 

Of course, you could run this thought experiment in order to compare to an ICE car. As people enter the gas station ask them if they would like their gas fillup for free or not. The only stipulation is that if they get their gas for free they have to wait for 30-60 minutes (based on their tank level and how busy the station is). I'm guessing that 90%+ will take the free gas. Some people are in a hurry and can't be bothered or have to get some place on a schedule.

The same thing goes for EVs and fast/free superchargers vs battery swap. That is why battery swap is DOA, IMO.

Mike

 

Public is getting conflicting info from Toyota vs. GM (for example) coming out with Bolt hype.
GM is not giving us the technical details about how the Bolt would work re: Battery technology and design.
Toyota seems to be indirectly challenging GM's Bolt hype, but not telling us any technical details either.
Toyota seems feel Bolt/Leaf2 etc is either not a true step-out, or if it is, its an expensive car with manufacturers eating the cost.
Due to the corporate secrets not disclosing technology and costs, we have no option but to wait and see.

 

100% agreed that these are growing pains.
Which is exactly why I put forth that Toyota, and the others should keep these as test vehicles, not advertising them as public release (limited as they are).

 

Discuss

Also toyota forecast for the UK 11 cars this year, 50 cars next year.

 

There are Tesla supercharger stations all along I-95. Bring up google maps and search for "tesla supercharger" or look at the supercharger maps at Tesla's website.

There are also various J1772 AC and DC combo charging stations as well as CHAdeMO DC chargers along I 95 although perhaps not enough to make the entire trip with today's non-Tesla BEVs.

 

The challenge with having a Mr Fusion running every car in the future is that it likely runs on tap water
and put most of the oil industry and gas stations out of business!

Yeah - each mini nuke reactor would also have a dual military use too! (9_9)

 

but the energy density is there. You could design a car which never needs to be filled up!

 

Yes this was the group think of Japan incorporated that Toyota envisioned. It assumes batteries are expensive, and people are fine with short range. Mitsubishi the maker of the imev realized this was a mistaken market, and came up with the outlander phev. I can give you the reasons proposed before the imev underperformed and the eq was canceled, but its too obvious. People don't want these city cars unless they are cheap, they don't get driven many miles, and barely sell in the worlds biggest plug-in market (north america).
+1

polls have quantified, and the case for fast public charging(L3) is not really there outside of road trips.

The early adopters have asked for more range in all the plugins without a Tesla name on it.

BMW and Nissan both have decided that 300 km (186 miles) is what the market desires. Tesla thinks this is the right ball park but picks 200 miles. These are from polls of drivers, not people at CARB trying to shill for the fuel cell lobby. I'm not sure where low speeds are coming from. CARB and Toyota as part of the fuel cell lobby hand picked bad locations and perhaps incestuous venders for stations and now it is taking people over an hour to fill cars with hydrogen in california.

People would like more fast chargers but wouldn't really pay to go faster.

 

Yes, I don't see them having a chance until costs come down and the the 200 mile BEV is established.

L2 is good enough for insurance with the first generation, and for any future econo BEV.

Low speeds includes lower acceleration and was really referring to the NEVs, that the true early adopters drove.
Which is the advantage of plug in cars in the market. While Tesla has been successful, it is possible to offer cars from the opposite spectrum to the market. FCEVs don't have that option.

 

Just one. Does Toyota really have more "experience" than Tesla? If so, why did "experienced" Toyota have Telsa supply the RAV-4EV battery and power train?

 

probably a cost efficiency thing. if you rate experience in years, or number of vehicles, who knows. they have been making hybrids for 20 years.

 

thanks, i'll check it out.

 

"Experience" does not necessarily mean "more advanced" or "better".