A petition to Toyota to build electric vehicles

I did read your posts, no need for sarcasm.
I'm just trying to clarify your position.

So here, by referring to patents again, would I be correct that your position is that because Toyota can file for patents based on its R&D, that will give it a strengthened position in the marketplace in the long term?

Would it then follow that your position would be that is also why Toyota isn't expanding into the plugin market? Because they failed to get any such patents prior to their competitors??

 

I think it's important here to draw the distinction between "impossible" and "difficult to achieve." Perpetual-motion is impossible to achieve; it defies the laws of physics. Converting energy into hydrogen cheaply may not be impossible, but we don't know for sure, and it doesn't defy any known laws of physics.

When batteries were first invented, the search was on for a way to prevent the electrodes from corroding. It was eventually declared "impossible." It may still be impossible, but we have found ingenious ways to slow it down, by reversing the "corrosion" when the battery is recharged. Similarly, hydrogen production may some day be as easy as plugging in a rechargeable battery, but for now it's a wasteful process, and it can't compete with the stored energy we pump out of the ground, in the form of petroleum.

 

Since cost had been sighted as the primary reason, whether or not a needed battery design is already patent-restricted is out of scope for the current market.

Looking to next-gen, we really don't know. Chemistries are rapidly developing and changing the playing field.

Sadly, we don't know the full story... which makes the assumptions still being made rather problematic.

 

What is yours?

Remember when Prius was first revealed to the world back in October 1997 ? That's basically where we are currently with the fuel-cell outlook. Following that same history, availability will be limited for the following 6 years until the next generation. What will the industry be like with respect to hydrogen and batteries then, in 2021 ?

 

So rather than clarify your position you ask a question?

My position is FCVs are a foolish use of resources. That the focus on them at this stage achieves nothing that Toyota couldn't achieve between a lab and tightly controlled fleet sales.

FCVs are in no way where the Prius was in 1997. Hybrids already had a nationwide infrastructure in place and the price point was much lower (inflation adjusted).

EVs also needed some infrastructure, however they had some of the infrastructure needed nationwide. Even with this drawback, they are still catching on faster than hybrids did.

And my position is that Toyota is being foolish in contracting their plugin programs, and downright GM-like in the way they are talking down EVs.

Now that I have answered your question, would you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

 

So, real experts armed with keyboards are found in this forum, ready to lecture everyone else, really?
What makes you think everyone wants a BEV?
Except maybe for Nissan Leaf, they are all down this year. The reason for the increased number of EVs on the list is that new models are constantly added and continue to sell in small numbers.
Check Volt 2012/2013/2014; Monthly Plug-In Sales Scorecard

 

Toyota sold 37,000 Prius cars from 1997 to 2000 and then another 33,000 of the slightly more refined 1st generation Prius cars from 2000 to 2003. That's about 70,000 cars in 6 years.

They won't sell anywhere near that many Mirai during the next 6 years. I would guess less than 10,000 worldwide.

 

QUOTE="Zythryn, post: 2112330, member: 39976"]So rather than clarify your position you ask a question?

Now that I have answered your question, would you do me the courtesy of answering mine?[/QUOTE]

I'm done playing this game. Stop asking the same things in each new thread. I'm annoyed, but will answer the question anyway. Please don't ask anymore.

It is already well known that I'm in support of that plan, because it doesn't interfere with the advancement of either the batteries or electric propulsion system.

It is already well known that I'm not in favor of tax-credit dependency and firmly believe each automaker must strive to offer a cost-competitive choice for middle-market.

It is already well known that I'm supportive of diversity, efforts to reach out to wider audiences to expand the market.

It is already well known that I'm interesting in new technology which pursues the goal of business-sustaining profit through high-volume sales.

It is already well known that I'm pleased that fuel-cell, electric-only, and hybrids share common components, making mainstream viability realistic for the masses.

It is already well known that I'm against using electricity just for the sake of not using gas, that it doesn't necessary mean the vehicle is actually cleaner.

What else is needed to satisfy the question?

 

Since when do quantities have to match? After all, predicting prices & behavior is only an educated. There's no way to know where the advancements will take the technologies either.

The point is it's a similar approach.

 

No, not at all. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was saying everyone wants a BEV.
I'm not lecturing anyone, John asked my position, so I provided it.

To be clear, I don't think BEVs will ever work for everyone.
I do think they will always work for, and be more desirable by more people than FCVs.

As for year over year sales, the plugin market is growing every year. Yes, the Volt is down this year, but the rest more than make up for the difference.

 

You are the one that asked for a comparison John:

Again, you ignore the fact that hybrids didn't need a new infrastructure and FCVs do.

 

I directly addressed that, pointing out the existing industry of oil support will transition over to hydrogen.

Goodbye.

 

btw, oil refineries are currently heavy consumers of electricity.

It takes roughly 6 kWh of electricity to create 1 gallon of gasoline.

 

Oh no not this again...not true...closer to 0.15 per gallon of refined product

 

Wjtracy is about right on 0.15 kWh per gallon of gas. It could be as high as .30 kwh per gallon and it varies based on the characteristics of the crude oil and the processes in use during refining.

One thing I nailed down recently is that the electricity used in refining gasoline really is proportional to the ratio of gasoline refined. In other words, roughly 50% (it varies slightly) of the output from a refinery is gasoline and roughly 50% of the grid electricity used by a refinery is used for refining the gasoline portion of the refinery output. I had just used that as a rough assumption previously but it turns out to be literally true according to a study I found.

Anyway, this report below has a handy table which lists the energy used in the refining process by type, absolute amount, and by its percentage of the total energy used. This document reports that 5.2% of the refining energy is grid electricity. Other reports that I have seen are as low as 3.5%. The amounts vary by year, refinery, and type of crude oil being processed but 3.5-5.2% seems like a typical average for grid electricity.

So, in other words, it takes about 6 kWh of "energy" to refine a gallon of gasoline and electricity is 3.5-5.2% of that 6 kWh or 0.21 - 0.31 kWh of grid electricity per gallon of gasoline that is refined.

If it were really 6 kWh of electricity and electricity was 5% of the energy used in refining that would imply that 6 divided by 0.05 or 120 kWh of energy is used as input in addition to the energy in the crude oil itself in order to refine a gallon of gasoline which contains only 33.7 kWh of energy after it's been refined. Nobody would believe that (I hope).

Refining crude oil is actually about 85-91% efficient depending upon how you count things and whose doing the study. The link below also talks about this. Assuming 88% efficiency then 33.7 kWh of energy in a gallon of gasoline divided by 0.88 would give a total energy input of 38.3 kWh meaning that 38.8 - 33.7 kWh or 4.6 kwh was used in refining but gasoline takes a bit more energy to refine than Diesel, for example, (around 20% more?) so the actual number is a little higher than 4.6 kWh. Assuming 6 kWh of energy for refining a gallon of gasoline is certainly in the right general area.

See Table 3 on page 5 of this 2011 ANL report on petroleum refining efficiencies in the United States.

https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/petroleum

The total energy of all kinds listed in the table typically makes up 5-7 kwh of energy (not electricity) for every gallon of gasoline.

Also see my detailed response at the thread below concerning a recent "volts for oil" episode of the FullyCharged video podcast that covered this topic from a UK perspective and got it all wrong:

My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - Pollution: EV vs ICE

So.... The electricity is likely used to provide nighttime lighting at the refinery, to run electric motors hooked up to pumps and exhaust fans, and power to run process control computers. The other 96% of the energy is used mostly to create heat in order to separate and then shake and bake the hydrocarbon molecules into more convenient forms in order to optimize the gasoline output and octane grades.

 

Awesome find Jeff. I've been looking for that data for years!

While the 6kWh electricity use has always bothered me, it is really nice to have hard data.
It is a valid issue to raise the co2 emissions due to this 5-6kWh of energy being used.
People should be careful though and not spread the false/misleading information that it is 6kWh of electricity.

 

Why would they when it will likely be cheaper for them to convert to alternative liquid fuels, like alcohols, biodiesel, and even biomass to diesel or gasoline. If any hardware needs to be changed, it will just be seals and hoses. A hydrogen station requires a whole new set of tanks and pumps, and outside of interstate rest stops, current, privately owned, stations don't have the real estate to have both gas and hydrogen systems while the fleet transitions. They are going to stick with a liquid fuel for the same reason car buyers do, cost.

 

If toyota would just aknowledge the part of this POS not being ready for a decade, yes even a 8kwh will only cost $2000 by then with just manufacturing improvements no breaktrhoughs. Certainly a fcv doesn't need a 60kwh battery, so sure batteries are not a problem as a cost for fcv.

The shame of it is the Toyota PR repeats that batteries need 2 breaktrhoughs but fcv are ready now. Ready for 200 leases next year? That seems far behind. What audience are they knowing?

 

Why would they indeed.

The existing infrastructure has a lot to lose by allowing a new infrastructure to replace it. In a world where a few points off the bottom line can end a career, they wield considerable influence where it counts most for them. They are not omnipotent however, and a mass-movement is hard to squelch, therefore changes can come, but not in the time-frames imagined by idealists.

An example is Big Tobacco. At one time, they were nearly omnipotent, suppressing research which showed tobacco to be dangerous to health; they paid doctors to endorse them, and many celebrities to be smoking their cigarettes while appearing on TV and in movies. But eventually, piece by piece, their empires fell apart. All the truly big money has pulled out of the tobacco industry and put their focus elsewhere. It can happen, but it can't happen without a good deal of public-will.

 

Right. This is accounted for by ANL GREET which says that from well to combustion gasoline emits about 24.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon as opposed to the 19.4 pounds that comes from the direct combustion of the gasoline itself. I don't know what the refinery-only part of that extra 5 pounds or so is.