Toyota officially goes Plugin

Unlike what this article claims, Toyota has always been interested in plug-in technology. Heck, the fact that Prius so easily supports it is proof.

But as usual, this particular publication once again ignored some facts. Toyota has repeated stated that battery technology is still not to the affordable (mass-market) stage for pack that large and they do not want to support increased electricity use until our sources become cleaner. Coal is a step backward, when it comes to overall emissions. Where the heck are wind turbines!

In the meantime, Toyota has focused on refining the technology. So when we do get a practice plug-in, it will be pretty sweet. And thankfully, that time grows near. Patience.

 

Actually it was posted last week: http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=22154&hl=

But this is a new article and worth the read. They have it right - Toyota for a long time publicly denied any interest in developing their own PHEVs, but didn't put down eDrive's efforts. The last few months they've been dropping strong hints they might be investigating plug-ins. But this is the first official announcement of such research in place.

John - MN has plenty of wind turbines, over by the SD border, but granted, it's a small percentage of overall electricity generation. They're adding more every year, however. I think MinnPower is one of the few places to still burn petroleum for electricity. My hometown in northern MN tried to build a small biomass power plant (using leftover wood products) but that never happened for a couple reasons, primarily apathy by powers-that-be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jul 26 2006, 09:24 AM) [snapback]292524[/snapback]</div>

If the plug-in is based on lithium-ion, then presumably Toyota won't need to maintain charge at 40-80% to protect the battery. There would be more usable battery power for the same size battery, if you could (say) let it drop to 10% before the engine kicks in. You might be able use the battery at 100% of charge. So even if the new battery had the same charge capacity as the current battery, you could get further on the charge, which is important for short journeys separated by plug-in charging. Since lithium-ion is lighter, you could have more battery for the same weight, adding range.

 

The PV array I am planning from my home will have 200 monthly kWh budgeted for plug-in use, good for about 12,000 annual miles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 26 2006, 07:37 PM) [snapback]292880[/snapback]</div>

Good for you EricGo! That is thinking, dreaming, planning & believing ahead & it will work to your & the world's advantage! I for one will be very interested in how your efforts come along. Please keep us posted when it all begins materializing!

Best Regards,
Wayne -- http://privatenrg.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leo @ Jul 27 2006, 09:06 AM) [snapback]292827[/snapback]</div>

Actually, for NiMh, you really don't need to maintain charge at 40-80% to protect the battery. You can deep discharge NiMh down to 0% and all the way up to 95% without problems.

The biggest problem with NiMh is heat. If you cook (overheat) these batteries, and they vent, they are broken. Heat is based on how fast you charge or discharge the battery. Hence the Prius limits EV mode to 35mph or less. MOST heat is generated when discharging the battery FAST, or charging it up past the 80% mark FAST.

While Li-Ion batteries hold more charge per weight and size, they are quite limited compared to NiMh or NiCad.

1. You don't want to over-charge a Li-Ion battery. They potentially can and have started fires when overcharged. Sometimes they will even explode.

2. You don't want to discharge a Li-Ion battery to 0%. Like Lead-Acids, number of cycles you can put the battery through, greatly reduces when you do this.

3. You don't want to over-heat a Li-Ion battery. Unlike NiMh, they will explode or vent when gone past a certain temperature.

If Toyota decides to switchover to Li-Ions, I believe their safety protocols on how the Hybrid system handles the battery would be even more stringent than what is being used for the NiMhs, for the reasons listed above.

And because of these limitations to current off the shelf Li-Ions, I doubt Toyota will settle for off the shelf Li-Ions. They will do the same that they did with NiMhs... Have some custom ones built for their car. Hence, the price concerns.


Jimmy

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 26 2006, 07:37 PM) [snapback]292880[/snapback]</div>

I would love to know more about your pv array. I really want to know if that's a viable solution here in Atlanta and on my house in particular... who are you talking to about it?
McKaya

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jimmyhua @ Jul 30 2006, 09:59 AM) [snapback]294577[/snapback]</div>

Hi Jimmy,

You may find these links of interest:

http://www.valence.com/SafetyVideo.asp

http://www.a123systems.com/html/technology.html

Lithium-ion has advanced considerably to address all of the concerns you raise. No more probs with safety, overcharge, fire-risk, cycle-life, discharge rate etc

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mwbueno @ Jul 27 2006, 05:07 AM) [snapback]293074[/snapback]</div>

Not to steal Eric's thunder... I thought I should point out that I've been driving on sunshine for several years now - lately with a Toyota vehicle that consumes NO gasoline. My small PV array not only allows for 12,000 annual miles in the EV, it also covers the electricity consumption of the household.

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/solar.htm

 

Darrell, not to worry. NO ONE can steal your thunder
It was in part your web pages that helped me realize that PV is prime time now, and I want to thank you !

Wayne, thanks very much for the kind words, but truth be told, the tax credits and utility subsidy of PV in New Mexico are so generous, that it borders on a no-brainer decision.

When up and running, I'll post the money and production numbers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 31 2006, 08:17 AM) [snapback]295024[/snapback]</div>

Do you know anything about nanosolar? Any feelings about it as a new solar technology?

 

Burritos,

What is nanosolar ?

Talking about alternatives to silicon, I looked over the website of a Mass company that is making holgraphic glass to concentrate the visible spectrum (and reject IR) onto high efficiency PV. It looked promising (not to mention cool!), but they are just starting to commericalize it, and I lack the engineering or physics background to to critique it.

 

Nanosolar is a company that is using roll to roll thin film technology to dramactically reduce the cost per watt of solor PV. They just signed a deal in SF to construct a 430 MW/yr production facility. Only time will tell if what they've got is good. It looks promising but until it's available who knows. I've seen the holographic stuff too. It's a great idea. Anything to reduce the amount of Si in the panels. All of the major solar mfgs are scrambling to do that right now. There's another company that's using miniature frensel lenses to create a kind of concentrated PC module. Again, the idea is to maximize the SI resource to drive down the cost per watt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 31 2006, 08:17 AM) [snapback]295024[/snapback]</div>

Kudos indeed darelldd!

I aplogize, I have been quite busy on several projects & I don't get out of my hole & look around very much these days. Good Show!

Wayne -- http://privatenrg.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 31 2006, 08:32 PM) [snapback]295417[/snapback]</div>

tripp,

Do you know of any sites with what you consider to be credible projections about where cost per peak watt might be heading in the next few years? Even a credible discussion would be helpful.

*EDIT*

Belay that. A representative of the compay was quoted on CNET (cached here):

http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/CNET100MM.htm

If I did the math right, I paraphrase his statement as "a 400 MW installation now costs $2.50 per watt, ours will cost $0.25." Elsewhere they say 10% to 20% of current cost per watt at full production.

If they get 10 W/sq ft., that 400 MW installation price works out to $2.50/sq. ft. in bulk. That's roughly the price of high-grade asphalt shingles. Quite a boast, quite something if true.

 

I love Nanosolar's bullish revenue statement:

"Our revenue aspiration is to be the fastest company ever to go from $1 to $1 billion; and to sell $100 billion (in '05 dollars) in PV panels by 2020. "

That's why they have huge investments from both the most cautious and the most adventurous mega-scale investors. Imagine if your shares in it went from $1 to $1Bn!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Aug 1 2006, 12:22 PM) [snapback]295702[/snapback]</div>

If their patents exclude competition, and their cost numbers are correct, I can see why they'd be optimistic.

Let's say I'm the first guy on my block to Astroturf my yard with Nanosolar PV. At $2.50/sq ft, 10 peak watts/sq ft, assuming 3.5 peak-equiv hours per day here in hazy No. VA, selling the output to Virginia Power at $.0.065/KWH, then it would cost me $30,000 to Astroturf my yard with PV, from which my return would be nearly $10,000/year (=12000 sq ft*10w/sqft*3.5hrs/day*365days*.001KW/w*$0.065$/KWH).

And -- I'd never have to mow the lawn again.

I believe that net financial returns to US cropland are at best in the low $100s/acre/year. Who'd grow corn for ethanol if this were the alternative use of the land?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Aug 1 2006, 06:55 AM) [snapback]295632[/snapback]</div>

No I don't have anything like that. If you come across something ping me and lemme know. I've just cobbled together a picture of the industry from reading a lot of stand alone articles.

Here are the basic categories as I see them:

1.) The traditional single and polycrystalline mfgs and products. Here the efficiencies are still going up as the design is refined but long term I don't think the price will come down much because the process is just expensive and requires a lot of high grade silicon. As we've seen with Germany's huge appetite for PV the cost of panels has actually gone up as demand has outstripped supply. All of the major players in the industry seem to be scrambling to secure long term SI feedstocks.

2.) The amorphous crowd. This is where the action seems to be. The pros of amorphous are thin-film capabilities and substantially smaller SI inputs. Also, mfgs are looking to the roll-to-roll process that will allow them to produce more panels faster. Evergreen solar has it's own technique that drags wires through molten SI and then deposits the thin film of SI on a substrate. Again, it's all about using less SI. The down side is that efficiencies are lower and the durability isn't well known since the technology is pretty new. The cheap amorphous stuff seems to degrade quickly, but I don't think that this is true for the higher quality building grade stuff.

3.) Quantum dot et al. This is the nano tech sphere. It's all vaporware at the moment but in a couple of decades could revolutionize the industry.

4.) Novel approaches. A couple of companies out there are looking to combine concentrated solar energy and high quality SI to achieve good outputs. The holographic approach is cheap the mfg and reduces the SI input by 50% or so. The drawback to holographic is that it can only concentrate to something like 10 suns. Anyother company (forget who) is using wee frensel lenses to concentrate the sun's energy on standard single or polycrystalline cells to increase the output. I think that both of these companies have products that are already hitting the market or are coming out "soon".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Aug 1 2006, 11:37 AM) [snapback]295740[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but the supply of energy would quicly outstrip demand. Using current solar tech and area of 102 X 102 miles located in Nevada would meet current US demand. So power would be cheap and food expensive. The market would probably balance that well. There would be a lot of reasons to move towards pure EV vehicles if you could power it off of your roof with no subsidies etc. You wouldn't need to produce a lot of ethanol.

 

tripp,

Thanks, that was very helpful.