Toyota wants hybrids across the board, remains dubious of plug-ins
Speaking at this week's Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City, MI, Toyota advanced powertrain program manager Justin Ward reiterated the company's plans to offer hybrid drive systems in every one of its model lines by the end of the next decade. Toyota already has more vehicles with hybrid systems than anyone else, but will need next-generation systems to support larger vehicles like the Tundra pickup, assuming it is still building full-size trucks in 2020. On the subject of fuel cell systems, Ward described the progress the company has made on efficiency (and hence range) as well as performance and durability. However, cost and durability issues still have a way to go and there is the whole issue of hydrogen production and distribution. On the topic of plug-in vehicles, Ward showed a healthy dose of skepticism. According to Ward, in spite of studies showing that 70 percent of commutes are less than 40 miles per day, having plug-ins with a range of only 40 miles would only cover about 35 percent of total miles traveled. The energy required to charge plug-in vehicles also poses problems. Plug-in proponents point to most vehicles being plugged in at night and taking advantage of off-peak generation and lower costs. Ward told his audience that a study of night time generation indicates that the vast majority of it comes from coal fired power plants. Until carbon sequestration becomes mainstream at power plants the use of coal generated electricity, regardless of time of day won't have as much impact on CO2 as plug-in advocates would like.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
why not the LS2LS7? 7:15PM (8/16/2008)
That's great. Thanks for the same crap I can get from newsmax. I thought Toyota was more forward thinking.
By powering my car from electricity, it becomes possible to power it by natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear or wind, depending on what becomes viable. All this without having to buy a new car or retrofit my engine.
It's interesting about the 35% of all miles. But isn't 35% enough? And does it go up as employers put in power plugs so workers can recharge before returning home in the evening?
Reply
Luke 8:05PM (8/16/2008)
It would have been helpful if Ward had explained how only 35% of the miles traveled are within the 40-mile range. Of course, there are many people who travel more than that, but I know of only a few in my circles. Is he, perhaps, including commercial vehicles? The stats ususally reflect the average drive of the average commuter. Those stats - not Ward's stats - are correct.
Also, allow me simply posture in closing, so as to avoid my usual rant. EV's provide a solution to the problem; ICE simply perpetuate it.
Reply
Sean 8:32AM (8/18/2008)
I think Ward may be mincing words (or numbers.) Look closely:
"...studies showing that 70 percent of commutes are less than 40 miles per day, having plug-ins with a range of only 40 miles would only cover about 35 percent of total miles traveled."
The first stat refers to percentage of TRIPS, the second, cited by the Ward, refers to the number of MILES. One trip could conceivably be 1000 miles or more. (I just did one of these last week.) And he is probably including commercial trucking miles otherwise the numbers don't jibe with each other.
Lou Grinzo 8:05PM (8/16/2008)
"Ward told his audience that a study of night time generation indicates that the vast majority of it comes from coal fired power plants."
This makes perfect sense. As we all know, nuclear and natural gas generation (which combine with coal for about 90% of US electricity) shut down completely at night, forcing us to rely heavily on coal.
Honestly--what is this guy smoking???
Toyota is sounding more like a GM wannabe and less like an industry leader all the time.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 9:58PM (8/16/2008)
I like your comment Lou,
Because in Reality, they keep Nuclear Power going, and shut down coal and natural gas production. And of course, nobody shuts down wind power ever.
jake 8:10PM (8/16/2008)
I think we do know that plug-ins will have little immediate impact on CO2 emissions using the current grid (what was it, 3.5% or something reduction according to some study done by the US government), but I see it having huge impact further in the future just by virtue of diversifying energy production and reducing local pollution. When most of our pollution is concentrated at our powerplants we can work to reduce it much more easily instead of like right now having a hell of a time trying to force automakers (Toyota being one of them) to come up with solutions which involve changes to new cars. 35% displacement of gasoline usage is already a very good number, and it's sure to go up as people get used to plug-ins, esp if given the option with current gas prices.
And what about hydrogen? If you hold it by the same standards as the plug-ins I wouldn't be surprised if it came out as MORE polluting than current cars using the currently avaliable fueling stations (don't bring up solar b/c any plug-in user can also use solar, and more efficiently too!)
Anyways we'll see how plug-ins pan out VERY soon given some are coming out in 2010. This skepticism leads me to believe Toyota definitely won't have a competitor to the Volt by 2010, which I heard some Toyota fans claim.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 10:04PM (8/16/2008)
Jake, again a valid point.
With Electric, auto pollution is No Longer the Auto Industry's Problem! It becomes the Utility's problem.
That ALONE should drive the industry into EV mode.
Do these companies do any due diligence? any R&D anymore? What are the board's of these companies doing? Nothing but collecting a hugely inflated paycheck and rubber-stamping the CEO?
Eletruk 11:06PM (8/16/2008)
Hydrogen IS more polluting, since currently large quantities of hydrogen is created by cracking Natural gas, and so all that carbon from the process is released as pure CO2. Even if Hydrogen wasn't made by steam reformation of natural gas, it takes almost 4 times the energy to turn the wheel of a Fuel cell car than a pure battery electric vehicle. So yea, if some people say electrics are still dirty because the electricity comes from coal, then Hydrogen is 4 times worse.
Richard 8:14PM (8/16/2008)
I still would rather spend my money on electric than send my money to terrorist! It's also a political issue of national security or we're going to keep seeing the likes of Russia invading other countries because they can afford to.
Reply
tankd0g 12:42AM (8/17/2008)
Very few terrorists in Albera.
jpm100 12:35PM (8/17/2008)
But instead of Alberta exporting oil to the US, they'll export it to Europe severing their dependence on Russian & Middle East energy.
darius 2:46PM (8/18/2008)
Richard said...
or we're going to keep seeing the likes of Russia invading other countries because they can afford to.
as appose to the US having 'friendly visits' to Afghanistan and Iraq...
John Hollenberg 11:28PM (8/16/2008)
The whole point of plug-in hybrids is that they would be a bridge to pure EV. Of course electricity isn't currently clean; that is why solar thermal, solar photovoltaics, wind power, etc. are so important. The plug-in hybrids are a step in the right direction. As gas gets more expensive due to the coming of Peak Oil, it may be that those who live very far from work will choose to live closer. The current percentage of miles driven that are within the 40 mile range may not predict what the future percentage will be. I hope Toyota doesn't end up like GM. They have been the most forward looking of the big auto makers so far.
Reply
tankd0g 12:42AM (8/17/2008)
You can get a Prius converted to plug in Li-ion right now. The reason most people don't, it makes absolutely no sense on a cost of ownership basis. Toyota knows this, everyone with a brain in their head knows this. Hell even GM knows this. If they try to sell the Volt at a profit they might as well just send their current hybrids to one of these conversion companies for the $20,000 conversion job, it would make about as much sense to the average consumer.
Reply
darius 2:46PM (8/18/2008)
tankd0g said...
You can get a Prius converted to plug in Li-ion right now. The reason most people don't, it makes absolutely no sense on a cost of ownership basis. Toyota knows this, everyone with a brain in their head knows this. Hell even GM knows this. If they try to sell the Volt at a profit they might as well just send their current hybrids to one of these conversion companies for the $20,000 conversion job, it would make about as much sense to the average consumer.
Yes but this is do to the current high cost of the battery. As production goes up so will the cost go down.
Nico 4:43AM (8/17/2008)
This type of thinking/strategy is gonna hurt Toyota in the long run, just like it did to GM when they decided to keep making the same guzzling SUV's, trucks, and cars year after year. Luckily GM finally came to their damn senses and it will pay off with the Volt.
Reply
John Hollenberg 11:05AM (8/17/2008)
Actually, the Prius conversion only costs about $10,000 right now, and would probably be less if incorporated into the car at the design stage. Plus, costs are likely to come down as battery technology advances and as production volumes increase. Definitely the wave of the future, although only an interim step to pure EV.
Reply
gorr 11:07AM (8/17/2008)
These car manufacturers are late on technologies and will see their market shrink even on regular cars. If GM want to stay alive they must start selling the volt sooner then later. And they invested billions in hydrogen prototype but never collected money out of it except honda. The chinese will take the market if it continue like that with the poor crap on the market right now.
Reply
T2 9:25AM (8/18/2008)
There are now two threads here. It started with the economics of optioning the Prius by increasing the size of its POWER battery with more of the same chemistry until it becomes predominantly an ENERGY storage battery instead. Toyota maintains that this exhorbitant cost is not justified for the performance gain (in mileage).
Accordingly Posters have introduced the BIG PICTURE of grid tied loads.
First, I think I can speak for every one here that the electric motor powertrain is the way to go. Control of large amounts of electrical power using a solid state three phase inverter to drive an induction motor coupled with a fixed gear is both a scalable, and cheap technological solution. That is, when compared to stepped transmissions, auto or otherwise, with all the engine tricks necessary to deliver variable torque efficiently over as broad an engine speed range as possible. We should all be on board with this.
If so, the contention is simply whether the source of that power should come from a downsized motor generator running on gasoline or from a "stinking" coal plant as someone wrote.
Hmm.... have we seen yet how small a genset can be if POWER is the only criterion ? I don't think so. The averse-to-risk manufacturers are still installing what are in essence automobile engines into hybrid cars and buses.
Then, coal plant's are going to be here until other megascale options are in place. Question is they run 10% efficiency by night and perhaps 33% by day.
Will night time charging improve that ? More pollution total but a lot more kwhrs ?
How many VOLTS will it take to do that ? Let's see.....
Residential consumption is said to be about 30% total. If a residential average base load is 16kwhrs then we have to assume that 32kwhrs is the corresponding industrial portion. This portion will be mostly consumed in the 12 daytime hours. So we need to move an extra 32kwhr to night time charging in order to attain the 33% coal plant efficiency. The 32kwhrs required by two VOLTS per household will do this if they start fully depleted, and that is a big IF. Clearly as much as one VOLT car in ten households will not make a dent here.
Time-of-use metering is not going to be the answer either. The investment in new meter heads with telemetry will be activated here in SW Ont. from November. Rates of 2.7cents/Kwh off peak,7.3c/Kwh mid peak, and 9.3c/Kwh on peak will be instituted at that time. Residential users who might install a timer (with overide) on the domestic electric water heater could move perhaps at least 3Kwh to off-peak and that would reduce the need for gas turbine peak lopping plants during the day but more coal would need be burned at night.
Active power management of A/C units and other loads to be controlled from the power company. You sign up, they come install some equipment and you get a rebate. A rolling blackout on these may marginally impair quality of life, but could be used to keep the load factor close to 100%. Again it may keep peak lopping units out of regular service. Still won't avoid coal pollution.
The more I think about it, the inflexibility of coal power cannot be solved by the automobile industry. They should be keeping their own house in order, although I think that benevolent rates to industries because they are buying in bulk should cease. If residential usage is 1/3 of the power generated but burdened with 2/3 the cost, then something's wrong. The consumer is not the party that should be expected to reduce pollution with CFLs etc. Industry savings with smaller investments could be huge once they have the same "incentive" the rest of us have.
If the object is to reduce the petrodollars going overseas the way to do that is to enact the correct taxation policies on engines. Policies which do not corner engineering design into the unexpected consequences of weird science.
Since fresh air is for the taking by some individuals, a carbon tax that goes by gms/mile at 60mph would seem to be the most fair since it penalises on vehicle aerodynamics as well.
However I am of the opinion that the engine capacity taxation rules recently introduced by China may be ill-advised. Liters equate to torque; not the best metric to limit power and therefore consumption. Limits on literage encourage multicylinder engines to gain increased bore area for the same volume without the need to go too oversquare. Race cars go to V10's for that same reason. Not good.
Engine taxation on the bore area itself has been tried in England, I believe, at a time when advanced alloys had yet to be developed to support high piston speeds. I am not sure why but the net result was to encourage heavy, long stroke, low rpm engines.
Taxation on the actual number of bores sounds promising. Since every additional cylinder provides yet another site to burn fuel it follows that limiting the number of sites will save fuel. It may encourage optimal design for each cylinder. Fiat have twin cylinders in the Topolino and soon to be Panda's and the '500' with turbo option, which then begs the question where is the D3's two cylinder development ?
Finally forget lithium ion batteries and PHEVs, shouldn't we be seeing a twin cylinder in the Prius as well ? There is a whole bunch who hypermile this vehicle. They should welcome a twin. The Toyota HSD demonstrates what a 76Hp 4-cyl can do in a midsize hatch, a 65Hp 2-cyl with that system would be even more interesting. Let's see it.
T2
Reply
meme 11:22AM (8/18/2008)
More anti-EV BS from Toyota. The amount of CO2 emissions from switching to PHEVs *has already been studied by the DOE*, and it's a 30% *decrease*:
http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf
PM increases, SOx and NOx remain the same, and VOCs and CO are nearly eliminated. All pollutants are displaced to higher altitudes and less population dense areas than those emitted by cars.
Expect the BS like this from Toyota to continue, however.
Reply