Toyota plans a shorter-range plug-in hybrid
Toyota Motor Corp. is on track to start testing the prototypes for its first crack at plug-in hybrid cars later this year, a spokeswoman said yesterday.
By Jan. 1, the company expects to release 500 plug-in versions of its Prius onto American, European and Japanese roads, said Toyota spokeswoman Cindy Knight. The cars will use lithium-ion batteries, not the nickel-metal hydride packages seen in Priuses today.
The pilot will kick off a three-year effort by the Japanese auto giant to get data on how these cars fare in the real world: how they’re charged, how their batteries perform, and what sort of mileage they get. In recent years, Toyota has resisted pressure to develop a plug-in, even using commercials suggesting that plugging in hybrid vehicles is a bother.
Engineers will use the new plug-in data to design a more widely produced plug-in version of the Prius, but they don’t intend to copycat other companies’ plug-in efforts, said Tom Stricker, director of the energy and environmental research group for Toyota North America.
The Chevrolet Volt, which General Motors Co. has slated for release late next year, would get a range of 40 miles on all-electric power before firing up its gasoline engine. GM says it based the range on statistics showing that 75 percent of American commutes are less than 40 miles. Early forecasts are that Toyota will aim for an all-electric range of 10 to 15 miles instead.
Batteries are the most expensive part of any electric-drive vehicle, Stricker said, and Toyota has decided that a 40-mile range is too much.
I believe a shorter all-electric range makes sense for early plug ins from both a design and cost-effectiveness basis (see “CMU study suggests GM has wildly oversized the batteries in the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid” and “Has GM overdesigned the Volt: Is a 40-mile all electric range too much?“) Here’s more:
“That might not be the right number if it costs you $15,000 a battery and nobody buys it,” he said.
He pointed to research from Carnegie Mellon University suggesting that about half of U.S. miles driven are for trips shorter than 20 miles.
In its three-year pilot, Stricker said, Toyota will try to find a sweet spot — a balance between all-electric range and the pricey batteries needed to power it.
“The key question for plug-ins, from a design perspective, is how much of an electric range is really necessary, and what will that cost,” he said.
It’s not a bad strategy, according to Andrew Frank, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Davis, whose students once built a plug-in SUV with a 50-mile all-electric range.
Lithium, the main ingredient in the batteries, is hard to come by. So “for the amount of lithium available today, you can build three times more Priuses that are plug compatible than Chevy Volts, since the battery packs are one-third the size. And you make money by selling cars and not batteries!!” Frank said in an e-mail.
Frank said the more cars Toyota sells, the more the price of its batteries will fall, enabling it to make cheaper, longer-lasting cars.
Maldives govt goes underwater for climate change
To bring attention the risk the Maldives face from rising sea levels and climate change, President Mohamed Nasheed is going to the bottom of the Indian Ocean. On Saturday, he and 12 cabinet ministers will don scuba gear and dive 3.5 meters (11 feet, 6 inches) under the surface of a turquoise lagoon to hold what is billed as the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting.
It is the latest of Nasheed’s eye-catching moves to bring attention to the Maldives’ plight before a landmark U.N. climate meeting in Copenhagen in December. “The message is we will do anything, everything, to live in this country,” Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam told Reuters.
The archipelago nation off the tip of India, mostly known for its high-end luxury tropical hideaways and unspoiled white-sand beaches, is among the most threatened by rising seas. Rising sea levels of up to 58 cm, as predicted by the U.N. Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, threaten to submerge most of the Maldives’ low-lying islands by 2100.
The underwater cabinet meeting is a part of the 350 global campaigns, which call for a reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide to the safe threshold of 350 parts per million (ppm). Current levels stand at 387 ppm. Seated around a table and using hand signals and slates, the cabinet will endorse an “SOS” message from the Maldives to be presented at the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen.
“We must unite in a world war effort to halt further temperature rises,” an advance copy of the statement made available to Reuters said. “Climate change is happening and it threatens the rights and security of everyone on Earth. With less than one degree of global warming, the glaciers are melting, the ice sheets collapsing and low lying areas are in danger of being swamped.”
Behind Chamber Controversy: What’s Driving Energy Firms On Climate Change?
Lately, we’ve been documenting the exodus of companies from the Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to serious efforts to address global warming.
But as the Senate gets set to take up climate change legislation, already passed by the House, there’s a larger question behind the Chamber’s woes: What’s motivating energy-sector companies on both sides of the issue, and how are their positions affecting the debate on Capitol Hill?
Experts stress that, even within the utility sector, a range of factors drive companies in different directions. Perhaps the most important is to what extent the utility has already begun to shift away from carbon-intensive fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — toward renewable sources. Thus, Exelon — which was an early mover on de-carbonization, divesting itself of its coal-fired capacity over ten years, and becoming one of the leading providers of nuclear energy — left the Chamber recently and supports efforts to pass strong legislation. Meanwhile, Southern Company, still heavily oriented around fossil fuels, remains a Chamber member, and did not support the House bill.
Another key factor is the existence of different regulations in different states. PG&E, another refugee from the Chamber, is responding in part to the fact that California, where it operates, has in place a very strong renewable portfolio standard, requiring utilities to make a significant shift over to renewable sources in the coming years. As a result, national legislation would actually be helpful for PG&E, in part because it would make things easier to attract developers and capital for new projects.
US must help poor nations deal with climate change: experts
Experts and aid groups called Thursday for the United States to help poor countries deal with the effects of global warming, as Congress considers key climate change legislation. Testifying before a Senate panel, humanitarian organizations called for US aid to help countries with “adaptation solutions” in response to the effects of climate change.
“Congress has a unique opportunity to invest in adaptation solutions today that will pay off both immediately and in the future,” said David Waskow, climate change program director at Oxfam. “We urge you to help ensure that at least three percent of the resources in comprehensive climate and energy legislation are devoted to adaptation efforts in vulnerable developing countries,” he said.
Peter O’Driscoll, director of ActionAid USA said “there is no viable alternative to investing in climate adaptation: helping people, communities and entire countries face these consequences must be a central pillar of US foreign policy.” General Charles Wald, former deputy commander of US European Command, warned that serious climate change could pose a security threat. “On the most basic level, climate change has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a frequency far beyond those we see today,” he said.
11 Groups to Senate: Block Weakening of NRC Licensing for New Nuclear Reactors
Leading U.S. environment and energy groups call on the Senate to reject any additions to the climate bill that would further “streamline” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing process for new reactors, because it could threaten public health and safety. The groups explain in the letter that “the acceleration of those review and hearing processes would not address the real cause of delays in the NRC’s licensing process: premature submission of incomplete and poor-quality applications by the industry.”
The full text of the letter submitted to all 100 U.S. Senators is as follows:
“Dear Senator:
As the Senate crafts a comprehensive climate and energy bill, we are writing to urge you to reject any provisions that would further undermine the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) existing, truncated licensing process for new reactors. Both Congress and the NRC have already streamlined the NRC’s processes for internal staff reviews, the licensing process and associated public hearings so drastically that any further acceleration would fatally undermine public confidence in the safety of US reactors. Furthermore, the acceleration of those review and hearing processes would not address the real cause of delays in the NRC’s licensing process: premature submission of incomplete and poor-quality applications by the industry. Public health and safety could be jeopardized if there is a rush to construct new nuclear reactors without allowing resolution of the significant technical uncertainties present in all new reactor designs, such as their resistance to aircraft attacks.
The NRC’s licensing process for new reactors already has been accelerated in two major respects. In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, anticipating standardized reactor designs that could be generically approved by the NRC and incorporated by reference into individual license applications, Congress collapsed the former two-step licensing process (construction permit review followed by operating license review) into a one-step Construction and Operation License (COL) process. In 2004, the NRC further truncated the licensing process by eliminating the public’s right to take depositions or cross-examine opposing witnesses in individual licensing hearings.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Why is it so hard for car companies to build cars with a good range now? You’re talking about only a 10-15 mile range, since 40 miles is too much? WHAT???
GM’s EV1 had a 100+ mile all-electric range, and so did Toyota’s Rav4 EV. This didn’t even require lithium-ion batteries, and the car was using 1990′s technology too.
Remember though that the EV1 apparently cost around 60,000 to build and it was only a 2 seater. Even the 40,000 price tag for the Volt will put it well out of reach of most people.
So far, the Leaf or the i-MIEV are the cars that look like they’ll be the most practical and affordable for the most people.
The pro-nuclear zealots will never be satisfied until the NRC licensing and regulatory process is completely gutted and the nuclear power corporations can build whatever they want, wherever they want, with no government oversight at all … just hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts to the nuclear power corporations with no “strings” attached.
If the EV1 were so expensive, why did GM crush the cars instead of selling them? And don’t tell me that there were no buyers – plenty of people driving it wanted to buy the cars after their leases were up. You’re saying that it’s only a two-seater, but nearly all of the cars on the road right now only have one or two people in them. For those with large families, the Rav4 EV would accommodate your needs. It too had a 100+ mile range and a pretty good lifespan.
Just think about it – if you had some valuable artwork that you didn’t want, what would you do, throw it away or sell it? For those of you who don’t see the analogy, replace “you” for “GM” and “valuable artwork” for “car”.
As long as the price tag of such a plug-in (10-15 mile battery range) isn’t more than a few thousand above a regular plug-in, I’m ok with it. If someone has a longer 20-30 mile commute, they drive half of that off the battery and half off the electric-gas mode, assuming 50 mpg for a normal hybrid, that would be a 100 mpg trip.
As the owner of a 26-mile range all electric conversion, I’ll tell you that it meets my commute needs about 90-95% of the time. I make sure I know by the time I leave in the morning if I’m going to be going further than that. 40 miles would be overkill for me. I wouldn’t want much less, since I don’t have any backup, so I need a margin of safety. With a gas engine backing me up, 15 would be sufficient. By the way, don’t ask me how I know it’s a 26 mile range and not 27 (I’ll just say that I did make it home that night… barely)… The way I see it, there’s a potentially huge market for a 10-15 mile hybrid. 15 would cover my everyday commute, plus grabbing lunch close by. This range would also cover a lot of peoples’ commutes that end at the regional express-bus, light-rail, etc. stop in a lot of neighborhoods. Personally, when marketed, I think Toyota should consider offering range as an option (10 miles for X extra dollars, 20 for 2X, etc.). But, I can see how this make sense from a marking standpoint. Ultimately we need longer ranges, but this seems like a logical starting point to build from.
I personally would hesitate to buy a Plug-In with less than 65Km/40 Mi range, and would prefer 100Km.
But different people have different needs, and I would strongly favour car companies offering a variety of ranges, from say 24Km/15Mi to 160Km/100Mi
GM’s decision to crush the EV1′s was a strategic choice. I happen to agree that for a first attempt at a mass-market plug-in that a 15 mile range is a sensible compromise to keep down the cost. Maybe by the time the Volt is practical, it will need the 40-mile range to compete. My car has about a 30-mile range, which is just enough for one leg of my commute. If I had to go all-electric, I’d need at least a 60-mile range. Toyota has a pretty large lead over GM in the plug-in hybrid race, and the choice to keep the cost down looks like the right marketing call.
From Jay:
“GM’s decision to crush the EV1’s was a strategic choice.”
Could you elaborate further on this? Why would you want to destroy something instead of selling it to someone who wants it? If I had some books that I no longer need, I’d be selling them, not burning them.
Also, crushing the cars would hurt GM’s image, which would negatively impact their sales in the long run.
Just for reference, the EV1′s were expensive – GM never invested in true production standard tooling (metal) to have real production level rates for producing it – by the time production funding choices came around for the EV1, GM already wasn’t going to fund it for true production – so you had that huge development budget for a totally new vehicle technology spread over a small number of hand-built (basically pre-production) vehicles. So, yeah of course they were expensive, even without the batteries in them. The EV1′s used the much cheaper preproduction tooling (like that used for the current run of 80 pre-production Volt’s) which is made of resin and stuff like that – its cheap and is only good for limited production runs (the purpose being you can change things in the tooling easily as you work the kinks out in pre-production prior to building the metal tooling for the production line). That choice for production tooling tells you GM wasn’t actually intending the EV! for real production (the jig was already up by that point for the EV1).
With regards to Toyota, they don’t want plug in electric vehicles….they own the market for hybrids (like Microsoft owns operating systems for PC’s) and want that to be the solution for the consumer (to the point that they have been consistently talking down electrics since the Volt was moved forward by GM). Make no mistake, if the Volt was dropped by GM, the plug in Prius would get moved back by several more years if not a half a decade over what Toyota has backpedaled on it already.
GM will only be making 50k or so of the Volt’s for the first couple of years and I’m sure they will sell out of every one of them – lithium supply will not be determining whether you can buy one or not – that is a red herring (wouldn’t be suprised if Toyota didn’t bring that up as a talking point). Toyota was originally worried about the Volt and said they’d be selling the plug in Prius at the same time, but have now pushed that back – since they have figured out they don’t need to.
Next year GM will start selling Volt’s, Toyota will be launching its 3 year testing of a Plug in Prius using lithium batteries (as noted in the article cited above)…which they could have done 3 years ago or 6 years ago if they wanted (they just didn’t want to)…you can take a look at that and see which company is actually wanting to supply the consumer with a true electric from the grid option and change the future of the marketplace, and its not Toyota – they’ll go reluctantly into this market (as they are currently doing).
All that said, I own a Toyota, I don’t have anything against them, but they are not our friends when it comes to getting the electric plug in market place created – they want the status quo (hybrids at best). Just my $0.02.
The key problem with plug-ins is their batteries must have huge capacity. Batteries do not have high energy density per unit weight, and will have to be very large and heavy to supply the energy needed for longer trips. Also, batteries can be discharged to just one third to one half of their capacity to have a reasonable life. That is, if you discharge the battery too deeply, the life of the battery deteriorates rapidly and this huge investment must be replaced frequently at very high cost.
You simply can not afford it. And this is the reason why Toyota was against self modification of their Prius to plug-in. Toyota can not afford to replace the batteries under this condition. It will cut their 100,000 miles life expectancy by probably three to one, depending on use profile.
There is something more important than the mileage issue here: what is the energy life cycle cost of these cars? Why are we attempting to replace gasoline driven cars by electricity driven cars? We assume that the electric cars will cause considerably less greenhouse gases that the oil driven cars. Hopefully that is the case, but we are not looking at the total picture.
We must be focused because we do not have time to spare. Because of the time-criticality of global warming we need to focus on the best techniques to reduce the maximum amount of greenhouse gases at the fastest rate. Nationally I would concentrate on efforts to replace the largest number of gas guzzlers by low gas consuming cars at the shortest time possible. Most of the public would not buy plug-ins for many years, until they have improved by a significant amount and proven themselves.
We need to tax GHG- producing fossil fuels soon. To change the buying habits of the public we should increase the price of gasoline to levels approaching Europe, and start with a minimum of five dollar a gallon. In conjunction with it we need to compensate low income people along the way to reduce their economic pain during this necessary transition to low fossil fuels use.
We should continue to develop electric cars, but don’t look at it more than an R&D effort for years to come. Battery technology is the limiting factor because, it is hard to replace gasoline since it contains considerable amount of energy in a very small volume. We need to cut our driving and not expect that by the magic of electricity we could continue our wasteful way of life, in my opinion. Please note that half of US electricity would continued to come from coal power plants, and PV solar panels can contribute just a miniscule amount of energy to the total national use. PV is window dressing and is not likely to generate much electricity until its price drops to one tenth of present level, according to Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu.
And what is the energy life cycle cost of these cars? It may be high. I attempted to find out but could not since Toyota refused to provide this information even under court orders to do so in both the U.K. and New Zeeland, according to what seems reliable internet information. Toyota agreed to reduce their green claims rather than answer the courts.
The batteries are high energy users, they are very costly since they use rare materials, (disposal problems?), are very complex to make, and it is also hard to achieve high safety levels with these complex batteries.
In summary, to find the real story we need to dig below the superficial level we normally approach most problems in the US.
Is there some reason why my comments are not being posted???
[JR: Not sure. They went into spam.]
If battery metals are so rare, don’t we run into one of the same problems we have with oil? When do we hit “peak lithium?” And where do the metals come from? Are they produced domestically or imported? If they are imported, what countries are they imported from? What environmental damage is caused by mining for these metals?
I’m in full support of battery power in cars but are there other issues we don’t foresee? Kind of like how biofuel crops led to vast deforestation, extinctions and food shortages?
“If battery metals are so rare, don’t we run into one of the same problems we have with oil? When do we hit “peak lithium?””
Unlike oil, lithium can be recycled. Lithium doesn’t account for a significant fraction of the battery’s cost. Battery metals are rare because unlike gold or oil, no one has put much effort into finding them until recently.
Keep in mind that the first mass produced, affordable, plug-in hybrid passenger sedan is already being manufactured: by a Chinese company, in China.
And Nissan has announced that they will start selling affordable, mass-produced all-electric passenger sedans in the USA in 2010.
And the Norwegian company Think is moving forward with their compact electric car.
And the all-electric Smart car is on the way.
Toyota and GM are not the only players.
It is important to note that the battery pack of the Volt is designed to attract the full amount of the subsidy laid out in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. The legislation provides tax credits for the purchase of PHVs of $2,500 plus $417 for each kWh of battery capacity over 4 kWh: up to $7,500 for vehicles under 10,000 lb, $10,000 for vehicles weighing 10,000-14,000 lb, $12,500 for vehicles weighing 14,000-26,000 pounds, or $15,000 for larger trucks and equipment.
So the Volt, because of its 16 kWh battery pack, would get the full $7,500 in subsidies, dramatically reducing its sticker price to $32,500. The Prius PHV would have approxiately (the kWh value does not have a linear relationship with miles of all-electric range (AER), and let’s assume similar weights) 4-6 kWh, meaning that the subsidy would range from about $2,500-$3,334. The question is then whether the larger cost of the battery pack of the Volt can be under $417/kWh so that a higher vehicle price per mile of AER does not occur. But the higher utility of being able to go further in all-electric mode will certainly be worth something to consumers.
The main point is that Stricker of Toyota is right to point out that there is a “sweet spot” for miles of AER and battery pack size. However, the subsidies (currently federal in the U.S., with state/provincial and municipal subsidies that may arrive in the future) must also be considered during this optimization.
I therefore disagree with Joe that the Volt’s battery pack is too big. I think that the jury is still out on the financial implications of this question, although I would stress that the well-to-wheel emissions of the Volt will be less (assuming the current distribution of sources in U.S. electricity production) than a PHV with a lower AER.
Re #13. Mike D on ‘peak lithium’// Lithium is not as abundant as silicon but it is not a scarce element. It’s as common as sulfur and more prevalent that Cu or Zn in the earth’s crust.
A few years back high purity silicon wafers were scarce with attendant shortages and price hikes. There were predictions by trade ‘experts’ that the ‘impending shortage’ would soon hamstring the Solar Build-Out. But as prices rose, new capacity was built. And someone invented a new process that makes solar grade silicon ingots much more cheaply. That is part of why First Solar’s manufacturing costs dropped below $1 watt.
Joe often points out that such changes are the sort we should expect. But unfortunately they are also ignored by many economic forecasts. Especially those which lock into projections based on a static market. Here is info on the new process -
RSI Silicon commences Solar Grade Silicon production – Reduced product price and energy use
Award winning RSI Silicon lowering the price of solar
Cost of plant – one tenth of present process. Building time – 1/2 to 1/3rd of present
V. nice Video interview (5 min)
Also, the 10/14 LATimes has a story on how concern over the availability of rare earths has caused Molycorp Minerals to begin reopening their mine in California.
Toyota ought to design them so you could optionally have 1 or 2, maybe even 3, battery packs. That way you could choose the right range for your commute.
On the subject of battery weight, lithium batteries are much lighter than other types. Lithium is the third element after hydrogen and helium and is the lightest solid. While other batteries such as lead-acid and Ni-Cad have an energy to weight ratio of 40-60 Wh/kg (watt-hours/kilogram) the lithium-ion’s have a ratio of 100-200 Wh/kg so they’re 60%-90+% lighter for the same energy.
Dr. Matania Ginosar,
There are many statements in your post with which I take issue.
“Why are we attempting to replace gasoline driven cars by electricity driven cars? We assume that the electric cars will cause considerably less greenhouse gases that the oil driven cars. Hopefully that is the case, but we are not looking at the total picture.”
No, we don’t just assume that greenhouse gas will be reduced, it’s been studied extensively and the reductions are real and significant. This is true even if 100% of electricity is made from coal! If you care about global warming, then you know we need to get rid of the coal plants anyway. Already 9% of electricity is produced from wind. There are plenty of people looking at the big picture! You say on one hand that EVs will not be adopted by consumers, then argue that instead we need to increase the cost of gasoline with taxes. Why are these two things exclusive? Higher gasoline casts will increase EV adoption. Those two tactics are complementary, not exclusive at all!
“The batteries are high energy users, they are very costly since they use rare materials, (disposal problems?), are very complex to make, and it is also hard to achieve high safety levels with these complex batteries.”
Ok, lithium is not a rare material, does not have disposal problems, is not complex to make, and is not difficult to achieve high safety levels. Amazing how just about every word of that statement is wrong!
To BBHY above,
I am not saying we should not do more R&D on electric cars, we should. I am saying that it is not likely to make much difference in the near future in the total emission of GHG because of many reasons, some of it is market penetration difficulty relating to cost, availability, public perception. Please do not confuse my projections of the technology by assuming I am against it. I Believe GW is extremely critical issue and we must focus on the best approaches that are likely to make a significant reduction ASAP.
Like you I wish we can cut coal now, drastically, I wish we can replace gas consuming cars now with electric cars, but the time-urgency of GW is real and we need to see what is possible and likely and not mislead ourselves.
Regarding batteries for electric cars, there are many problems that many do not seem to be aware off. It is a highly technical and complex product. There are contradicting requirements that stand in the way of reasonable cost, reliability, energy density, and long life.
Just because we wish it so, does not mean it is easy to achieve.
I suggest we develop solar (PV), regen., hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen, battery technologies into self-powered urban rail systems (no catenary) and reduce the planned buildout of billions of global private transport machines. This would allow efficient use of materials and clean energy for sustainable urban transport systems. The US auto fleet is downsizing now, and clearing our clogged highways will provide numerous benefits including eliminating billions of dollars of wasted time and resources as well as new economic development, like that which is already occuring around transit systems.
Hurricane Rick: Giant storm roaring up Mexico’s Pacific coast is the biggest in a decade
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1221252/Hurricane-Rick-Giant-storm-roaring-Mexicos-Pacific-coast-biggest-decade.html#ixzz0UMXxLP91
I agree that this is a smart strategy by Toyota. By far the best near-term (ie. next 20 years) option will be various types of plug-in hybrids. They will have the option of traveling short distances on electric power only, but will address “range anxiety” by having an ICE backup, either as a drive engine (Prius) or recharge engine (Volt).
Drivers of these vehicles will have the benefit of zero-emissions driving over short distances, but without the limits of electric-only vehicles.
Toyota is already planning to undercut the Volt in the marketplace, and the Volt won’t be out for another 2 years.
Isn’t this “GM killed the electric car” thing a bit overdone. GM killing the EV1 doesn’t explain why Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Ford, Chrysler, Daimler, VW, Fiat, etc. didn’t go ahead and bring to market a fully electric vehicle in the 1990′s. The world just wasn’t ready for it.
“The world just wasn’t ready for it.”
Logically and empirically that is a rather vacuously self-serving announcement. It is blatantly circular since it justifies the claim that the electric car did not emerge with the observation that the electric car did not emerge. The circularity compounds itself with its refusal to ask WHY things happened this way; it thus willfully ignores the forces and hegemonic domination that a major corporate player like GM can (or at least could) impose upon the market under the ideological mask of market fundamentalism.