Toyota Green Problems

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69534

Interesting read.

It is blatantly obvious why Toyota doesn't want to see CAFE standards raised.

Lets think about it for one second.

Toyota sells cars with high fuel efficiency while GM and Ford do not.

If Toyota hops on the bandwagon and opposes higher CAFE standards, the legislation will not pass.

GM and Ford will continue to crank out SUVs, Trucks and cars with substandard fuel economy.

Toyota will continue to produce fuel efficient cars and with gas over $3.00 a gallon, Toyota will sell more and more cars.

More and more cars = more and more Money for Toyota.

Their opposition of the CAFE legislation is purely a business strategy.

Oppose legislation that will keep your opponents in business and support legislation that will lead to their downfall.

Toyota should want higher fuel economy standards because they are ahead of the curve. If higher fuel economy standards were in place, Ford and GM would be screwed. Unless maybe Toyota can't meet the standards either. If so, they shouldn't claim to be such a green company. Toyota is in bed with oil companies just as much as the big three. That is the bottom line.

VW will have TDi's again. Hopefully next year. I guess they will make the new standards. BMW, Hyundai are rumored to bring diesels to the US soon as well.

If higher fuel economy standards were in place, Ford and GM would be screwed.

VW will have TDi's again. Hopefully next year. I guess they will make the new standards. BMW, Hyundai are rumored to bring diesels to the US soon as well.

Ford and GM have a huge presence in Europe where they build highly fuel efficient vehicles that would meet American emissions standards. All they would have to do is bring those products over here. They won't because they seem to think that they won't sell stateside.

I honestly hope the legislation passes in its aggressive form and they are forced to bring the Ford and GM of Europe cars over here, they are soooo much nicer than the stuff we get stuck with, especially the small and mid-sized cars.

As for TDi's, I'm all for it. Despite the fact that Diesel is $3.49 a gallon at the nearest gas station, the superior fuel economy and low emissions of newer diesels is certainly attractive. Diesels are part of the solution to the oil problem. More diesel can be produced from each barrel of oil, and diesel cars typically go further on a tank, which equals huge oil savings if most of the cars in the US were diesel instead of gasoline. The problem with diesel is that it isn't available everywhere and there are fewer mechanics / dealerships that can work on them. Those things would change if diesel wasn't relegated to large trucks and a couple of Mercedes-Benz models like it currently is.

Ya, Ford does have diesels in other parts of the world. They can also get decent power out of a 4cyl gasoline car. So are American's refusing to believe that they can get decent power from anything less then 6 or even 8 cylinders, or because auto makers have force fed American's that SUVs are safer. The bigger the better. Or maybe our current gas prices are just forcing us to change. I think everyone should see the movie who killed the electric car. It does show that auto makers don't want to deviate from oil. The fact is that other states besides California were looking to adopt zero emissions laws. Imagine if that took off and say maybe 20 states now had laws that 20-30% of the cars sold in that state had to be zero emissions. That would be a lot less oil used and a lot less SUVs sold. One sided documentaries (although I thought it was pretty fair), if you talk to anyone in the automotive world, they will tell you that most of the money is made selling trucks and SUVs. A car company might only make a few hundred off of a car, if that, but they could make 10K and up making a truck. Automakers are part of the problem and have been for a long time. Toyota included.

The nice thing about diesel is we can use bio-diesel. Many people are already making home WVO. Just the other day I saw a diesel truck towing a diesel benz. While not everyone can do that because it takes time and knowledge and the willing to work at it, the rest of us will be able to buy bio-diesel from the pump. The cars don't need to be modified for production bio-diesel. Indiana is working on a plant to make the most bio-diesel in the US. In warm weather B100 can be run, and in colder weather B20. Maybe in extreme cold weather B10 or B5, but for most people they can use a LOT less oil.

As far as mechanics, I don't think that would be that big of a problem. If anything, diesel's are actually easier to work on. The newer ones only need glow plugs on start up. After that the engine and turbo produce enough compression and at the same time heat that glow plugs are not needed once the engine is running.

I am sitting back and watching with a bowl of popcorn to see if the price of oil and global warming threats cause people to change before laws do. I've been wanting a old diesel benz for years now, but they are stupid hard to find, and at the moment I don't have the time to do the whole WVO thing. Once the new TDi's are out, I'm in. What's crazy is, if you search used VW cars, they have tons of used gasoline cars, but almost all the TDi owners hold on to there diesel. BTW, if anyone else is interested, the current rabbit is made in Germany, not Mexico. So if you want a German built German car, a TDi rabbit will probably be the cheapest TDi option for 09,10 models.

Diesels are starting to catch on in oz. Diesels make up 40% or so of all small/medium VWs sold here, as well as many peugeots and renaults. Here you can now buy a diesel Mazda3, and Mazda6, as well as diesel Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo, GM Holden Astra and Ford is even considering a diesel in the new Falcon, due next year. As the price of oil remains high and awareness of global warming increases I reckon diesels, hybrids, and generally small cars will be the way of the future. Toyota is doing a smart thing business wise - let your competition cripple them selves and boost your own sales. So then while GM and ford scramble to develop good compacts for the nth american market, toyota can hone their product.

I think my next car will be a diesel or a hybrid - or even both...

I think that, however, companies are wasting money on hydrogen technology. Biofuels are the only way cars can remain clean and affordable. The earth can support, fundamentally, a biofuels industry based on high yield crops of bioethanol and biodiesel that churns out twice as much oil as we use nowadays. Biofuels have been used since the 70s, whilst noone is really using hydrogen at the moment.

In my humble opinion, all this talk about switching to ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen fuel cells, etc is a waste of time and money. You want to know the future of cars? Check out this one:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kRd7ER7u-KU

EV is the future and I hope, oh how I do hope, that Tesla makes America realize it again. EVs are superior in every way. They return 90% energy efficiency, meaning 90% of the energy stored in the batteries goes to the wheels. Most hydrogen fuel cell cars and biodiesel cars return barely 20%. Even the most efficient hybrid only returns about 40%. With an EV, there's absolutely no emissions what-so-ever, harmful or not. It uses the most simplistic design ever; only 12 parts. No need for gaskets, headers, exhaust systems, oil lubrication, EVAP testing, or any of that other junk. Tesla is proving that the fatal flaw of an EV, its limited range, is becoming a thing of the past. With 250 mile range on a full charge and a 0-60 time of just 4 seconds, no one car bash this car as another slow, dorky EV.

If Tesla does come out with a cheaper economy EV sedan or coupe, I'll definately look to buy it. Sorry Toyota, but I can't wait for you to drag your feet.

In my humble opinion, all this talk about switching to ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen fuel cells, etc is a waste of time and money. You want to know the future of cars? Check out this one:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kRd7ER7u-KU

EV is the future and I hope, oh how I do hope, that Tesla makes America realize it again. EVs are superior in every way. They return 90% energy efficiency, meaning 90% of the energy stored in the batteries goes to the wheels. Most hydrogen fuel cell cars and biodiesel cars return barely 20%. Even the most efficient hybrid only returns about 40%. With an EV, there's absolutely no emissions what-so-ever, harmful or not. It uses the most simplistic design ever; only 12 parts. No need for gaskets, headers, exhaust systems, oil lubrication, EVAP testing, or any of that other junk. Tesla is proving that the fatal flaw of an EV, its limited range, is becoming a thing of the past. With 250 mile range on a full charge and a 0-60 time of just 4 seconds, no one car bash this car as another slow, dorky EV.

If Tesla does come out with a cheaper economy EV sedan or coupe, I'll definately look to buy it. Sorry Toyota, but I can't wait for you to drag your feet.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a joke, a political game as far as I'm concerned. Everyone in American now uses E10, so I don't see how ethanol is a joke. I know it's not the best answer, but in the future it will be cheaper to make. Not sure where you getting the 20% return from, but that sounds like a loaded number. How much is only using foreign oil costing us? If you throw in all the data, not using alternative fuels is going to cost us way more. Just because we only have a infer structure for oil doesn't mean we shouldn't try and change because the return isn't the best today. Using oil has started wars, created dirty politics, and might have already tipped our climate too far to fix. With China and India using so much oil, the question of how much oil is left for everyone really is becoming a honest question. It is also driving up the price of oil. I think the trick to future power resources is to not try and have one set standard in the US. It totally makes since. In Indiana, I can use bio-diesel. Also, if people can make fuel out of sloppy used oil. It is anything but a wast of time and money. Also, bio-diesel is the cleanest running fuel so far. Bio-diesel lubricates better then petrol diesel too. Out west where there is lots of wind and sun, they can use electric cars powered by wind and solar power.

So far, my favorite is bio-diesel for the mid west because it's something that is already being used. I don't think the numbers are in, but it is damn near impossible to find a good used diesel car. Some of the ones I did find had already been converted for bio-diesel and were selling for way more then they would normally be used and way more then I would pay for a old diesel that could break the day after I bought it. Also, bio-diesel can kind if sneek in to use. Since petrol diesel cars are already on the road and will be sold again in a few years, probably in much greater numbers, owners who want to can use. EVs on the other hand are going to be fought very hard. They already failed once. No gas, hardly any moving parts, no oil, filters, engine upkeep. Ya, all the people who make money off that stuff are totally going to just let EVs take over. At least with bio-diesel, people will still have jobs, only we can give US farmers our money instead of fat cat oil companies. The next gen of hybrids should be plug in hybrids. That is probably the best your going to see in a long time. I just can't see automakers getting rid of a engine any time soon. Maybe more companies like Tesla and other private companies will find a way to make cheaper, cause I priced out a Telsa how I wanted it and it was over 100K. It's currently not very realistic for most buyers.

When finding power of the future, jobs and real profits are going to have to be a part of it. Or it just won't work, no matter how great or perfect it is.

I just used 20-40% as an average number range for comparison. I was mistaken in adding hydrogen fuel cells to the list. They are just as efficient as batteries, but considering they cost over $200,000, don't expect anyone outside of hollywood to drive them.

Its not very difficult to find the exact data of energy efficiency, the amount of energy contained in the power source vs how much is applied to the wheels. Just search google, wikipedia, or Tesla's website.

- Most modern gas engines have an efficiency of about 30% If you go back about 40 years before fuel injection, valve timing, etc, it was about 15-20%

- Because hybrids use regenerative breaking, the can return anywhere from 35-50% of their energy, depending on how you drive

- Diesel returns about 35% efficiency if you turbocharge the engine. There's a misconception that diesels can achieve 50% efficiency, but that's because a lot of people fail to take into account that diesel has a much greater energy density

- Ethanol is probably the worst of them all. It returns about 20-25% of its energy potential

- Biodiesel is about the same as regular diesel, about 35%, but only if its made correctly

The point I was trying to make is that efficiency wise, batteries will always beat combustion engine. Combustion engines are notorious for wasting energy in the form of heat. Driven properly, an EV car can return 95% efficiency. With hard driving at peak power, the Tesla was still able to return 85% efficiency. Even the best alternative on the market can return at most 50%, and that's if you drive like a grandma. EVs today aren't the joke they were 15 years ago. That's what Tesla is trying to do. By making an expensive high performance sports car, they are trying to break down the stereotype and prove EVs have the potential to take on a Lambo without all the guzzling and mechanical trouble. Hopefully it will pave the way for more economical and practical commuter cars. If they just came right out with another GM EV1, it would probably flop as fast as the DeLorean.

About Automanufacturers and mechanics losing their jobs, TOUGH LUCK. Mechanics have been screwing the consumers over for years. Anyways, its not like Americans aren't going to still need mechanics to change and balance our tires, check our steering fluid and brakes, or repair dents and collisions.

I just used 20-40% as an average number range for comparison. I was mistaken in adding hydrogen fuel cells to the list. They are just as efficient as batteries, but considering they cost over $200,000, don't expect anyone outside of hollywood to drive them.Its not very difficult to find the exact data of energy efficiency, the amount of energy contained in the power source vs how much is applied to the wheels. Just search google, wikipedia, or Tesla's website.

 

- Most modern gas engines have an efficiency of about 30% If you go back about 40 years before fuel injection, valve timing, etc, it was about 15-20%

- Because hybrids use regenerative breaking, the can return anywhere from 35-50% of their energy, depending on how you drive

- Diesel returns about 35% efficiency if you turbocharge the engine. There's a misconception that diesels can achieve 50% efficiency, but that's because a lot of people fail to take into account that diesel has a much greater energy density

- Ethanol is probably the worst of them all. It returns about 20-25% of its energy potential

- Biodiesel is about the same as regular diesel, about 35%, but only if its made correctly

The point I was trying to make is that efficiency wise, batteries will always beat combustion engine. Combustion engines are notorious for wasting energy in the form of heat. Driven properly, an EV car can return 95% efficiency. With hard driving at peak power, the Tesla was still able to return 85% efficiency. Even the best alternative on the market can return at most 50%, and that's if you drive like a grandma. EVs today aren't the joke they were 15 years ago. That's what Tesla is trying to do. By making an expensive high performance sports car, they are trying to break down the stereotype and prove EVs have the potential to take on a Lambo without all the guzzling and mechanical trouble. Hopefully it will pave the way for more economical and practical commuter cars. If they just came right out with another GM EV1, it would probably flop as fast as the DeLorean.

About Automanufacturers and mechanics losing their jobs, TOUGH LUCK. Mechanics have been screwing the consumers over for years. Anyways, its not like Americans aren't going to still need mechanics to change and balance our tires, check our steering fluid and brakes, or repair dents and collisions.

I thought you were talking about the efficiency of making alternative fuels, not cars. My baaa-aaad.

As far as cars are concerned, does it really matter? What's more important, how much pollution a car makes, or how efficient it is with the energy it uses? Measuring the wasted heat from a car exhaust and calling it wasted energy is kind of silly. What are EVs going to use for heat in the winter time? A electric heating coil? Instead of using wasted heat to warm a car, energy you would want to power the car will be needed to heat the car. Wasted heat, friction from tires, drive train loss isn't whats causing global warming. It's what's coming out of the tail pipe.

Also, loosing all those Mechanics might sound good on paper, but that would leave a lot of empty buildings that can't be filled, and as much as you dislike mechanics, loosing more jobs in this country is the last thing we need. Would you want a bunch of unemployed mechanics trying to make ends meet by steeling from you? Would you like to pay extra taxes to help take care of all the unemployed people? Also, it's not the mechanic who is trying to rip you off. It's the shop owner. If the mechanic doesn't do things the way the shop wants them to, they will get fired. Mechanics need to eat too.

I do hope EVs get a 2nd chance, but I think plug in hybrids is all your going to get. The reason being, when you run out of battery, the engine can save you and get you home. Also, that engine will make politics, oil companies, and car companies happy. You gotta start some where and a plug in hybrid will be a great start. If you don't have to drive too far, the engine will never kick in. Hopefully, we will get turbo diesel plug in hybrids too. I think 100+MPG on a full charge and tank is totally realistic and still have power. Maybe when our Government has new leaders, the EVs will hit the road again, but right now today, I could go buy a newed TDi (only not the one I want, so I'm holding off) and then drive down the road and get B20 and get around 45-50 MPG. Once everything is online, Indiana is going to produce the most bio-diesel in the US. In the summer, I can run B100.

Bio-diesel is possible right now, a EV isn't, unless you have 100K, or you can build your own. Some people do that. I'm not saying that bio-diesel is the best and only answer. A hybrid driven correctly would be a great answer too. I want to give my money to Indiana business, not monopoly oil companies. Even with my bio-diesel, I will have to use some oil, but it will be a LOT less. I'll need B20 in the winter. Even a EV will need a little carbon fuel, unless it is charged with wind, solar, or nuclear energy. Not everyone has that tho. A lot of electricity still comes from coal.

When it comes to alternative fuels, it needs to make money, be popular, and work with auto makers and the government. I think a new administration will be willing to move a little faster, or should I say start to move forward at all. I think if it was up to current greedy pockets, we would just drain every last drop of oil and then fight over energy till everyone and everything on the planet is dead.

Please don't take this personally, I'm not trying to pick at a scab, but the arguement about uneployment is just a neccessary loss. Back in the haydays of the Cold War, in a vain attempt to keep full employment, the USSR had people working tasks which were mondain and tedeous, simply to keep everyone employed, receiving a salary, and happy. The result was that it became a parasitic burden for the Soviet economy to support millions of people and jobs which were not contributing to progress.

I'm sure 100 years ago, the same conflict was being made by railroad builders and train conductors when they started to lose out against automobiles. Railroads were no longer being constructed, or even shut down, and less and less people used the trains. It's just the way humanity progresses. When an old technology becomes obsolete, we can't sit around on it just so that the people can have job security. It's nothing more than a form of social burden. When a profession becomes lost or needs to be updated, then its up to the person to re-adjust themselves to the future. I see it all the time at my college. There are dozens of people who are in the 40s who majored in fields like computer science 20 years ago, but now that technology has advanced so far since then, they got to go back to school in order to learn the new tech. If someone asked you to go back to using a 1988 IBM AS/400 DOS computer with a 14.4k dial up modem and a hard drive with the capacity of a floppy, would you really be willing to do it in order to protect a few thousand jobs?

The other arguement people make about EVs just relocating pollution is also flawed. Coal makes up only about 1/4 of all energy produced. The majority in this country is natural gas, while still a fossil fuel, is much cleaner. Hydroelectric and nuclear power make up about 1/3 of our power source. There have also been advances in ways to control CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions by powerplants, such as recapturing it or re-venting it into the ground. The other thing to note is that if EVs became standard, the majority of them would be charging at nighttime, when power demands are much lower. Normally, a powerplant continually puts out roughly the same amount of power even at night, so a lot of this electricity would normally have been wasted anyways. That's why many powerplants offer price cuts based on when you use electricity outside of peak demand hours.

Please don't take this personally, I'm not trying to pick at a scab, but the arguement about uneployment is just a neccessary loss. Back in the haydays of the Cold War, in a vain attempt to keep full employment, the USSR had people working tasks which were mondain and tedeous, simply to keep everyone employed, receiving a salary, and happy. The result was that it became a parasitic burden for the Soviet economy to support millions of people and jobs which were not contributing to progress.

I'm sure 100 years ago, the same conflict was being made by railroad builders and train conductors when they started to lose out against automobiles. Railroads were no longer being constructed, or even shut down, and less and less people used the trains. It's just the way humanity progresses. When an old technology becomes obsolete, we can't sit around on it just so that the people can have job security. It's nothing more than a form of social burden. When a profession becomes lost or needs to be updated, then its up to the person to re-adjust themselves to the future. I see it all the time at my college. There are dozens of people who are in the 40s who majored in fields like computer science 20 years ago, but now that technology has advanced so far since then, they got to go back to school in order to learn the new tech. If someone asked you to go back to using a 1988 IBM AS/400 DOS computer with a 14.4k dial up modem and a hard drive with the capacity of a floppy, would you really be willing to do it in order to protect a few thousand jobs?

The other arguement people make about EVs just relocating pollution is also flawed. Coal makes up only about 1/4 of all energy produced. The majority in this country is natural gas, while still a fossil fuel, is much cleaner. Hydroelectric and nuclear power make up about 1/3 of our power source. There have also been advances in ways to control CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions by powerplants, such as recapturing it or re-venting it into the ground. The other thing to note is that if EVs became standard, the majority of them would be charging at nighttime, when power demands are much lower. Normally, a powerplant continually puts out roughly the same amount of power even at night, so a lot of this electricity would normally have been wasted anyways. That's why many powerplants offer price cuts based on when you use electricity outside of peak demand hours.

I'm really not trying to start anything, buy where did you come up with 1/4 of our electricity is from coal? It's more then 50% http://www.powerscorecard.org/tech_detail.cfm?resource_id=2

Also, I don't get your analogy with the rail roads. We still use them every day, we still have rail road engineers, conductors, etc. I'm sure we many more rail roads then we did 100 years ago. Also, the person who backed up the IBM DOS machine could very well be doing modern computer work. Computers are still around. Chances are, your computer tech will be from India, but hey, as long as someone can fix it right?

I just didn't get the mechanics should be out of a job because they rip people off.

As far as EVs go, I think they can work for some people, but not everyone. I know that I couldn't use one with todays batteries. You couldn't drive a EV on vacation when you need to drive across a few states. Would you own two cars or would you just not go on vacation? With a engine back up on a hybrid plug in, you might be able to go 200 miles or so before the engine ever kicks in. I'm all for plug in hybrids, but I'm not totally sold on EV only cars. I mean, what if your 10 miles from home with a dead battery? Are you going to tow a car home just cause you didn't have enough juice left? People in general don't really upkeep cars like they should and I think a lot of people would run out of power on the road. From a practical and useful and maybe even safe point of view, plug in hybrids are a lot more practical then EVs. I mean, it is a EV that gets charged over night, but it has a engine to work like current hybrids. I personally would feel a lot better leaving the house in a plug in hybrid then a EV only car. When the EVs first came out, some of them only went 60 miles per charge, and then later 90ish. Also, for some reason, car companies don't want to build EVs. They made a hand full kicking and screaming, some how leased them, not selling any of them, then took them all back. EVs are not going to be the prime replacement in the future. I hope they make a come back, but I would put my money on plug in hybrids. They are right around the corner too. In fact on the road just a few hours ago, I saw a Prius with a full vinyl job with a sky and clouds all over it with a vanity plate that said gas sippr. It also looked like it had a plug cover on the bumper too. I don't know if it was a test car, personal conversion or what, but it looked like a plug in hybrid.

A newer cleaner turbo diesel could go over 500 miles on a tank, a plug in hybrid, who knows, 600+? How far can a EV go on a full charge? What do you think the public will except?

EVs could have a place as hirecars in places like NY or Sydney. I have seen a nifty new invention by MIT in a recent edition of TIME, it is a 2 seat electric car that is stackable, if you are out and need a car just go, swipe your credit card and take one, return it later. EVs could also be sold to people like very old drivers who are only allowed to drive within a 10km radius. True, EV plus ICE would be better, for you can then go on longer trips if need be. Even better if it is a biofuel, buy your fuel from a farmer rather than some arabian sheik who may or may not have links to terrorism.

I have also read that Honda is planning to lease the Honda FCX fuel cell vehicle as early as summer '08. Will be interesting to see if it takes off. I have my doubts about the future of FCVs simply due to the required infrastructure.

I beleive we are bordering on a critical energy break point - after chewing up OPEC's spare capacity over the last 20 yrs we are having difficulty getting adequate amounts of oil to market, and in the long term it won't get any easier. Oil depletion may cripple us economically, but global warming can finish us off - glaciers are going awol, we are having a 5 yr drought in NSW. EVs, Plug ins, Fuel Cells, Biofuels, maybe even steam or compressed air will all come out of the woodwork, and eventually there will be a couple of winners, depending on tastes, economics etc. eg. in a densely populated area like Tokyo, London, or even LA an EV may be viewed as suitable but in outback australia the cattle farmer will probably want a plug-in hybrid fuelled by the local jatropha oil industry.

EVs could have a place as hirecars in places like NY or Sydney. I have seen a nifty new invention by MIT in a recent edition of TIME, it is a 2 seat electric car that is stackable, if you are out and need a car just go, swipe your credit card and take one, return it later. EVs could also be sold to people like very old drivers who are only allowed to drive within a 10km radius. True, EV plus ICE would be better, for you can then go on longer trips if need be. Even better if it is a biofuel, buy your fuel from a farmer rather than some arabian sheik who may or may not have links to terrorism.

I have also read that Honda is planning to lease the Honda FCX fuel cell vehicle as early as summer '08. Will be interesting to see if it takes off. I have my doubts about the future of FCVs simply due to the required infrastructure.

I beleive we are bordering on a critical energy break point - after chewing up OPEC's spare capacity over the last 20 yrs we are having difficulty getting adequate amounts of oil to market, and in the long term it won't get any easier. Oil depletion may cripple us economically, but global warming can finish us off - glaciers are going awol, we are having a 5 yr drought in NSW. EVs, Plug ins, Fuel Cells, Biofuels, maybe even steam or compressed air will all come out of the woodwork, and eventually there will be a couple of winners, depending on tastes, economics etc. eg. in a densely populated area like Tokyo, London, or even LA an EV may be viewed as suitable but in outback australia the cattle farmer will probably want a plug-in hybrid fuelled by the local jatropha oil industry.

Anyway, its my bedtime, off to sleep where I shall wake up in the world of tomorrow - literally!!

I think the trend today is to develop alternative fuel supplies. such as the ethanol/gasoline mix.

It seems to be cleaner burning and costs a little less.

I prefer electric vehicles, but they currently have limitations.

Currently, Lead Acid, NiMH, Lithium-ion, and Lithium polymer batteries are the only 4 mass marketed batteries. About the best you can get today is a Li-po, which can store a maximum of 200 watts per kg. That means in order to get a range comparible to a 2700 lbs gas engine vehicle (about 350 miles), you would need a battery pack that weighed over 1000 lbs. Also, even witht the best charging, it takes about an hour to charge.

From what I'm hearing around here on Corolland, it sounds like people want an EV that can go 600+ miles. Well don't dismiss EVs just yet. The nice thing about EVs is that battery technology is advancing much faster today than it ever was in the past. There are a number of companies out there developing new rechargeable batteries which are going to make Li-ion and Li-Po obsolete in the next 5-10 years.

One company called Altairnano is developing a nano tech battery called "Nano Titanate".

http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSa...under060920.pdf

The battery doesn't have a great energy storage capacity (about the same as NiMH), so cars would probably have a limited range of about 100 miles per charge, but this battery packs a secret punch. It can be fully charged in less than 1 minute, meaning if this country developed a network of "electric stations" rather than gas stations, you could "fill" this battery faster than you could fill a gas tank. What's even more impressive about this battery is that it has been tested for up to 15,000 cycles! It also has an expected lifespan of over 20 years!! That means this battery could probably outlive your car's life.

Another company called PolyPlus is producing even more impressive next generation lithium batteries.

http://www.polyplus.com/technology/technology.htm

A Lithium sulfur battery has the potential to store up to 3.36 kilowatts per kg. That's a storage capacity roughly 16 times more than the best possible battery on the market today, and because sulfur is a cheap, durable material, if this battery were mass produced, it could be just as cheap to buy as a lead acid battery. To give you an example of its carrying capacity, if you had a Li-P battery that weighed about 250 lbs (roughly the same weight as our 1ZZ engines), your Corolla could travel about 2000 miles before having to recharge!!!

Another battery they're testing, a Lithium Aircell, sounds more theoretical and probably expensive to produce (much like a hydrogen fuel cell), but its storage capacity is 11.6 kilowatts per kg. If this battery weighed 250 lbs and was fitted to your car, your Corolla would be able to travel over 13,500 mile before recharging! It would have a storage capacity of 1.3 megawatts!!! My guess is that these batteries are probably going to be seen in industrial, military, or space applications, so don't get your hopes up about this one.

When batteries can made the distance, then EVs will be a lot more useful.

We will probably get a turbo diesel when they come out. Possible a BMW, cause the wife wants one. I want a diesel, she wants a BMW. Maybe we can meet half way.

They should be for sale in spring 08 in the US. VW should hit again at the same time and VWs will be too for far less money. In fact the Rabbit it built in Germany, so a TDi Rabbit should have much better build quality then a Jetta. They are also cheaper. It's a win win.

Currently, Lead Acid, NiMH, Lithium-ion, and Lithium polymer batteries are the only 4 mass marketed batteries. About the best you can get today is a Li-po, which can store a maximum of 200 watts per kg. That means in order to get a range comparible to a 2700 lbs gas engine vehicle (about 350 miles), you would need a battery pack that weighed over 1000 lbs. Also, even witht the best charging, it takes about an hour to charge.

From what I'm hearing around here on Corolland, it sounds like people want an EV that can go 600+ miles. Well don't dismiss EVs just yet. The nice thing about EVs is that battery technology is advancing much faster today than it ever was in the past. There are a number of companies out there developing new rechargeable batteries which are going to make Li-ion and Li-Po obsolete in the next 5-10 years.

One company called Altairnano is developing a nano tech battery called "Nano Titanate".

http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSa...under060920.pdf

The battery doesn't have a great energy storage capacity (about the same as NiMH), so cars would probably have a limited range of about 100 miles per charge, but this battery packs a secret punch. It can be fully charged in less than 1 minute, meaning if this country developed a network of "electric stations" rather than gas stations, you could "fill" this battery faster than you could fill a gas tank. What's even more impressive about this battery is that it has been tested for up to 15,000 cycles! It also has an expected lifespan of over 20 years!! That means this battery could probably outlive your car's life.

Another company called PolyPlus is producing even more impressive next generation lithium batteries.

http://www.polyplus.com/technology/technology.htm

A Lithium sulfur battery has the potential to store up to 3.36 kilowatts per kg. That's a storage capacity roughly 16 times more than the best possible battery on the market today, and because sulfur is a cheap, durable material, if this battery were mass produced, it could be just as cheap to buy as a lead acid battery. To give you an example of its carrying capacity, if you had a Li-P battery that weighed about 250 lbs (roughly the same weight as our 1ZZ engines), your Corolla could travel about 2000 miles before having to recharge!!!

Another battery they're testing, a Lithium Aircell, sounds more theoretical and probably expensive to produce (much like a hydrogen fuel cell), but its storage capacity is 11.6 kilowatts per kg. If this battery weighed 250 lbs and was fitted to your car, your Corolla would be able to travel over 13,500 mile before recharging! It would have a storage capacity of 1.3 megawatts!!! My guess is that these batteries are probably going to be seen in industrial, military, or space applications, so don't get your hopes up about this one.

Eventually it will be more economical for everyone to own an electric vehicle.

Currently, Lead Acid, NiMH, Lithium-ion, and Lithium polymer batteries are the only 4 mass marketed batteries. About the best you can get today is a Li-po, which can store a maximum of 200 watts per kg. That means in order to get a range comparible to a 2700 lbs gas engine vehicle (about 350 miles), you would need a battery pack that weighed over 1000 lbs. Also, even witht the best charging, it takes about an hour to charge.

From what I'm hearing around here on Corolland, it sounds like people want an EV that can go 600+ miles. Well don't dismiss EVs just yet. The nice thing about EVs is that battery technology is advancing much faster today than it ever was in the past. There are a number of companies out there developing new rechargeable batteries which are going to make Li-ion and Li-Po obsolete in the next 5-10 years.

One company called Altairnano is developing a nano tech battery called "Nano Titanate".

<a href="http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSa...under060920.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSa...under060920.pdf</a>

The battery doesn't have a great energy storage capacity (about the same as NiMH), so cars would probably have a limited range of about 100 miles per charge, but this battery packs a secret punch. It can be fully charged in less than 1 minute, meaning if this country developed a network of "electric stations" rather than gas stations, you could "fill" this battery faster than you could fill a gas tank. What's even more impressive about this battery is that it has been tested for up to 15,000 cycles! It also has an expected lifespan of over 20 years!! That means this battery could probably outlive your car's life.

Another company called PolyPlus is producing even more impressive next generation lithium batteries.

<a href="http://www.polyplus.com/technology/technology.htm" target="_blank">http://www.polyplus.com/technology/technology.htm</a>

A Lithium sulfur battery has the potential to store up to 3.36 kilowatts per kg. That's a storage capacity roughly 16 times more than the best possible battery on the market today, and because sulfur is a cheap, durable material, if this battery were mass produced, it could be just as cheap to buy as a lead acid battery. To give you an example of its carrying capacity, if you had a Li-P battery that weighed about 250 lbs (roughly the same weight as our 1ZZ engines), your Corolla could travel about 2000 miles before having to recharge!!!

Another battery they're testing, a Lithium Aircell, sounds more theoretical and probably expensive to produce (much like a hydrogen fuel cell), but its storage capacity is 11.6 kilowatts per kg. If this battery weighed 250 lbs and was fitted to your car, your Corolla would be able to travel over 13,500 mile before recharging! It would have a storage capacity of 1.3 megawatts!!! My guess is that these batteries are probably going to be seen in industrial, military, or space applications, so don't get your hopes up about this one.

I would take any of those batteries over gas that keeps going up in price.

 

Eventually it will be more economical for everyone to own an electric vehicle.

Maybe not everyone. If everyone changes fuel to electricity, then the cost of electricity would go up. It really is better to have more then one alternative fuel. If the state you live in actually has a bio-diesel plant, would you not want to give your state money to pay for fuel? Depending on where you live, your electricity might come from some place else. Probably not 100%, but in different ratios.

Having more then one alternative will create competition, avoid monopolies, and hopefully supply jobs and money to local people.

EV only cars might still be another 10 years out. A clean diesel will be available in 08 and a plug in hybrid will be around in 09,10. Of coarse a EVPH is a EV, it just has a small engine, just in case. The group of people who want a EV only car will probably be pretty small. Too many people will like the blanket of a engine, just in case.

I don't think that cost of electricity will go up; if we do switch over to advanced EVsit will be a slow transition over decades. Even still, suppose that an EV uses maybe .25 kwh/km, at my current electricity price (15 cents/kwh) that is 4 cents a km....the equivalence of petrol being A$0.46 a litre, or gas for around $1.60 a gallon. bargain. and, when I pay my power bill it doesn't go to opec, itgoes to country energy which is owned by NSW government.

I still think that probably a plug-in hybrid is the way to go, but enhanced battery technology will mean even lower fuel usage and CO2 emissions, assuming you use renewable energy sources or nuclear (which I am not as thrilled about).

I don't think that cost of electricity will go up; if we do switch over to advanced EVsit will be a slow transition over decades. Even still, suppose that an EV uses maybe .25 kwh/km, at my current electricity price (15 cents/kwh) that is 4 cents a km....the equivalence of petrol being A$0.46 a litre, or gas for around $1.60 a gallon. bargain. and, when I pay my power bill it doesn't go to opec, itgoes to country energy which is owned by NSW government.

I still think that probably a plug-in hybrid is the way to go, but enhanced battery technology will mean even lower fuel usage and CO2 emissions, assuming you use renewable energy sources or nuclear (which I am not as thrilled about).

Change will depend on future laws. It only took a few years to get rid of leaded fuel. If your car needed leaded fuel, tough shiz. If it is a free market, then ya, it will take awhile. One thing I would worry about tho, even with plug in hybrids are people charging them during the day in the summer. We have enough brown out problems as it is. A lot of people work at night, so they would charge during the day.

I hope solar panel charging stations take off with plug in cars or something to help out grid everyone is plugged in to.

What about the turbine electrical generating windmills?

They are initially expensive, but can produce a lot of electricity by harnessing the power of the wind.

Apply that to power generating and you can charge your car batteries by a windmill on yourroof.

What about the turbine electrical generating windmills?They are initially expensive, but can produce a lot of electricity by harnessing the power of the wind.

 

Apply that to power generating and you can charge your car batteries by a windmill on yourroof.

That is another great option, but not everyone gets enough wind to make it work. They are also trying to harness the power of the ocean with water turbines.

I think in the northern part of our state, they are building windmills, but the rest of the state doesn't get enough wind.

I hope the next generation of thin solar panels work. They could be applied to the top of the car and it could charge while parked outside and hopefully power the car while it's in use.

I get tired of people saying, it's not good enough, they hardly create any power. If they can race with solar panels, they can charge a battery with them. At least get as much power from the sun so they need less charge time at home when plugged in.

In the ideal world, we would all be driving EV cars and using power from either nuclear, solar, hydro, or wind power. I have faith that once the oil starts really putting the squeeze on the west, both government and corporations will come around to the overall benefit of electric battery-solar powered world, particularly Lithium sulfur which I'm very interested in. Some people get scared when Chavez declares he will bring oil up to $200/barrel, but I beg him to bring that day. It will only push battery technology and solar power energy foward faster and make his pathetic regime fall quicker.

1) High density batteries are not theoretical. Current Lithium-Sulfur batteries being produced by Sion Power, Inc. have achieved 350 watt-hours per Kg and their new 2nd gen Li-S batteries coming out next year will reach 450 Wh/Kg. That's equal to roughly 4 times more energy density than current Li-ion. With Li-S, we can more than meet the demands cars need for range of 300+ miles without increasing the car's curb weight.

2) Sion Power and PolyPlus have also torture tested Li-S batteries up to 45° celcius (about 113° fahrenheit) and as low as -20° celcius (-4° fahrenheit). The batteries were still able to maintain over 70% of their voltage and power output, meaning they can operate efficiently in the majority of the world.

3) Sulfur is a very cheap element to harvest and mass produce, meaning Li-S batteries could be easily as affordable to mass produce as any nickel or lead acid battery. From a national/global scale, the amount of energy and money, time, and effort we waste looking for oil, drilling for it, transporting it, and consuming it (at roughly 30% of its energy efficiency) could be a thing of the past.

4) Solar power is no longer an expensive and poor-producing idea. Solar panels are becoming cheaper and cheaper to produce. With battery storage facilities, solar energy can be harvested and stockpiled for nightime useage as well.

5) Recently, Sion Power was able to produce a small 70 lbs airplane glider that was about to stay in the air at 50,000 ft for over 90 minutes running solely off of Li-S batteries (80% longer than most radio controlled airplanes), proving that in the near future, it will be possible to build battery powered airplanes. Sion is looking to combine the glider in the next few months with solar panels to achieve a flight time of over 12 hours.

What about the turbine electrical generating windmills?They are initially expensive, but can produce a lot of electricity by harnessing the power of the wind.

 

Apply that to power generating and you can charge your car batteries by a windmill on yourroof.

 

That is another great option, but not everyone gets enough wind to make it work. They are also trying to harness the power of the ocean with water turbines.

I think in the northern part of our state, they are building windmills, but the rest of the state doesn't get enough wind.

I hope the next generation of thin solar panels work. They could be applied to the top of the car and it could charge while parked outside and hopefully power the car while it's in use.

I get tired of people saying, it's not good enough, they hardly create any power. If they can race with solar panels, they can charge a battery with them. At least get as much power from the sun so they need less charge time at home when plugged in.

They could even make them aesthetically appealing and also affordable.

It would be some real progress.