-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hey, y'all, Toyota believes BEVs are impossible...
- Thread starter JohnSnowNW
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Transportation
I don't believe this to be an accurate account of the interactions between Toyota and Tesla. Toyota never intended to build more than the contracted 2600 Toyota RAV4 EVs.
There was nothing to "renew", nor would they want to. The RAV4 (by most estimates) cost Toyota about $20k - $40k per car to sell to earn three CARB-ZEV credits. They could probably just buy the credits cheaper and make no car.
Obviously, they knew that hydrogen was their future car when they signed the deal with Tesla. At 9 credits per car, starting in 2015, at the current market price of about $4000 per credit is $36,000 in value to sell a hydrogen car in California, plus the huge amount of money for each car sold in Japan.
It's very easy to see why Toyota must downplay EVs (because they just might take over by 2025).
hmm...I remember Elon saying in an interview that there was no bad blood between the companies, it's just that they could not supply them with batteries. So if they could have, it seems Toyota would have gone down the BEV road as well as the fuel cell project to see which one would win in the end. Now they only have one option though.
Hi, I'm fairly new. I've been subscribed for a couple of days, but reading for a few weeks. I don't have my Tesla yet, but I'm saving all my pennies.
Another problem with hydrogen cars is the wasted energy. You have to generate electricity, then use that electricity to split hydrogen from oxygen (you also need a lot of fresh water to do that which is scarce in some places these days), then you need to put that hydrogen in tanks and transport it, move it again into tanks at the fueling station, transfer it again into your car. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule and it will go right through the walls of a steel tank. If the walls are thick enough, it will take a while, but you are constantly loosing hydrogen at each step in the production and transportation process. The fuel tank on the car will lose hydrogen if it sits for a while. For an occasional driver car, you will need to refill it if it's been sitting for a few days before you go anywhere.
Splitting hydrogen from water is very energy wasteful, you never get back as much energy as you put in to make the hydrogen in the first place. Hydrogen car drivers are going to be paying for all the wasted energy and wasted hydrogen getting it to their tank.
As I've studied the Tesla way of doing things, I've realized Tesla not being a traditional car company has a lot of advantages. Their engineers are constrained by "this is the way it's always been done". Toyota has been building internal combustion engines since before WW II. It's in their DNA at this point. Thinking outside the box sometimes gets you stranded in the middle of nowhere, but sometimes it leads to a game changing innovation. I'm convinced Tesla has done the latter.
My background is in hard science in engineering (Electronic) and I've been in R&D my entire career. Most organizations that have been around a while are pretty resistant to radical new ideas. R&D engineers tend to be a pretty creative bunch, so most will entertain something a few steps outside the box, but get too far and "there be dragons". Management is usually *very* wary of the dragons.
Another problem with hydrogen cars is the wasted energy. You have to generate electricity, then use that electricity to split hydrogen from oxygen (you also need a lot of fresh water to do that which is scarce in some places these days), then you need to put that hydrogen in tanks and transport it, move it again into tanks at the fueling station, transfer it again into your car. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule and it will go right through the walls of a steel tank. If the walls are thick enough, it will take a while, but you are constantly loosing hydrogen at each step in the production and transportation process. The fuel tank on the car will lose hydrogen if it sits for a while. For an occasional driver car, you will need to refill it if it's been sitting for a few days before you go anywhere.
Splitting hydrogen from water is very energy wasteful, you never get back as much energy as you put in to make the hydrogen in the first place. Hydrogen car drivers are going to be paying for all the wasted energy and wasted hydrogen getting it to their tank.
As I've studied the Tesla way of doing things, I've realized Tesla not being a traditional car company has a lot of advantages. Their engineers are constrained by "this is the way it's always been done". Toyota has been building internal combustion engines since before WW II. It's in their DNA at this point. Thinking outside the box sometimes gets you stranded in the middle of nowhere, but sometimes it leads to a game changing innovation. I'm convinced Tesla has done the latter.
My background is in hard science in engineering (Electronic) and I've been in R&D my entire career. Most organizations that have been around a while are pretty resistant to radical new ideas. R&D engineers tend to be a pretty creative bunch, so most will entertain something a few steps outside the box, but get too far and "there be dragons". Management is usually *very* wary of the dragons.
SabrToothSqrl
Active Member
And here my poor EV is only chargeable at the MILLIONS of places that have.... ELECTRICITY... across America.
Hydrogen for rockets, Batteries for Cars...
Hydrogen for rockets, Batteries for Cars...
EVs do have the advantage that you can refuel them anywhere. In a pinch you could even hook up a solar array or run a generator if you're off the grid. It may take a while to get a full charge, but you aren't completely stuck if you run out of fuel. Even with an ICE you can siphon fuel from another car or a tank used for fueling farm equipment if you find one. With hydrogen you are tightly tied to a big infrastructure, more than any other type of motor fuel, and if it can't provide your go juice, you're SOL.
I read an article within the last few weeks that owners of the Hydrogen cars cannot find RELIABLE FILLING STATIONS once they are empty they have no where to fill up. What happens in an accident KABOOM!!!! you are gone DEAD! This is not to mention 1/2 mile evacuation required. I am a retired volunteer but still go on calls. Would you drive a Hindenburg I know I would not!!! For now I am waiting for the Model X.
There are some technologies like metal hydrides that can store hydrogen more safely than in compressed tanks that are being looked at for cars. The problem with them is it takes energy to break the hydrogen from the hydride, which will reduce range and efficiency.
All forms of energy storage have risks. Any time you have energy stored somewhere, there is always a risk that energy can be accidentally released the wrong way. With Li-ion batteries, they can catch on fire. Gasoline and hydrogen can burn or explode. With gasoline, we have the advantage that only the vapor is flammable and it can be kept liquid at temperatures around "room temperature", though it does evaporate quickly if it is exposed to the atmosphere, especially when it's warm. Hydrogen is also only flammable as a gas, but it's a gas at significantly lower temperatures than gasoline and it escapes from containers far easier than gasoline.
If you're worried about green house gases, fuel cells produce a green house gas far more potent than CO2: water. Water vapor can absorb far more energy per gram than CO2. Of course our biosphere has a much quicker mechanism for getting excess water vapor out of the air , ie rain, but it will still trap more heat while it's up there. Water vapor in the air is why Houston feels so much hotter than Los Angeles. A 90 F day in Los Angeles is warm, but tolerable, but it's oppressive in Houston because there is literally more energy trapped in the air in Houston. Large scale use of fuel cells would make cities more hot and humid in the summer and likely warmer in the winter.
All forms of energy storage have risks. Any time you have energy stored somewhere, there is always a risk that energy can be accidentally released the wrong way. With Li-ion batteries, they can catch on fire. Gasoline and hydrogen can burn or explode. With gasoline, we have the advantage that only the vapor is flammable and it can be kept liquid at temperatures around "room temperature", though it does evaporate quickly if it is exposed to the atmosphere, especially when it's warm. Hydrogen is also only flammable as a gas, but it's a gas at significantly lower temperatures than gasoline and it escapes from containers far easier than gasoline.
If you're worried about green house gases, fuel cells produce a green house gas far more potent than CO2: water. Water vapor can absorb far more energy per gram than CO2. Of course our biosphere has a much quicker mechanism for getting excess water vapor out of the air , ie rain, but it will still trap more heat while it's up there. Water vapor in the air is why Houston feels so much hotter than Los Angeles. A 90 F day in Los Angeles is warm, but tolerable, but it's oppressive in Houston because there is literally more energy trapped in the air in Houston. Large scale use of fuel cells would make cities more hot and humid in the summer and likely warmer in the winter.
I'm not convinced we will notice much of a difference. I haven't seen much discussion of this recently, but I recall that a typical fuel cell car will not emit all that much more water vapor than today's inefficient gasoline conventional vehicles.
Even during a winter inversion layer that traps the local air and prevents or slows wider dispersion, the local air water vapor due to combustion in Salt Lake City seems to peak at 13% and only about 1/3 of that was from car exhaust. In the broader atmosphere, water vapor from car exhaust is a tiny fraction of other water vapor sources. As a general trend, the reduction in combustion water vapor from the overall move toward renewable energy in place of natural gas and gasoline/diesel will likely compensate for any increased water vapor emissions from widespread fuel cell vehicle use. This seems like a non-issue until proven otherwise.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371996/pdf/pnas.201424728.pdf
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Water is not a problem. I've seen calculations showing a FCEV will emit only less than double the amount of water an average gasoline/diesel car does.
Someone brought it up on a Norwegian EV forum, suggesting hydrogen cars would cause big issues in the winter with icing up the roads but this argument was swiftly shut down.
No emissions (BEV) beats water emissions though, by all means.
Someone brought it up on a Norwegian EV forum, suggesting hydrogen cars would cause big issues in the winter with icing up the roads but this argument was swiftly shut down.
No emissions (BEV) beats water emissions though, by all means.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
In a way, I'm glad Toyota is committed to FCEVs. I would love to see Toyota finally knocked off their high horse, and in time, this just might do it.
Lex
Member
Years back we saw the "hydrogen revolution" being positioned as our "inevitable" future. I was genuinely fearful of our future.
The knowledgeable posts by our members here reinforce that hydrogen is a pipe dream... meaning, it's a dream of those who dream about pipelines.
My electric car answers all the questions except one: affordability, and for that there's a plan, too. Let's just hope Tesla gets us all there as planned...
The knowledgeable posts by our members here reinforce that hydrogen is a pipe dream... meaning, it's a dream of those who dream about pipelines.
My electric car answers all the questions except one: affordability, and for that there's a plan, too. Let's just hope Tesla gets us all there as planned...
Don't shoot me for saying this but Toyota is correct in a way in pointing out that BEVs have an uncertain future but the uncertainty has nothing to do with fuel cells that will not lead anywhere meaningful.
The question to ask is "Can battery powered electric vehicles (BEVs) replace internal combustion engine powered vehicles (ICEVs) in the foreseeable future"? I emphasize the word replace because Tesla has already amply demonstrated that they can displace ICEVs without a doubt.
I have contemplated starting a blog on this topic but it has been suggested that I try a post to see what, if any, interest there might be in the analysis of this question. My credentials: retired EE with PhD, over 40 years spent synthesizing technical requirements for the development of advanced telecommunications systems, including a tiny bit of battery development experience at Bell Labs many years ago.
let me know what you think, please.
- - - Updated - - -
I own a Model S85 and am a Tesla shareholder.
The question to ask is "Can battery powered electric vehicles (BEVs) replace internal combustion engine powered vehicles (ICEVs) in the foreseeable future"? I emphasize the word replace because Tesla has already amply demonstrated that they can displace ICEVs without a doubt.
I have contemplated starting a blog on this topic but it has been suggested that I try a post to see what, if any, interest there might be in the analysis of this question. My credentials: retired EE with PhD, over 40 years spent synthesizing technical requirements for the development of advanced telecommunications systems, including a tiny bit of battery development experience at Bell Labs many years ago.
let me know what you think, please.
- - - Updated - - -
I own a Model S85 and am a Tesla shareholder.
Why would it have to replace ice?
the best is the enemy of the good. It is perfectly fine if say 80% of all miles driven are done withoud a drop of gas burned.
trying to solve the whole problem in one step is the best way to fail at solving it.
the best is the enemy of the good. It is perfectly fine if say 80% of all miles driven are done withoud a drop of gas burned.
trying to solve the whole problem in one step is the best way to fail at solving it.
As another EE here, I would be interested in your thoughts. I'm not sure ICEs will be completely replaced in the market within the next decade or two. There is a huge infrastructure out there supporting these vehicles and there will remain some advantages over batteries for some time. Gasoline is still the most concentrated mobile energy source and it's going to take some breakthroughs in battery technology before batteries can catch up. Tesla has done a magnificent job with the superchargers which helps a lot when traveling, but it still takes longer to "refuel" an electric on the road than it does an ICE car. That is going to continue to be a downside for some time.
I do think Tesla has proven that many of the downsides of electric cars can be mitigated, and there are advantages to be had.
I've worked in the automotive industry mainly in powertrain systems for nearly thirty years now. Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been hailed as the saviour of the industry for that complete period and have always been about 10 years off. They have some fundamental physics problems themselves as alluded to in the posts on this topic. Primary one is their response time is measured in seconds and while it has improved over the years it needs a couple of orders of magnitude to be usable as the sole source of energy powering an automobile. As a result all Fuel Cell vehicles are hybrids and the dynamic loads are borne by the battery system. This has it's own issues because the battery is significantly smaller than a full EV and as a result usually is made up of power cells - this means the charge/discharge rates are MUCH higher than an EV battery and hence the life of the battery is impaired. Toyota (and others) get around this by only using about 20% of the usable capacity and limiting the current. NiMH cells until recently were much better from a power perspective than Li-Ion and presumably why Toyota have used them so widely, but they're compromised in other ways particularly self discharge.
The advantage Hydrogen fuel cells have is they preserve the existing business model of the Oil companies and as a result have a huge lobby behind them. Around 93% of all the commercial hydrogen comes from natural gas reformation - while it's possible to crack water into hydrogen it takes a lot of energy and isn't terribly efficient (although I believe there are some improved processes under development) at around 20%. When you take into account that Fuel Cells are around 45-50% efficient the overall well to wheel equation comes out rather badly - if you used renewable energy to crack the water it would still be a lot more efficient to store that energy directly in a BEV. I'm not anti-fuel cell, I just think it's a sop to the environmentalists to say look how green we are working on this fantastic technology that in ten years time will give us ZEVs.
The automotive industry is historically very resistant to change because they can handle change well and the margins are thin. There is also the issue that pretty much all of the big OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) have subcontracted sub-assemblies out to tier 1 suppliers e.g.: seats, infotainment, instrument clusters etc, but all have retained production of ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines). The BEV is therefore a major threat to their existing business model because the ICE is their biggest single investment. Even Renault/Nissan's EV programmes only account for a very low % of their business partly I suspect because moving more quickly would cause them massive restructuring losses.
Hybrids in comparison help extend and preserve the OEM's existing business model although they're expensive (effectively two powertrains). They are also an effective method of reducing cycle emissions although arguably less effective in real world driving.
My prediction for what it's worth is that the OEMs will implement more hybridisation when forced to by the regulators while lobbying hard for maintaining the status quo. They will also run pilot programmes on rich products such as the Toyota Mirai supported by big oil as a loss leading exercise to demonstrate they're working on solutions that just need more time. I think it very unlikely any of the existing big OEMs will move to BEVs in any large quantities - compliance vehicles will be grudgingly produced as required.
It is possible that Tesla can become a completely disruptive entrant, but I think the hurdles they have to jump are simply enormous. I am very impressed by how far they've come but there's still a long way to go. It is possible though that they will be to the industry what the digital camera was to Kodak.
An interesting read is "Clean Disruption" by Tony Seba (a Silicon Valley entrepreneur) where he predicts that by 2030 the ICE and big oil will be obsolete. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.
The advantage Hydrogen fuel cells have is they preserve the existing business model of the Oil companies and as a result have a huge lobby behind them. Around 93% of all the commercial hydrogen comes from natural gas reformation - while it's possible to crack water into hydrogen it takes a lot of energy and isn't terribly efficient (although I believe there are some improved processes under development) at around 20%. When you take into account that Fuel Cells are around 45-50% efficient the overall well to wheel equation comes out rather badly - if you used renewable energy to crack the water it would still be a lot more efficient to store that energy directly in a BEV. I'm not anti-fuel cell, I just think it's a sop to the environmentalists to say look how green we are working on this fantastic technology that in ten years time will give us ZEVs.
The automotive industry is historically very resistant to change because they can handle change well and the margins are thin. There is also the issue that pretty much all of the big OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) have subcontracted sub-assemblies out to tier 1 suppliers e.g.: seats, infotainment, instrument clusters etc, but all have retained production of ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines). The BEV is therefore a major threat to their existing business model because the ICE is their biggest single investment. Even Renault/Nissan's EV programmes only account for a very low % of their business partly I suspect because moving more quickly would cause them massive restructuring losses.
Hybrids in comparison help extend and preserve the OEM's existing business model although they're expensive (effectively two powertrains). They are also an effective method of reducing cycle emissions although arguably less effective in real world driving.
My prediction for what it's worth is that the OEMs will implement more hybridisation when forced to by the regulators while lobbying hard for maintaining the status quo. They will also run pilot programmes on rich products such as the Toyota Mirai supported by big oil as a loss leading exercise to demonstrate they're working on solutions that just need more time. I think it very unlikely any of the existing big OEMs will move to BEVs in any large quantities - compliance vehicles will be grudgingly produced as required.
It is possible that Tesla can become a completely disruptive entrant, but I think the hurdles they have to jump are simply enormous. I am very impressed by how far they've come but there's still a long way to go. It is possible though that they will be to the industry what the digital camera was to Kodak.
An interesting read is "Clean Disruption" by Tony Seba (a Silicon Valley entrepreneur) where he predicts that by 2030 the ICE and big oil will be obsolete. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.
My prediction is that BYD/Mitsubishi are paving the path for how the auto industry implements plugin vehicles. I also would observe that both BYD/Mitsubishi tried earnestly to make EVs but found the consumer acceptance was far greater for their PHEVs than for their EVs.
Similar threads
