Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by RubberToe, Jun 25, 2014.
For your entertainment...
Toyota to Offer $69,000 Car After Musk Pans â€˜Fool Cellsâ€™ - Bloomberg
Tesla Has Nothing To Fear From Toyota's Fuel Cell Sedan | From The Buzz Banter | Minyanville's Wall Street
How much money will lose toyota with each car sold?
All they are worried about is getting CARB credit so they can sell more ICE cars. In that sense, it is a compliance car. There is a possibility that Fuel Cell Partnership is helping subsidize this and other FCVs. As in Nat Gas and Oil companies.
In the USA they will only sell this car in CA. Hyundai is only selling its FCEV in Southern CA.
They will probably lose $50k-$80k per vehicle but will make it up with CARB credits earned.
In all likelihood the money Toyota saves from not buying Credits from Tesla will make up for whatever they lose on the car.
Is this the correct thread to ask of the history and current status of CARB, and to query whether its goals, whatever they are or were, are being met and whether there mightn't be some more appropriate way to attain them?
In Japan the government seems to decide subsidizing FCV about $20K per vehicle, making it $50K. Just FYI
Why is this not brought up every time by the writer of every article out there? It should be noted every time so that the public can see the real act of wanting to lower the price and push FCEV, because if those companies really think it's the future car, they would be making it available in all states.
If you want to make an even better point that this is a CARB circus/ science project Hyundai is only selling the Tuscon FCEV to residents of Los Angeles County and Orange County.
The "big six" Large Vehicle Manufacturers (LVM) auto manufacturers of the world (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM, Ford, Fiat/Chrysler) were required to begin the modern day CARB-ZEV rules, starting in 2012. That's is exactly what Toyota did with Rav4 EV.
Toyota will produce 2600 Rav4 EV's for model years 2012-2014. Since Toyota sells about 300,000 cars per year in California, over three years there are 900,000 oil burner cars sold.
The current 0.79% credits rule of Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) sales means 0.79% multiplied by 900,000 cars equals 7110 credits over three model years. Each Rav4 EV earns 3 credits each, so 2370 battery electric cars solve that over the three model years. It seems 2600 was a wise number to build for 2012-2014 model years.
But, the hydrogen car earns 9 credits each, so Toyota needs only 790 individual sales over three model years, or 263 hydrogen cars per each model year during model years 2015 - 2017.
Things will get more dire for all auto makers by 2025, however if the 9 credits for hydrogen are retained (they are scheduled to disappear in 2018), then Toyota would only have to sell 5,333 hydrogen cars per year IN CALIFORNIA ONLY (none in the several other CARB-ZEV states) without any battery electric cars sold, even at 16% of total credits in model year 2025!!!!
That's about the current 2 month sales of the LEAF in the USA, and perhaps 3-6 months of the current California only LEAF sales. Again, I'm talking about 2025 model year ZEV compliance with nothing but a hydrogen car with California tax payer funded refueling stations.
Hydrogen is WIN - WIN for Toyota and others in the hydrogen camp that really don't wish to be in the ZEV game.
Model year ---- CARB-ZEV Credit % of total annual sales
2012 ------------ 0.79%
2018 ------------ 2.00%
2019 ------------ 4.00%
2020 ------------ 6.00%
2021 ------------ 8.00%
2022 ----------- 10.00%
2023 ----------- 12.00%
2024 ----------- 14.00%
2025 ----------- 16.00%
Well, seems to be a tall order, especially now that Toyota HQ is moving out of California.:wink:
Come on, who else would buy a car that costs as much as Model S60, while being 5" shorter, 6" narrower, having 167 hp less than MS60, seating only four people and most likely having one third of cargo space of MS60. And please, don't start me on the design - looking from the front I see geriatric guinea pig with fat cheeks failing to defy the laws of gravity.... Top all of this with the fact that cost of driving this triumph of engineering and design will probably be 3 to 4 times more than the cost per mile driven in MS60 - and I seriously doubt there will be any buyers at all.
Does Toyota really thinks that automobile buying public is that stupid??
Toyota FCV Concept Car and Driver
They are only LEASING the Hyundai car and only from 3 specific dealerships. They are also checking to see where the available hydrogen stations are relative to where prospective lessees live and work. Hyundai is also including the hydrogen at no cost to the lessee. Did they clear up the legality of selling hydrogen to individuals in California? Or is that an urban legend?
It will be interesting to see how Toyota executes their sales and marketing for their FCEV. At least there should be more hydrogen stations available by Summer 2015. They sure are antagonizing people with the RAV4 EV program.
It looks like similar to Model S price. New tech with high cost. I am early waiting for hybrid version for half the cost. I am not that good at technology but how about hydrogen range extender in BMW i3 or something similar car... zero emission and light on wallet.
Honestly, I don't think that's all that illogical. No it's not a fusion bomb. But hydrogen is pretty darn explosive on its own.
It already is a hybrid. The fuel cell can't produce enough electric power to have acceptable acceleration. Fuel cell vehicles pretty much have to have a battery or other electrical storage mechanism to build up the trickle charge and release it quickly when needed, and recapture energy with regenerative breaking.
Anyway, to the comparison between the Model S and the Toyota Fool Cell, the Toyota is smaller, slower, less visually appealing, and will cost more to operate, and be less convenient for the bulk of usage, and also not be environmentally sustainable. I look forward to the Gen III coming out and still being faster, better looking, more environmentally friendly, more convenient, and half the cost.
It seems to me that many are overlooking the most likely process for refining hydrogen; i.e. by 'cracking' natural gas. And as I understand it, the least expensive method . . . and therefore the most likely to be used, releases a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere, more in fact that an ICE in normal operation. Sure, the govt. can require that the CO2 that's generated be "sequestered", but if that adds appreciably to the cost, will big "oil money" be able to thwart the efforts of responsible legislators and override those regs? I'd say that's likely. At best, hydrogen FCV's are no more ecologically sound than BEV's, and quite likely far worse, imho.
Japan Is Betting Against Tesla - Business Insider
above article says something else...now government of japan bet on fool cell...let see entire japan made of fool cell...
Sorry if I missed this in another thread, but what's the reasoning again for Fuel Cell vehicles earning 9 credits each and BEVs earning 3 credits each in CA?
Also, one has to wonder why people insist on opposing fuel cell vehicles to electric vehicles, given that in both cases, the motor is powered by electrons
Contact the Air Resources Board for their reasoning. Here's some light reading:
AQIP Funding Plans
An electric motor and a oil burning engine both propel the car with a rotating shaft... it's like they are the same, I tell ya !!!