Toyota PHEV Rumored

[Coastie for Truth]

MODS

This is from a subscription-only publication, available at
http://www.iwpnews.com -- right now you can sign up for a free one-month subscription. They've given California Cars Initiative (http://www.calcars.org) permission to send out reprint, and have distributed and reprinted, the full story:

"Inside Fuels and Vehicles"
by Editor-In-Chief Peter Rohde

Toyota Mulls Dramatic Reversal, May Be Developing Plug-In Hybrids

After years of emphasizing its hybrid vehicles do not have to be plugged
in, Toyota appears to be on the verge of a dramatic reversal and may be
developing plug-in hybrids, auto industry sources tell Inside Fuels and
Vehicles. But they also say the auto giant is still leery of the
limitations battery technology places on the endeavor.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are enjoying new life as the poster child
of security conscious neo-conservatives, because of their ability to
substantially reduce oil demand. Plug-in hybrids have also been embraced by
environmental activists, because of the technology's ability to drastically
reduce harmful tailpipe and greenhouse gas emissions, particularly if the
vehicle is recharged with electric power from renewable sources. Currently,
only German automaker DaimlerChrysler is actively developing the technology.

A recent Toyota presentation at the Tokyo auto show on hybrid vehicles
extolling the environmental and practical virtues of plug-in hybrids seems
to provide the intellectual underpinnings of the decision. The
presentation, obtained by Inside Fuels and Vehicles, concludes that based
on five criteria: 1. well-to-wheels carbon dioxide emissions; 2. emissions
of criteria pollutants; 3. refueling infrastructure; 4. driving range; and
5. fuel diversity. Under these criteria, plug-in hybrids would perform as
well as or better than other motor vehicle technology -- including regular
battery-electric hybrids, all-electric vehicles and even fuel cell vehicles
(if the hydrogen is obtained from natural gas).

Ever since Toyota released its first hybrid vehicle, the Prius, it has
sought to distance itself from its trying experience with electric vehicles
(EVs). They had to be plugged in to recharge the batteries, which could
take hours, and outside-of-the-home charging stations were often hard to
find. The hybrid uses the internal combustion engine and regenerative
braking to recharge the battery pack. In its ads for the Prius and its
other hybrids, Toyota emphasizes that they do not need to be plugged in.

Some industry experts question whether or not today's battery technology is
adequate. The battery packs in hybrids on the road today operate under a
very narrow charge/discharge range. They are never allowed to drain down
very far. For plug-in technology to make sense, the charge/discharge range
would have to be much wider, shortening battery life.

Technology challenges notwithstanding, observers, and even industry
competitors, see the plug-in hybrid reversal in strategy as a brilliant
move on several levels. On the societal level, it appeases environmental
activists on one side and neo-conservatives on the other. From a business
point of view, it puts domestic automakers and others without hybrids on
the road further behind.

By developing plug-in hybrid technology Toyota, already challenging General
Motors to be the world's largest automaker and the acknowledged leader in
hybrid vehicle technology, challenges others in the industry on a whole new
level. GM and DaimlerChrysler, who are jointly developing hybrids along
with BMW, are at least two generations of hybrid technology behind, though
both companies have adopted it in transit buses.

However, as one competitor said almost with relief, Toyota's plug-in hybrid
initiative would likely deflect government away from another technological
mandate, avoiding what they see as the California zero emissions mandate
fiasco.

Plug-in hybrids are a modified version of a traditional hybrid and
battery-electric vehicle. Larger battery packs allow for the motorist to
plug the vehicle in to recharge it. The vehicle presumably would also have
the ability to drive in all-electric mode at the will of the driver, unlike
today's hybrids sold in the U.S. -- in Japan a button allows Prius drivers
to operate in all-electric mode for short distances, less than a mile.

Plug-ins have several advantages, which are why they are touted by neocons
and environmental activists alike. They can significantly reduce oil
consumption since much of the power would be from battery packs recharged
from the electrical grid, which is almost entirely independent of oil.
Running on electric power means no harmful tailpipe emissions and no
greenhouse gas emissions.

Ancillary benefits include the ability of the vehicles to serve as backup
power for the grid. The power from one vehicle could run several homes.
Owners could actually sell the power back to their utility during peak
demand to help pay for off peak electricity used to charge the car's batteries.

Auto industry sources say Toyota will follow a unique strategy in
developing plug-ins. Informed sources say responsibility for the battery
component would be born by California utility Pacific Gas and Electric. The
sources also see this as a brilliant strategy. As one pointed out,
automakers don't produce gasoline, so a utility taking responsibility for
the batteries isn't too far a stretch.

Significant issues, including environmental ones, and barriers to success
still remain. If the power used to recharge the batteries comes from coal
or first generation natural gas-fired plants there is some question if the
greenhouse gas and criteria emissions profile would still be better than
for other vehicle technologies. The biggest technical barrier experts say
is battery life. Another concern is the proclivity of what is currently the
most promising battery technology, lithium ion, to overheat.

[Canuckistanian]

1. I'm sorry, since when do neo-cons link "security" with "reduced oil use"?

Any neo-con of note denies that there's any security problem at all.
Their answer is buy more AND open up national parks to drilling.

I still believe there are a lot of kinks to work out, but at least they're THINKING about the problem.

[skids]

2. Yeah the neocon thing is tripe...

...it is true that there are Republicans pols jumping on the bandwagon, but my impression is that they just did that because the PHEV story seemed to have immense popular appeal and they'll be back to "our bright hydrogen future" junk as soon as the fascination fades -- or they'll move onto whatever else is popular and say they always have supported it. Such bull pitchers they are.

Generally the on-the-street freeper neocons tend to want to cut on hybrids and the people that drive them, PHEV or no.

Anyway if Toyota does this I may just upgrade. Li-ion isn't the best battery tech, looking forward, but going green is an option here... if you do the math a gasoline engine is at most 45% effective in converting stored energy in the fuel to propulsion, and a horrid 20-25% efficient in supplying electricity to the ever-increasing in-car appliances and electrically driven mechanisms. (I think I previously calculated the cost of on-board electricity to be 2.5 to 3 times that of household electricity.)

But Li-ion is pretty damn efficient -- with an efficient charger and a secondary storage to time-shift it, a full-cycle efficiency equivalent to what you get converting to 120V/60HZ house current could be realized from a renewable source. So you're talking about getting double the dollar value out of a dedicated renewable microgen system than you would if it were installed for normal grid use -- and thus halving the payback time for the system (if you don't count the PHEV battery system cost on the one side and the grid-tie unit on the other side.) Get the payback time including the PHEV batteries to under 10 years, and I'm sold. Heck if I'm rich at the time, I'd buy before that just to stimulate the market.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Neocons and PHEV/HEV's

The Big Kahunas - Total motivation is ROI for GM and ExxonMobil. As one GM CEO (and Eisenhower's SecDef) said "I have always believed that what's good GM is good for the USA, and conversely, what's good for the USA is good for GM."

Freepers On The Corner - As soon as Edmunds has "aftermarket" flash memories (as in Europe now) to give them real macho performance - they'll jump over to PHEV/HEV's. A factor might also be the USMC buy of HEV Hummers.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phantom power]

4. If it'd work, I'd be willing to leverage those sentiments.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Please connect the dots -

I am a PhD chemical engineer of "Hebraic-Mosaic Ancestry and Persuasion" -- and I have been in "alternative-renewable-green energy" since way back in the days when "Big Oil" would not hire engineers of "Hebraic-Mosaic Ancestry and Persuasion" --- even to work in the US (part of the Arab League Boycott).

And I do not consider my self an "Arab hater" - see --- and my PhD adviser and one of the other profs were Muslims, and three of my colleagues are Muslims, and I live in a condo where Muslims outnumber those of us of "Hebraic-Mosaic Ancestry and Persuasion"

And I am an "Israel-Backer" --- and a "Palestinian State Backer" --- not at all inconsistent except to small minded anal sphincters.

I believe you owe a lot of use an apology.

[NNadir]

5. The extent to which these vehicles have an environmental impact

is a direct function of how electricity is generated.

Any statement about "no greenhouse gases" used in any state in the Union except Vermont, would be strictly untrue, although electric vehicles in many states would provide significant greenhouse savings, particularly in a case where electricity prices were load adjusted, discounted, to encourage charging at night.

There is an upper limit to how large a role lithium can play in this deal. World resources for lithium are not all that high, certainly not high enough to make batteries for even a large fraction of the world's automobiles. There are about 12 million tons of the stuff in world reserves.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Considering a car as a mobile source

to the extent you can keep the RPM within plus/minus 100 RPM of the "sweet spot" (as a Ford Fellow friend explained it), and avoid any acceleration/deceleration, gear shifting "upsets" of that absolutely steady state -- you have increased mileage significantly, and reduced emissions significantly.

To the extend you can recapture the kinetic energy of the car (as electrical energy) instead of heat on braking -- you have further reduced emissions and increased mileage.

To the extent you move your combustion from many small mobile sources to a few large stationary sources -- you have improved mileage and emissions.

I completely agree with "particularly in a case where electricity prices were load adjusted, discounted, to encourage charging at night. " -- as does everybody from the California PUC to the Michigan PUC to Lovins and Ovshinsky. (Even KGO's "right wing" environmentalist, "Doctor Bill" Wattenburgh, buys that).

[NNadir]

8. Well the first two statements probably have some merit.

Both however are probably true of any hybrids, and the first is available to some limited extent through driving habits in any kind of car.

I'm less convinced by the third argument. Generally a large stationary source can be better managed in terms of pollutants - CO2 excepted - but there are several opportunities for energy loss through thermal discharge involved in the use of electric - or hybrid electric - cars. Transmission lines, the internal resistance of batteries, and the necessity for several energy conversions are all involved. Specifically there is the conversion of the chemical energy (coal) to thermal energy (steam) to mechanical energy (turbine) to electrical energy (generator), transmission over resistive lines, voltage step down (a process involving heat discharge), conversion of electrical energy to chemical energy (charging the battery) and reconversion of the chemical energy to electrical energy (battery discharge) and ultimately to mechanical energy. Even the most efficient of these processes involves energy loss. I'm not sure how all this plays out from a pollutant standpoint, but I don't think it's necessarily positive, especially in the case of coal fired, oil fired, biomass fired or natural gas fired power plants. There may be some advantage in the case of wind power and nuclear power but the wind doesn't blow at the whim of people who are seeking to charge their cars. The nuclear option would involve, as we discussed, the load leveling case. Still I imagine that there will be a number of people who find themselves in a position to pay whatever surcharges are required for peak use. Thus the load will never probably be absolutely leveled. This will limit the the extent to which the nuclear option is applicable.

In most automobiles today we go straight from chemical, to thermal, to mechanical, so the opportunity for thermal energy loss is somewhat more limited.

I note that the case of synthetic fuels requires fewer conversion steps. Thermal energy (which may have a chemical source such as coal but is also available via nuclear means) is converted directly into chemical energy (some of which may be intrinsic to the starting material) and then is used as before.

[amandabeech]

10. There may even be a slight positive environmental impact

even if coal is used to generate the electricity.

It has been estimated that between 20 and 50 percent of late-night and weekend generating capacity goes unused at this point. Most of that comes from baseline power plants that are most efficient running at full capacity, like nuclear and coal.

If the unused capacity generated by coal could instead be stored in a battery and used in place of gasoline for 15-20 miles or so a day of driving, our greenhouse gases resulting from gasoline would be reduced a bit.

Like you, NNadir, I see the drawbacks of coal-fired plants and would rather not see any new ones built. However, since coal provides approximately 50% of our generating capacity, I don't see them being phased out completely any time soon. We might as well use as much energy coming out of them as possible while they're still here.