Toyota continues to lead the silent race to efficient cars with plans to introduce a plug-in hybrid in 2010 that will use lithium-ion batteries. Meanwhile, Toyota has been working with Matsushita Electric Industrial Co to develop batteries that will outperform lithium-ion batteries for its plans to introduce hybrid versions of
every single car in its lineup between 2020 and 2029. If that seems too far away, the
next generation Prius, due next year, will use NiMH batteries. Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe told reporters in Tokyo that it's time to move past oil and get serious about electric power. "Our view is that oil production will peak in the near future. We need to develop power train(s) for alternative energy sources."
posted Jun 11th 2008 10:56PM
How right they most likely are.
How unfortunate for car-lovers it really is.
WHAT NO FLYING CARS IN THE FUTURE?
Too bad the world is going to end in 2012.
Only if the hadron collider doesn't get us first ;)
December 21 :)
The way I see it, if Blind people don't evolve better hearing...these cars should be allowed to do their natural duty of removing the blind from the gene pool.
...and their dogs.
eh, solar powered cars will probably become popular when we have two suns in 2010
I'm not sure if blindness is a genetic trait.
Well actually Toyota is going to offer Hybrids at the same time when Russia is expected to run out of Oil, meaning
Great timing! xD
Why , is it because the Mayans stopped their calander at 2012. Do you know why? Its because they ran out of Ink-as.
I think those deadlines might be too far off to be viable, seeing as by then the price of gas will be to much even at 70mpg. If we have to wait until 2029, we might as well start on solar/hydrogen hybrids now and stop wasting our time with gas. I mean, i just payed 4.29/gal yesterday. Three years ago i would have been upset at $2.29. In three years am I going to be complaining about 6.29? I say just work as fast/hard as possible on ditching gas altogether. I am not an environmentalist, I am purely looking at this from an economic standpoint.
Yesterday you were upset you paid $4.29/gal for gas.
Today I am upset I paid $4.99/gal for gas in San Francisco.
Ditching gasoline altogether, no. Economically that isn't a smart move, because then the other source we choose to use will skyrocket in price. A mixture use of Gasline, Electric, Hydrogen, etc (evenly distributed and used ofcourse) is the only way to end the high demand for sources of energy. It adds more areas to distribute demand and it increase competition, which in turn can equal lower prices for energy sources and gives the consumer a choice for once.
At least Toyota hasn't taken the route of Flex-Fuel cars.
A. E-85 has just the same amount of Co2 emissions as gasoline.
B. Cars on E-85 get 11-13 mpg average.
C. It takes over 1 1/2 gallons if e85 to equal 1 gallon of gas.
D. It takes 22 pounds of corn to make just 1 gallon of ethanol!
E. The US demands 378 million gallons of ethanol per day! Consuming 1.7
million acres of corn a day. This will dramatically increase the price
of corn and the fuel to convert it. IT JUST ISN'T WORTH IT!
Hydrogen cars are a decades-old red haring dangled by the car industry so that it could appear to be developing alternative drive trains. They will NEVER be practical, and the car and oil industries know this. First, their cost - despite decades of development - remain prohibitively expensive. Second - and more importantly - they would require major infrastructure investment. Entire nations worth of fueling stations would have to be built to allow for wide-scale adoption of the technology. Who's going to pay for this conversion? Not the oil companies; why would they assist in the costly development of their own obsolescence? Further, in industrialized, free-market economies, governments would be unwilling to invest the necessary funds to build a nation-wide hydrogen delivery system. The only real alternative to fossil-fueled vehicles are EV/hybrids. The technology is starting to verge on the affordable (certainly much more so than any hydrogen system), and they require no new investment in infrastructure. Though they will necessitate investment in electricity generation, that would need to happen anyway as we move away from coal and try to meet increasing population trends.
Oh, Jimmy- I don't recommend going to Europe any time soon.
$7 per gallon is norm, diesel can go for nearly $10 in some parts.
Alternative fuels for automobiles is not the answers. Alternatives to automobiles are.
Nolan, what you say is factual, but then we've always known that corn was a bad idea pushed by agra-business concerns. There are some potentially viable biofuels, primarily algae. The numbers in the lab indicate that utilizing the CO2 and Nitrates (or is it nitrites?) emissions from fossil fuel fired power plants in bio reactors can yield up to 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year, which is much more feasible. Algae is very high in lipids, and starch, meaning you can extract the oil to make diesel, then ferment the starch to make ethanol, and then feed the leftover protein to cattle, or stuff it back in the power plant to burn.
Now, this process relies on fossil fuels, but it means that you get to use the carbon twice, ultimately greatly reducing the amount of emissions. As a bridge technology to tide us over until other cleaner forms become available, and battery technology gets to the point that you can charge quickly and travel long distances reliably, I think it worth pursuing.
@ Anthony: I was born in Croatia. I have spent every summer of my life there (yes including the war). I am actually going back in 8 days :) I am used to the prices, but one must also take into account that people drive less often, less distance, and drive smaller, more efficient cars. I know this is general, but my friends there have no problem with gas prices for their motor scooters and FIATs. Americans (i'll include myself here as well) do have a problem when we cant fill up our excursions and dual-tank pickups on one credit card charge. Just watch as that $7 dollars becomes $10 as our economy slips.
Stop whinging about the price of 'Gas' in the US. You've been mollycoddled on fuel prices for far too long. $5 a gallon, dirt cheap. Here in the UK, road fuel prices are already beyond the eqivalent of $10 a gallon for 'gas' (aka petrol), and approaching $12 for diesel. Get rid of all your bloody 'gas guzzlers' and stop being so fucking greedy for oil!
BTW. Flame away!
@ dervheid
Your gas is more expensive because it is heavily taxed.
Europeans pay about $1-$4 of tax per gallon, compared to about 14 to 50 cents here in the US. In that sense, we pay the same amount for gasoline as you.
So stop your flaming.
Peak oil has been reached. So while demand rises, supply stays the same. Commodities traders are in collusion with the oil companies who are gaming the system. The oil industry is trying to maximize the $$$ they get per barrel because supply is not increasing.
There aren't enough refineries. The reason is because new refineries must meet more strict environmental standards. So it's more profitable to rely on the old ones where the regulations do not apply. Idiots can blame this on environmentalists. I blame it on the idiots. If the regulations were applied to old refineries as well as new, we wouldn't have this problem.
Drilling in Alaska could give us an extra million barrels a day for a few years. The US alone consumes well over 20 million a day. So drilling in Alaska is going to help tremendously (/sarcasm).
The problem won't get better till it gets worse. Democrats want to increase fuel taxes directly on companies to subsidize alternative energy infrastructure (and promote the free market in investing in it). They want to offset your loss with income tax relief. So don't bitch and whine when they do it. Or else we're all screwed.
It wasn't that long ago that I paid as little as 68 cents for a gallon of gas. A fill-up was $10. That was '99 or so. Good times!
If I had a plug-in hybrid I could probably go six months without filling up!
Jimmy, one problem with your logic is much of the research going into gas/electric hybrids and plug-in hybrids is directly relevant to solar and hydrogen/hybrids (i.e. converting energy in some form, particularly electricity, to drive train power). So it makes complete sense to continue to research and develop gas/electric hybrids. Plus, it is going to take a huge infrastructure investment to support those "future" technologies (particularly for hydrogen), while the gasoline infrastructure is already there.
I agree that there needs to be research in alternatives to gasoline, but to completely abandon research in gas/electric hybrids just when they are starting to "pay off" is ridiculous.
The thing is, the gas prices we're paying today in the US has little to nothing to do with actual supply and demand and everything to do with deregulation of the energy market.
The same legislature that allowed (mainly) Enron to a$$-rape California on electricity a few years back is now allowing the same thing to happen to oil, natural gas, and other commodities (food even, I am sure you have all heard of the rice "shortage"). Basically the entire notion of a "shortage" has been entirely fabricated by commodity futures traders to bring the prices up.
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/651928.html
and
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/659081.html
@ MBS: I agree 100%.
@ Nolan: I agree 100%
@ Artie Lange: You are wrong.
That is all.
http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/eia_opec_reserves.png
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=aBUoYKhu7PWk
Not less oil, more oil. Oil prices the next 10 years will tumble to new lows.
"Our view is that oil production will peak in the near future. We need to develop power train(s) for alternative energy sources."
This doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the nature of the problem. Instead of relying on oil, we will be trying to shift our energy production paradigm to significantly higher output using non-coal power generation methods such as nuclear (the best new option).
Now who wants a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood? Don't all sign up at once now!
No one WANTS a nuclear power plant in their back yard, but nor do they want a coal plant or any other type of heavy industry either. The times necessitate it, and we will have to get use to it. There is no other alternative at this time, and it is far more desirable than any other option. The reality is that modern nuclear power is safe and much cleaner than any other alternative of a similar output. The French generate 75% of the electricity from nuclear power with little to no incident.
"No one WANTS a nuclear power plant in their back yard" You can put all the pebble bed type reactors in my back yard you want to. What I don't want in my back yard is a rickover style core submerged in water subject to leaks type retractor.
I'm not scared of an incident. The questions is what to do with the waste? Its not clean and its not safe. And we STILL don't know how long it will exist in this unsafe form because oddly enough we don't live thousands of years.
I can see the next 'global' potential catostrophe happening by all that radioactive waste seeping into our planet. Its no wonder the amount of Cancer caused by strange chemicals and radioactive technology.
Hydrogen exists naturally in our air. That and mandating all new houses in certain regions have solar roofs...
I'll take a nuclear power plant in my backyard as long as it's well maintained and operated.
That's the only two things that are needed to keep a plant safe and productive.
I used to have a nuclear power plant in my backyard. It wasn't something that worried me. I think I should be more afraid to cross a street
I hate when far away dates are set. It makes me realize how old I'll be.
how serious are they 'bout wat powers their factories - batteries is it ???
2020!? Come on... why should it take 12 years.
And to those American's complaining about $4.05 gas... it's the equivalent of $5.50/gallon in Vancouver, British Columbia, so, no complaining. Europe 's gas prices are not really a fair comparison given that they are not oil producers like Canada is. How Canada can be the largest single country provider of oil to the U.S. and still have far more expensive gas baffles me.
Taxes.
Ah, there is a certain pleasure in not being old enough to drive a car, therefore no need to pay gas. I do drive a snowmobile though, and you can guess how fuel efficient those are, but my parents pay the gas bill :D
I gotta enjoy this while it lasts.
-Northern Ontario
@computer.dude.28,
Great, you can enjoy your smug ass off when your parents start making you walk everywhere and have to start buying 1/3rd less food. The rapidly escalating price of gas is creating drastic ripple effects in the cost of utilities, services and groceries.
Already some small privately-owned gas stations are being forced to shut down because they can't afford delivery surcharges and the weekly cost of a fill-up of their in-ground tanks. As the price of gas skyrockets the profit margin for small businesses gets even smaller.
While it may plateau within the next few months, if it doesn't you can also expect to see business move toward a workweek of four 10-hour days, and public schools restricting busing to students more than 6 miles out (but still having to pay a fee, as some already do). I can just imagine this generation of American kids wailing injustice when they are required to actually *WALK* farther than thirty feet! Maybe it'll be the ultimate solution to a disgusting generation of morbidly obese American children (when they have massive coronaries on their way to school).
Air travel nationwide is also being hit hard, as many midsized (and even major) airlines are finding that the fuel required to fly a jet a full capacity (passengers, luggage and fuel) costs nearly as much as the astronomical ticket prices. The solution: sell half the seats and raise prices 50 to 75% to make up the difference. Business forecasts from the airlines themselves estimate several dozen municipal airports shutdown entirely within a year ot two, creating a loss of billions of dollars to small business, and affecting parcel transport, product delivery and supply chains.
So, enjoy your smug little ass off, douchebag. You'll be feeling it soon enough.
@ratnikh
Your pretty much right, but I think your being pretty harsh on the kid. I mean, douchebag? Who's the real douchbag?
Toyota said cars available for commercial use in 2010. You won't be able to buy one until 2012.
And 2029? For reals? That's about 1% different from never.
As I am and avid visitor of Manitoba every year. This is just some things I have learned on the subject of why gasoline is more expensive. Alot of the pain at the pump in Canada is related to the taxes the Canadian government imposed on it back when Canada still used the Standard system of messurement (Gallons). When the Canadian government switched to the metric system in 1971. They keep the tax on gas the same as it was for a gallon. There for you're paying tax on each liter of gasoline you buy as you would when it used to be a gallon. 1 Gallon = around 3.765 liters. So you're paying nearly 4 times the tax as you would if they had kept it using the gallon. It's sad really, I wish they would have adjusted the tax to fix that, because I do find it to be very unfair.
As that was suppose to be a reply to catachip. Thanks reply system!
Canada used imperial gallons.
1 imperial gallon is 4.545 liters.
I'm not sure I really believe your story though.
Well seeing that catachip paid around $5.50 for a gallon. 1/3 of that is actually tax. Both (depending on the) Province and GST. Without that tax the price of fuel converted into gallons would be $3.685.
For example: Vancouver is rufflly paying 36.3 cents of tax on every liter of fuel they buy. Catachip paid around $1.46 a liter. That's a significant amount of tax. $1.097 a liter = to about $4.13 a gallon. Oh and I can't forget the 2.4 cent carbon tax in BC either. The canadian government is taxing the hell out of fuel. If you don't believe me just look at their revenues.
-The Government of Canada raises about $5 billion per year from excise taxes on fuel, consisting of about $4 billion from gasoline excise taxes and about $1 billion from diesel and aviation fuel.
-Collectively, the provinces and territories raise about $8 billion per year from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.
-For 2005, GST revenues from gasoline and diesel fuel, net of input tax credits, are estimated at about $1.6 billion.
I have faith in Toyota to pull it off, but I'm gonna wait to see proof on this one.
These are fucking 'lease only'. It's dead on arrival if they won't let people buy the cars.
Give me an option to buy, and I will. Don't give me the option to buy, and I keep my money.
Lease only?! Nope.
Check out the sales numbers of the Prius for the last few years. IT'S SOLD OUT almost everywhere you go. Many dealers mark them up above MSRP. That's a cash-cow that the big 'T' isn't likely to pass on. Like the Honda Asimo and other projects, the previous "lease-only" vehicles were simply to prove to the public that it could be done. They hadn't re-tooled their plants for mass-scale production for electrics and hybrids, which costs Billions of dollars to do by the way. Fast forward almost 10 years later and now we have a new way of thinking, new plants popping up and soon-to-be happy customers.
What the hell!?
Why do I have to wait til 2010 to have a plugin hybrid!? This isn't NEW technology, Chile has had plugin hybrids for years (I think 20 years). Heck, they've got flex-fuel plugin hybrids (whether flexfuel is great or not, it spreads the resource consumption out).
On top of that, there's already companies that are selling mod kits for the prius NOW that allow you to plug it in.
Toyota, if you can't release this in 2009, you're a bunch of fucking retards! It's a disgrace that you haven't released it already. Get off your asses and make it happen already!
Common sense dictates that Toyota is still primarily trying to sell hybrids. They set a target of 2029 for hybrid versions of all cars. I would like to think we won't even have to drive hybrids by 2029. If they come out w/ the plug-in hybrid earlier, what if everyone wants a plug-in hybrid and says screw it to the hybrid? (Which can be a possibility b/c w/ a plug-in you can use absolutely NO gasoline depending on how far you need to drive, and prices of electricity all around the world is the equivalent of around $1/gal on average, even cheaper if you charge at night and your power company offers cheaper off-peak prices).
Just like how Toyota doesn't have the capacity and supply of batteries to make enough Priuses right now, they probably don't have enough batteries for the a large number of plug-ins yet. They don't want to impact the demand for their normal hybrids, which is still going strong. That is why the target is 2010, b/c that's when GM is targeting to release their Volt plug-in hybrid. It's just to keep GM from taking the plug-in crown, but it doesn't sound like a very serious bid into making consumer ready plug-ins. Heck, GM sounds a lot more serious about the Volt than Toyota is about their PHEV Prius. Remember, Toyota is out to make profits, not to save the world as they would like people to think.
excellent news, toyota is moving us forward while the rest of the world sits back chugging gas
Wow. Hybrid versions of all their cars by 2029. Okay, what would impress me is committing to produce hybrids as the standard, and then offer fully electric versions of all their vehicles. And set the target date for 2015. It's sad that Toyota probably has the greenest road map for the near future, of all the major manufacturers.
i believe the oil production has already peaked, thus why we had the sudden increase in price. i think
that; and all that war, corruption, and collusion stuff
Actually, there are several reasons why gas prices have so dramatically increased, and most of them have nothing to do with the US.
First of all, look at pure supply and demand. The price increases simply couldn't be supported if there wasn't another factor also increasing. And with supply basically level at the moment, the only other factor is demand, and yes, it is increasing. You've got countries emerging from the "stone ages" and becoming serious oil-consuming countries, like India and China. The demand doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon, so the price increases are easily supported by the global economy.
Also, you'll notice that in a country where our fuel prices are so closely tied to the price of crude on the open market (thanks to our low taxes and limited subsidies), these massive increases in prices have hardly impacted our demand. Over the past year, our demand for oil has dropped less than 2%. So our demand for oil in this country doesn't seem to be too closely tied to the price either.
Thus, prices continue to increase. And even if our demand here in the US slows down, it doesn't look like those prices will start dropping anytime soon.
also, 2029? wtf, that is way to far for just HYBRIDS, if they had full electric versions of all models buy 2015, that would be a satisfactory goal.
Last year our family bought a Prius. We correctly predicted gas prices would continue to increase. It's my belief that new sources of oil won't be able to keep pace with increasing global demand. As long as the world's population increases oil consumption will likely increase.
The replacement for the gas-guzzling cars of today is not going to come from the big automakers (Toyota included). Its going to come from someone like Telsa Motors who produces a car that people can afford using the battery technology that is already available and that gets enough range for people to use on their daily commute.
Even the Prius could be made a LOT better by replacing the drive train with a much simpler series system where each wheel has its own electric motor and the gasoline engine only exists to drive the generator when there is not enough juice in the battery to power the motors.
Send your C.V. to Toyota please...
I am going to bookmark this page so I can check it in 21 years time.
i don't think your going to be using the same browser/hard drive/ computer for that mater in 21 years.
You will forget about it when you upgrade your OS.
thats what websites like http://del.icio.us/ are for. store all your bookmarks online so you dont have to worry about it when you upgrade your computer.
see you in 21 years.
so... 20 years to get hybrid options of everything from the premier hybrid maker? yawn
What a joke. First the environuts CAUSE the energy crisis by choking off development in 1981, getting in a tizzy over nuclear power and now they won't let us drill or explore, so that Pelosi can keep driving the prices up.
Where do you think the resources to build these cars come from?
Have you seen the impact these have on landfils and the environment in general when recycled, or not, as the case may be?
Where do you think the energy used to recharge them comes from?
COAL, mostly!
Brilliant plan. Typically ill-considered.
And don't even start on biodiesel, which is MURDERING people every day by starving them to death.
But nobody will hold them accountable.
You contradict yourself multiple times in that post. Some of your points are valid and some are misinformed. First off, I don't think you can actually claim that "environuts" caused the energy crisis. The "environuts" didn't drive Chinese and Indian industrialization and exponential increase in energy needs. The "environuts" were not regulating the oil in the 70s. The "environuts" don't and actually never have had much say in policy action, prices, and so on. Fringe players don't get tangible results; macroeconomic conditions DO.
Also, energy production at power plants is FAR more efficient than energy production within an internal combustion engine so even if they ARE getting their electricity from coal, the net effect would still be cleaner than using an IC engine due to inefficiency inherent to that technology.
And with biodiesel/corn ethanol, I am worried about anything based on farm subsidies because it is simply unsustainable, and I agree with you completely here though our reasons may be slightly different. Just wanted to clarify your facts from your flak.
Pelosi is driving the prices up? Wow... typical ignorant Republican right here.
Wow, you *correctly* predicted that the cost of a limited resource, the major sources of which are located in contentious regions, and which is also in ever-increasing demand, would continue to increase in price?
Way to go Nostradamus.
Now, tell me, please, when is Duke Nukem Forever coming out?
cars suck
CUDOS TO TOYTA...
"All models by 2029", although thats a little late in my books I've been striving for a company or government to enforce such a program.
"ALL" is the key word here. My next car will be a Toyta without a doubt.
Take that american car market..
Yes, yes, your next car should totally be a Toyota Sequoia. It's a Toyota so it must be fuel efficient right?!
Kudos to Toyota for making all their revenue on gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-ups while making people think they are a great, responsible company because they sell the prius which is about as environmentally friendly as the compact florescent light bulb (hint, in the very right usage condition it can work, but for every-day usage not really at all).
To Nolan:
E-85 produces LESS CO2 than gasoline. You totally forgot that since this is a bio-fuel the CO2 that is produced is almost entirely offset by the amount of CO2 the plant consumes as it is growing. E-85 from corn is practically a zero CO2 contributer. Oil on the other hand consumes no CO2, but produces a lot of it (Around 24 lbs when used in an automobile)
E-85 also does not have the extra carbon bond that gas does so when the alcohol in E-85 is burned the exhaust is virtually free of smog. E-85 is also a 105 octane fuel. You WILL notice an increase in engine performance when it is used.
There is also not the huge loss of mileage that you indicated. You are spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainity and Doubt) around. I have a 1998 Toyota Camry (Non-Flex Fuel) car and I have burned E-85 in it for the last 7000 miles. My net reduction in gas efficiency? 11.8%. I normally get 28 MPG on straight gas and 25 MPG on E-85. I am paying $2.99 per gallon for E-85. Gas in Madison, WI is running $3.97 per gallon. That make E-85 almost 25% cheaper than regular gas. I don't know about you, but my car runs fine on it and I will happily take a fuel that costs 13% less than gas per gallon.
Almost all non-flex fuel vehicles will run on E-85 without any modifications. Why don't you actually run a whole tank and really see what your difference in mileage is?
As for electric cars, that technology was perfected by GM back in 1996. They were forced to make them by California's Air Resource Board that mandated zero emission vehicles be made or an auto manufacturer would not be allowed to sell cars in California. GM introduced the EV1. It got 100-140 miles on a single charge. It had a top speed of 85 miles per hour, went from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds (Faster than a Porche) and used ZERO gas.
Toyota made an all electric version of the RAV4. No gas at all. It got 100 miles on a single charge.
What did these companies do with their break through cars? They leased them and refused to sell one. They then fought the CARB in state and federal court. They finally got a cronie in charge of the CARB board who favored hydrogen fuel cells. This guy removed the ZEV requirement. Six months later he became the CEO of a company doing hydrogen fuel cell research. He was a corrupt individual who sold out all of us and killed off the sole reason car manufacturers were making electric vehicles.
GM repossessed all of the cars that were on lease and crushed them. They did NOT want this tech to come out. GM then sold the patent rights to the NiMH high capacity batteries to Texaco (An oil company) now known as Chevron. This is the same battery technology that is used in current hybrid vehicles. When you purchase a Prius you are sending a royalty payment on the battery technology to an oil company.
The reason you don't see plugin hybrids now is the contracts for the NiMH battery technology specifically state that the auto manufacturers can not include a plugin option. The car must guzzle gas all of the time.
That is the reason why Toyota is going towards lithium ion batteries, to get around this stupid restriction placed on it by an oil company.
Go to youtube and search for ev1. Watch this cars being displayed and driven by their previous owners. A few escaped the crusher and were sent to universities for students to stare at. The mandate from GM was that they could never be driven as a fully electric vehicle again. They had to be converted to a hybrid or face a lawsuit. What the hell does GM care where the car gets it's power to move? They are not an oil company. Why is it ok to convert them to a hybrid, but not use them as an electric vehicle.
Have you ever heard of a auto manufacturer crushing cars that worked perfectly and whose owners wanted to buy them? GM deserves to go out of business for killing a car that could have freed our country from relying on foreign oil. I will not buy another GM product. I tell all of my friends and family about this. They are shocked when they see the evidence. They ask "If they have this technology now why don't they use it?"
Toyota should be commended for all of it's fuel efficiency work. They were the only company that did not cruch their RAV4-EV's. People still own them. One just recently sold on e-bay for $69,000 used. That's more than it cost brand new. They could do better though. Give us a 100% electric drivetrain. That way we can add some additional battery upgrades aftermarket and get back to where we were with the ev1 and Rav4-EV a decade ago.
Check out this information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKG5bVeCDs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgwrHXp73u4&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_A98NOWmUw&feature=related
Note the last video. This is FROM GM. THEY HAD THE TECHNOLOGY IN 1990!!!!!!!!
I had heard most of this information before, but I didn't know that they were required to make hybrids in order to use their batteries. It makes sense now that you mention it, its just crazy though.
Umm....
We had fully electric cars in the past... when was it? 1930? Earlier?
In any case, all mayor car makers already have all those technologies, they can make hybrids and electric cars even now, but they, uh, don't want to. They think we don't need them.
Thank you, but I still believe that E-85 is not the way to go in the future. Running our cars on the same thing that we consume ourselves does not sound that economical to me especially with rising prices. There are plenty of other sources out there that we can use to power our cars we just need to find out how to use them.
What kind of crack are they smoking? 2029? How many people from Toyota will even be ALIVE in 2029? We will not be using gas in 2029, it will be too expensive to use and there will be alternative fuels by then. Toyota has 2 options, they can get these things out in the next 10 years or they can simply stop making cars, because nobody is going to be driving when gas is $20 a gallon or more. We will be using an alternative fuel or public transportation, we will not be using hybrid gas cars in 2029 since people cannot buy what they cant afford.
"Nolan @ Jun 11th 2008 11:22PM
At least Toyota hasn't taken the route of Flex-Fuel cars."
Oh really?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=toyota+flex+fuel&btnG=Search
Finally!
Please view these two videos I made for CalCars.org explaining the benefits and need for these types of transitional Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
Here are the 2 videos:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=21706F7EB5688D1B
Thanks
Chris Baldwin
Shoulder High Productions
www.shoulderhigh.com
thats a pretty fucking difficult prediction you made there chief.
Take that TATA!
Let's all take a stand and buy golf carts......or segways.
Ok, you pay and we buy :)
If everybody starts plugging in their cars are we not creating a new set of problems? A lot of electricity we use is generated through coal or oil so wouldn't we be creating a much larger carbon footprint? I think the most logical solution is hydrogen. It creates no emissions and is abundant.
I willing to bet if the government (US) were to offer an "X prize" type of award to any auto maker willing to bring a fully working, cost effective fuel cell vehicle to market within five to seven years; there would be a lot of takers.
BTW five years is highly reasonable, come on, we got to the moon in less than ten (if it really happened ;-), and that was a hell of a lot more complex than a fuel cell car. All this country needs is motivation.
Also what i mean by "X prize" is a wad of cash. We squander billions a year on congressional pork projects, why not use that money for something more important??
@ LJKelley:
"I can see the next 'global' potential catostrophe happening by all that radioactive waste seeping into our planet. Its no wonder the amount of Cancer caused by strange chemicals and radioactive technology."
Coal mining also exposes radioactive particles, aerosolizes them and sends them into the air. Sleeping next to someone also allows you the opportunity to absorb radioactive particles. Nuclear technology is actually a lot safer than most people think it is. What we need is a breakthrough in nuclear fusion power. Clean generation with virtually limitless fuel with no waste to speak of. "They" have been promising that fusion power is 20 years away...for the last fifty years.
"Hydrogen exists naturally in our air. That and mandating all new houses in certain regions have solar roofs..."
Actually, there is little to no free hydrogen in the atmosphere. It is less dense than air, and rises and escapes. It is also highly reactive, which means it gets swept up and locked into compounds very easily. In the depths of space, where collisions between atoms of different elements is very rare, free hydrogen is the most abundant element. Here on Earth, the hydrogen is locked up into compounds, the most abundant of which is water. To extract the hydrogen, you must decompose the water that holds it. This uses electricity, in a process called electrolytic decomposition. A rule of physics is that the amount of energy that it takes to electrolytically reduce hydrogen to its free state is equal to the energy it releases when it is recombined with oxygen (which is how hydrogen power would be done). Therefore, we need a method of generating the power needed to generate the hydrogen that is much less expensive than the technology used to extract that power from the hydrogen. Like using solar power to generate the electricity that decomposes the hydrogen, and then using the hydrogen. In that regard, the cars would be running indirectly off of solar power.
I bought a scooter to get me back and forth to work at 90 mpg. The only problem is that now I realize how bad drivers are here in my area. They are selfish, reckless and dangerous. It will limit my scooter use, because I really don't want to die.
Guys! The problem with nuclear plants is NOT with nuclear waste. The problem is in something else:
To produce electricity we heat water,
water turns into vapor,
vapor turns magnets,
magnets produce electricity.
The way we gain heat to turn water into vapor differs in different electricity plants (coal plant - we burn coal to produce heat, nuclear plant - we "nuke" atoms to produce massive heat) doesn't differ much.
Maybe its time to start thinking of alternative ways to produce electricity?
Solar plants? Super-expensive, need large spaces, those spaces can be used for something else, like growing food. Wind mills? Not very effective. But both produce electricity from alternative source.
Think alternative :)
Gajitfreak, perfectly stated. You speak the truth and I hope readers pay attention to the facts that you laid out here. There are kits CURRENTLY AVAILABLE that you can get for your houses that will convert solar energy to hydrogen, giving you a potentially unlimited fuel source for your vehicles. And, when stored in large tanks, you can run your house with it (when Solar isn't sufficient) and sell back the remaining hydrogen/electricity to the main grid and actually make a return on your investment!!!! Don't forget about government subsidies and grants that go to lead-from-the-top individuals who invest in these technologies.
The problem with hydrogen is that unless your vehicle ACTIVELY converts the water to hydrogen via electrolysis or other means, you will have to stop to fill up. If there are no filling stations, your vehicle is going to be good for only short trips (vacationing is out). Even with this drawback, I feel hydrogen/solar is the way to go.
But, as someone else pointed out, having choices is key moving away from oil. E85 may not be perfect, but it is viable. The problem with it is that farmers are cashing in right now, again, causing food prices to rise. Until we get smart about how to make Ethanol, this will be a problem. Ethanol can be made from all sorts of things, such as switchgrass. I think farmers would be reluctant to grow switchgrass because it's risky--what if no one buys their switchgrass; whereas, Corn is always going to be in demand, so it's less risky for the farmer to grow corn. Unfortunate, but true. However, once Ethanol (E85) takes a lead in market share and becomes the #1 sought-after fuel, I think you'll start to see farmers raising all kinds of interesting crops to make it and then Corn prices will stabilize. "The free market will fix itself", I believe someone once said. I believe this has a lot of truth to it. Like Hydrogen, Ethanol has potential.
Eve as these liquid fuels start emerging, I believe Electric cars are the way to go for most people. Sure, you you still have a carbon footprint with an all-electric car, but there are so many upsides:
1. Your electric car costs < 1$ to charge once and goes for 100-300 miles on a single charge.
2. Your electric car wastes no energy while stopped at stoplights, congestion like fuel-based engines do. Idling engines are wasteful.
Someone mentioned the need for electricity grows as more electric vehicles emerge. This is only a short-term problem if people start producing their own energy with solar-paneling, windmills, or buoy generators (people that live by water only). Even if the need for energy grows, it's still energy PRODUCED SOLELY IN YOUR COUNTRY, as opposed to somewhere that you are, say enemies with. Speaking from a USA standpoint, we have literally trillions of TONS of coal to help alleviate this concern. And, as several people have mentioned---NUCLEAR energy. This will also help solve the additional drain on the power grid from electric cars. If we can get more nuclear facilities up and running, i believe everyone will benefit, not just by having a cheap energy to run your vehicle, but cheap energy to run your house with. Say you have 15 cent per Kilowatt-Hour? How would 5 cent/kWh sound to you? It's possible.
2029? Color me unimpressed. If we aren't completely away from internal combustion by 2029 then we're all boned.
By 2060 the cars will be equipped with Mr. Fusion!
Predicting last year that gas prices would increase is like predicting that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. Not a real stretch of the ole noggin. :-)
I'm getting a horse.
Let's me guess... just cost a arm and leg.
:-(
Artie Lange........ fiyah!!
I paid 3.62 for gas yesterday
Hybrids are a marketing gimmick. Diesels have been getting 50mpg for years in Europe.
Ethanol was never meant to be a motor fuel but rather an additive (better than the poisonous MTBE), primarily as an oxygenator.
E-85 is not sustainable, whether or not the ethanol is made from cellulose.
And conspiracy theories are nonsense.
Almost all EV-1 cars were powered by lead-acid batteries, not NiMH.
Anyone who wished to pay the price and meet minimum order quantity could order NiMH batteries from Cobasys - GM has, but hobbyists can't order in quantities of 1 for a homebrew conversion, so the latter spread conspiracy theories.
I'd love to see a source for the claim "contracts for the NiMH battery technology specifically state that the auto manufacturers can not include a plugin option."
Panasonic had to settle when they chose to violate patents instead of licensing the technology - or is it OK for a foreign company to violate valid U.S.-issued patents?
2929? Wow. Way to take your time!
By that year, we may be onto different technologies.