First plug-in Priuses to hit fleets next year
By Nilay Patel 
posted Aug 31st 2008 5:44AM
posted Aug 31st 2008 5:44AM
[Via Autoblog Green]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Only 300? Very low projections for a car company!
Please tell me the benefit of using an electric car over petrol or diesel? Petrol and Diesel engines are very efficient, they have been R&D for decades. Electric cars offer _no_ benefit, they are not saving the environment because the electricity has to be made by either burning coal, nuclear reactor or some of the other less popular mass energy producing methods which all rape our planet of renewable resources or contaminate the place for thousands of years. I'm not saying let's continue to use oil as a way to power our cars either.
Please, do not tell me that a "windfarm" will power this car. I am sick to death of people thinking that electric cars are the way forward, why can't we push towards making cars run on things we have plenty of - water, methane gas, co2. All of these power sources are ACTUALLY possible (though in their infancy) and need so much more R&D.
Stop wasting time and money producing a vehicle that uses an expensive fuel so inefficiently, why can't we modify petrol/diesel engines to run on a synthetic fuel? I know that there are better options out there. I just hate the way that if something doesn't have an exhaust pipe people assume it's "environmentally" safe!
All car manufacturers are now saying "all electric cars by 2012/2020" etc.
This car merely pollutes by proxy. What a farce.
@meridimus No electric isn't the perfect answer. Maybe riding horses again would be better, but then the white trash can't leave their horses up on blocks in the front yard.
There needs to be a stopgap option for those that want to use something that is more efficient that a straight gas car. Research on fuel efficiency had basically stopped in the early eighties when CAFE standards were relaxed. So I have to say that while everyone was enjoying their SUV's, no-one cared about mileage.
The price of fuel is going to continue to rise. After Gustav hits in a few days I'll bet gas prices hit $5+ a gallon in some areas.
What we need is Mr. Fusion (Back to the Future) because Bushes answer of using grass isn't going to work unless smoking it transports your ass to work everyday.
Nuclear power is much more environment friendly than you claim and certainly surpasses cars that run on fossil fuels when it comes to environment impact.
- Electric cars will run if the power inside their batteries is generated in a nuclear power plant, wind turbine or a hamster wheel.
- Electricity can be generated anywhere, thus avoiding having to make business deals with unstable countries.
- Fossil or synthetic liquid fuels have to be transported in small quantities to every gas station on the planet, while electricity can flow instantly through power grids.
When a battery with a much higher capacity is constructed, electric cars will enter today's world, until then, we will have to settle with hybrids if we want to travel further than our local grocery store.
I think the long-term potential of electric power vehicles far outweighs any of the points you've mentioned.
The point is to remove your mouth from the teet which we are all hopelessly latched upon (Arab oil). It is a dirty, dirty teet, my friend. Far dirtier than the coal-fired power plants that will provide the initial bulk of electricity to the Plug-ins of tomorrow.
This problem is best represented as a multi-step process:
Step 1: Become energy self-sufficient. (see dirty teet above) This will enable the US to STOP borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Arabs.
Step 2: After Step 1, we can throw much more federal funding toward a more ecologically friendly approach to powering the Plug-in vehicles that are soon to come.
Step 3: Kittens n' puppies!
@meridimus
petrol/diesel engines are VERY EFFICIENT? stop talking buddy, average efficiency of an internal combustion engine on roads is around 20-25%, and no higher than 35-40% on all ideal conditions. water? sorry we tried that in the 1870s already with something called the steam engine. co2? sorry we're actually trying to get rid of that since we're making too much of it and we're killing all the polar bears with it. methane gas? it's certainly combustible, but it would require completely new infrastructures just to power vehicles with that kind of fuel and for right now, using ethanol spraying methods to cool the engine down and increase compression ratio/downsize engine/add bigger turbo/advance spark timing/etcetc is the most cost efficient way to move forward with an internal combustion engine.
@meridimus
Another day --- Another shortsighted, misinformed individual trying to denounce hybrid vehicles. I'm certainly not an industry expert, but I do understand the basic science and economics of the energy/fuel situation.
Your suggestion that petrol/diesel ICE engines are "very efficient" compared to an electric vehicle reveals just how ignorant you are of the situation, not to mention basic physics. If you do any amount of research into the topic you'll see that the fact of the matter is that hybrid electric vehicles are a great way to reduce dependence on oil and have a NET positive environmental impact.The environmental impact of the production and recycling of suitable battery and electrical engine components is inconsequential compared to the overall environmental benefits of a vehicle that achieves such fuel efficiency. Plug-hybrids (PHEVs) greatly extend this benefit.
1) The argument that hybrid vehicles just shift the source of pollution is very shortsighted. First of all, PHEVs energy-based environmental (and political) impact is a function of the power sources that run the electrical grid. As new renewable energy and/or clean energy production technology comes online in the form of solar-thermal plants, offshore wind, on-shore wind, geothermal, carbon-sequestering coal, natural gas, etc, the PHEV vehicles continue to get "greener" and more environmentally friendly, while gasoline ICE vehicles only get less efficient.
2) Even with traditional coal, natural gas, and fuel oil powered power plants, it is much more efficient to centralize power production in one major facility than it is in millions of simple combustion engines in cars. no matter the fuel, combustion engines are in fact incredible INEFFICIENT, with as much as 80% of the actual energy escaping as heat. Large facilities can use advanced technology, materials, and processes that are too expensive or impractical to have in a vehicle, but which can dramatically increase the efficiency of traditional sources of carbon-based fuel, from simply recapturing waste heat that is injected back into the system to other newer, much more complex techniques of increasing conversion efficiency.
On the same token, centralizing the energy production makes it much easier to maintain environmental standards and control pollution. Again, large centralized facilities can use technology that is too expensive or impractical for individual vehicles that can reduce emissions and create a lot less harm to the environment, even if they were burning the VERY SAME type and amount of traditional fossil fuels.
3) all the advantages I've mentioned until this point has entirely disregarded future distributed energy sources such as home and business solar-voltaic panels and small wind turbines, among other future technology. Many people will be able to provide for a large amount of their home and vehicle energy needs through these systems. Obviously, the same cannot be done with a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle.
Right now, hybrid electric vehicles that use petrol, diesel, biodiesel, ect are an important part of the transition to an all-renewable system. Although Hydrogen, natural gas, methane, etc is also a possiblity, the infrastructure to support it is not build yet. It's going to require an ENORMOUS amount of work and subsequent energy use and impact on the environment to build out the infrastructure to support, say, a nationwide hydrogen-based fuel system. They have to build out new plants to create hydrogen, pipelines, storage containers, etc. And even then, you still have to have a major distribution network to support the transporation of the hydrogen to individual fuel stations. This may become the future of transportation, but right now in the short-term, it is a whole lot easier and cheaper to focus first on reducing demand of conventional fuel through hybrid electric and plugin-hybrid electric vehicles. We already have an energy grid, even if it needs some work to support the new demand of electricity.
Regardless whether the future lies with hydrogen vehicles, all-electric, hybrid electric-biofuel, hybrid electric- hydrogen, etc, these unconventional means of powering vehicles are going to be a critical part of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reversing climate change.
You should really just stick to ranting about whatever it is that you are at least minimally knowledgeable about.
Electric allows the United States own resources to "fuel" automobiles ... rather than being dependent on foreign oil.
.... and while we have a continued dependence on coal power plants for electricity, at least most of that coal comes from within the US. No money is being sent overseas to suspect regimes. Eventually, "greener" power solutions will come about or become more prominent and the electric car will benefit greatly.
2 reasons for electric cars:
- Electricity is cheaper than oil. At current oil prices, way cheaper.
- Electricity is the standard transportation system for energy. Infrastructure is in place and works very well.
You make a point that the cars should be powered by ____(fill in the blanks)? Why not generate electricity from _____ and transport the energy over the existing energy grid? Otherwise you need a whole new delivery system which has proven prohibitive in the past.
You can instantly take advantage of any new ways of generating power with electric cars - just build the plants. It's the benefit of standards.
There is some loss along the way but the best place to put our resources is to create new technology to minimize those losses. Not invest in hot new tech X, create a whole huge expensive infrastructure, only to find out that tech Y is actually a lot better.
I am a big fan of electric cars (and trains, planes, etc) because there are many very interesting technologies coming down the line, nearly all of them infinitely smarter than nuclear, and electric is the way to take full advantage of them - no matter which one wins.
Meredimus wrote: benefit of using an electric car over petrol or diesel?
How I see it: It uses practically no energy while paused in traffic, or coasting. It can recharge itself while braking. Gas engines are always using gas.
Potential for higher torque, faster acceleration
Less noise pollution, no constant polluting emissions
It can be as clean as the electricity source. It defers and centralizes the solution of the fundamental problem. Everyone can start using an electric vehicle soon. Over time we can improve the electricity generation and storage.
The downside?: Electrics might be larger, faster and more powerful than any gas car ever was and yet more economical in the long run.
a good car to go tree-hugging in..............
No. The batteries in the car require massive environmental damage to produce (Worse over the life time of petrol cars).
Where do you think the electricity comes from to charge this thing? Fossil fuels and Nuclear power.
This is faux-green marketing. The car itself is an environmental death machine.
If you want to save trees, get a bicycle.
I'd like to see calculations for all this. Coal power plants are far more efficient that an engine could ever be watt for watt. So the overall production, charging, and recycling may very well take less than an inefficient engine that doesn't require a battery. You may very well be right on this point, but I don't believe so on the next.
You also lose credibility by this line: "Fossil fuels and Nuclear power" Not the first part of it, but the second. How do you propose we power everything if not for coal? Of course renewable is a great solution, but extremely expensive at current technology, while nuclear has made leaps and bounds in safety in the last decades. Of course there's not a perfect solution for waste disposal, but it's better than coal (which pollutes MORE than a nuclear power plant, radiation wise). I'm all for the environment, but I swear you tree huggers want the perfect solution right now or no solution. I want the best solution available instead of working with bicentennial and detrimental technology until some genius discovers that solution.
With a vast nuclear network and the elimination of coal, even the inefficient production of batteries would have a smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuel cars (even if it takes more energy to produce). Soon enough (hopefully) we'll have our efficient to make and maintain supercapacitors, and there will be no argument against electric.
@ Kroc Camen, yeah, Nuclear Power is way worse than burning gasoline, that emits those nice greenhouse gases, don't we all love them?
Wow Kroc... you've obviously got all the right facts there... facts right out of the oil company handbook so it would seem!
Whilst I agree that the batteries used in these vehicles aren't wonderful, it's certainly a step in the right direction! And as for electricity being so environmentally costly to produce... that's true... but electricity is still better to produce than the petrol we run our cars on.
My point is simply not to believe the marketing and name.
Yes, Nuclear power is clean; but Toyota would have you believe that the car is "green" and *doesn't* damage the environment, when this is patently false. All cars damage the environment, some less than others. There is no such thing as a "green" car, at all. If everybody went out and bought one of these, the world would still be doomed, even more so :)
Reader is absolutly correct.
However, I would argue that the problem of inferior performance remains an issue for electric cars (for now anyway).
The point is Kroc is saying "THIS IS BULLSH*T"
On the East Coast, a plug-in might break even with a gas car on emissions. On the West Coast, a plug-in has far less emissions. The East Coast needs to get with the program and cut back on coal.
It's been proven that it's far less damaging environmentally. The only "study" which claimed otherwise used some hilariously terrible requirements to make the Prius look like it'd be less environmental-like making the cars it was compared against last 3-4x as long (like, they divided the environmental impact of making the SUV over like 1 million miles or something insane so it'd end up being better).
The prius is less damaging, period. And get a clue, those "evil batteries" get recycled-Nickel is actually worth quite a bit of money, and we don't just chuck massive battery packs to the curb and let them leak everywhere. Just like we don't just chuck our current car lead batteries and let the lead and acid leak everywhere.
@Kroc Camen
If you would like to step out of your bubble of cynical ignorance and into the light of reality, feel free to read my comment above. I'm not going to retype it down here.
Hybrids in general are crap. The Geo Metro got 50+ MPG 15-20 years ago. From an individual perspective it is bad economically also (in USA), it takes many years to recoup the extra money spent for the hybrid. If you got say a Honda Fit for less than $15,000 instead of the $25,000 Toyota Prius @ $4/gallon gas you could drive about 100,000 miles before you reached the $25,000 total for the Prius.
A plug in hybrid on the other hand could save you money faster than a regular hybrid, in USA cost-wise it would be equivalent to achieving 200 MPG. It is doubtful these will be affordable in the near future though, looks like they will be very expensive when they come out.
Great. Those smug Prius drivers will only become more smug. They'll look down on the non plug-in Prius owners. Self-righteous, self-important, self-pleasuring hybrid drivers need to DIAF.
Actually, they will probably look up to your Hummer, and lack of penis.
Hummer? Those fetch for about 10,000,000 yen where I live. Way out of my price range. I drive a humble Nissan Skyline.
Like the Sneetches with stars upon thars!
Skyline? I'd take one of those over a Hummer any day.
If only it was easier to get one where I live...
@ Hroc Camen you are very very stupid, let me answer your question (Where do you think the electricity comes from to charge this thing?) IT COME FROM Air breez turbine ( europe & JAPAN are full of those unpolluted air Breezer) if your stupid country "USA" dose not make those thats there problem.. and BTW "USA" is the most polluted country in the world.........
............
I'm not stupid, thanks; and I'm from the UK.
I'm regretting commenting on Joystiq now, I didn't realise the extent people would defend something that has become relevant to them for the sole purpose of rebuking me.
You are not a tree-hugger for buying a Prius, you are perhaps a deluded tree-hugger who has been fooled by marketing to think that this car emits kittens and seals from the exhaust.
Air/Solar/Hydro covers like 5% of the electricity production, coal/oil/nuclear is where we are at...
True, nothing is very green until nuclear fusion pops up, but this is a good step towards helping the oil crisis.
This is not a good step, it is inefficient use of power!
Read some facts about power production, how power is lost during transit, how power is wasted. Maybe you will start to grasp something of the reality that is - this car is a pile of marketing dross!
Electric cars are not green, they are black like the coal they are using to run.
I am from the UK as well - people with their eyes open and ears to the ground.
@Sam:
I live in the Europe, and can confirm that at less than 1% of the supply, the place is not "full" of "air breeze" windmills. Even if ever available site in the UK accommodated such a device, only 7% the nations energy needs would be met. The UK is the windiest place in Europe.
@Merdimus, fuel engines are horribly ineffecinent, AC motors are about 90% effecinent, so we wind around the same numbers in the end...
@Meridimus: ICEs are a lot less efficient, and electric power transmission is a lot more efficient in comparison, so you are dead wrong.
Why do you measure plug-ins with MPGs, I mean how does that work?
Well, the best equivalent is miles per gallon, however, it will soon turn to miles per kWh. Right now, the best way to equate MPG in an electric vehicle would be to derive the cost of electricity per kWh, how many miles it gets on a single charge and how much a gallon of gas costs.
Essentially, if you pay 10 cents a kWh and your vehicle has a battery capacity of 20 kWh and you get 120 miles to an average charge, and unleaded is $4.00 a gallon, you'll have an equivalent of 240MPG.
I love electric vehicles.
Marketing
Which sounds better:
240 MPG
or
12 miles per kWh (general public has no reference to know if this is good or not)
I agree with you though, how can they state 120 MPG on a plug in hybrid when it is really more like 45 MPG + battery. I mean MPG is an acronym for miles per gallon of gasoline.
The design on the car seems to imply that its emissions consist of flowers, doves, and fish. THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER!
Actually, they've been ran over and spewn up the sides as the marketing men from Toyota drive through nature reserves laughing and cackling in their self enduced hysteria.
It sure is a step in the right direction. But we have a long way to go when it comes to storing all that electrical power efficently and environmentaly friendly way. Todays batteries just don't meet those requirements. Their life span just isn't long enough and take way to long to recharge to be very practical. Not like a car running on petrol where you can fill up your tank in a couple of min. With electric cars you'll need hours.
Your arguments won't apply to most people. The electric cars average 200 miles on a charge and most people drive less than that on a daily basis. It'd be more convenient to charge my car overnight in the garage than making a special trip to a gas station, regardless of how long it takes to fill the tank.
Dont the batteries come from dirty mine in canada and go to numerous countries before going into the cars in Japan (Jeremy from Top Gear mentioned it)?
That seems very enviromentally friendly.
Couldn't be any worse than ships carrying drinking water here from Fuji...
And where do they suppose you plug it in?...if you live in the metro area..of course I do..you dont have your own garage. All the public parking garages would have to be rewired for plugs in the parking spaces, and I cant wait to see the math on how much your charge comes out to be.
The estimate is that a charge costs 33% what an equivalent amount of gasoline would cost. That's with US gas prices...Europeans pay twice as much. I suppose your governments would have to start taxing electricity some more.
OK, what I want to know is how many km (typical) do you get per KWH of power from your AC outlet? I pay between 17-18c (Australian $) per KWH of electricity and about $1.50 per litre of fuel. So for each litre I get around 8.75KWH. Which one will I drive further on, 1 litre of petrol or 8.75KWH of charging power out of my power point (don't forget charging loss's).
So forget the green factor for a minute, will it cost me more to charge and drive the car or just fill it with petrol and drive?
The theoretical amount of energy in 1 liter of gasoline is around that amount. But your car engine is probably only 30 something percent efficient. So even accounting for losses in charging .. you would still save money ..if not triple ..maybe double..with plug in. If gas prices fall so will ur energy bill .. so you'll always save on fuel cost by going with a plug in.
Why can't we design a car that runs on Bad comments.. seems to be plenty fuel right here!
Seriously* though, the idiots who buy this will only care about where to plug in the iPod/iPhone over the specs...
The only reasons I am interested in electric vehicles is 1) we don't have to give those Gas SOB's any money 2) And no more maintenance guys making $150 just because some stupid 6" coolant return pipe broke... Hey its an electric car 3 things can go wrong, a-battery b-motor c-computer.
If this thing keeps going back to the repair shop I'd rather just go the opposite direction and stick with a Buick Grand National... at least you get some satisfaction that your hard earned money is Doing Mother nature...
lets not forget about the batteries in these things, the nickel is mined in Canada. This type of mining is pretty nasty with sulfur and acid rain but never mind. it's then shipped into a enormous boat to Europe to be refined lot of co2 in the refinery. Once more into a boat to china where the nickel is made into a foam. finally onto another boat to japan where it's put into a battery and into the prius. I read some where that it does enough damage to the atmosphere as a land rover discovery. but atleast it gets good gas millage and looks ugly as sin.
What an astonishing heap of idiocy the comments thus far have proven to be. I suppose anyone in need of a laundry list of the ignorant prejudices and irrational fears possessed by consumers who fear this kind of change could look here.
1) The fact that there is nowhere to plug these cars in, other than your home, is irrelevant. The majority of commutes in the U.S. are short enough that the entire commute could be accomplished solely via the electrical power stored in the batteries of this car. The gasoline engine is, in a way, therefore only there for long trips. The savings on carbon emissions would therefore be significant.
2) It costs far less to run a car on electricity, and produces far less carbon emissions, even when 100% of the power used to charge the car comes from coal. Don't you like saving money? Even if you think global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the red states, you'd be a fool not to recognize that, 10 or 20 years from now when the cost of plug-in hybrids has fallen significantly, it simply won't make sense to stick with a gasoline engine (unless it's in some kind of futuristic, ultralight carbon fiber car or something).
3) Are hybrid drivers really all that smug, or is your assumption that they are an alien species based more on your ignorance / fear of those whose priorities are different from your own? Or is this simply a class issue? Yes, hybrids are expensive -- that's why there aren't more of them on the road. Early adopters tend to be high-income... so what? Just because cars themselves were once a luxury doesn't mean they didn't go on to become a virtual right for every American.
Sure, it doesn't do a lot of polluting per mile, but how many years will it last? How much pollution was done to produce it?
by the way, i SERIOUSLY want to tell you, electricity is NOT a fuel, it is an ENERGY CARRIER, along with hydrogen. "fuel" can be stock energy, including oil, coal, etc.
Electric versus combustion engine:
1.) electricity is a fuel that can become less expensive over time
2.) I can generate the electrical fuel at my home; I am not dependent on the power company, let alone "foreign oil"
3.) car batteries are recyclable
4.) particulate matter from combustion engines is nasty
5.) I would much rather have a centralized, well-regulated, well-maintained power company that is burning coal to generate electricity, than a bunch of mini-polluters on the streets
Most folks have multiple autos in their household, and will continue to have them. Get a small plug-in only electric for commuting and city errands, and an electric/combustion hybrid for longer trips across the country. Seems reasonable to me.
Step 1: Design funny looking electric car covered in birds and flowers.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.
DAMN! Look at that hotness!!! Oh yeah, and it's tailgate party waiting to happen!!!!
I agree "now" that this car isn't very green. 50 percent of all electricity in the U.S. comes from Coal.
I wouldn't even fathom buying this, unless my house was completely, or very close to 100% solar powered.
I am more hyped about them putting Li-ON batteries in the gas guzzlers.
I do think it is ridiculous that many companies are touting how many cars they have getting 30+ miles to the gallon, or hybrid SUV's getting 16 miles to the gallon. Hell, my 77 Toyota Corolla got that.
Everyone in the US needs to pressure their Congress, Senators, Governors and the President to make tougher legislation. Let them know that being Green is a very decisive factor in how you are going to vote.
Only a man completely comfortable with his masculinity would drive a purple-ish car with flowers and doves slapped on the side.
I love it. I want one.
LOL@Izzy
> ...because Bushes answer of using grass
You really can't do anything for yourself? You have to do what somebody else says you should do?
It's the individual that uses petrol. It's not your president that pours petrol into your car and pollutes with it. Ridiculous.