Toyota unveils plug-in hybrid, to test on roads

[jpak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST15378720070725

TOKYO (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp. unveiled a "plug-in" hybrid car based on its popular Prius model on Wednesday, saying it would test the fuel-saving vehicle on public roads -- a first for the industry.

But the world's biggest automaker said the car, called the Toyota Plug-in HV, was not fit for commercialization since it uses low-energy nickel-metal hydride batteries instead of lithium-ion batteries believed to be a better fit for rechargeable plug-in cars.

Unlike earlier gasoline-electric hybrids, which run on a parallel system twinning battery power and a combustion engine, plug-in cars are designed to enable short trips powered entirely by the electric motor, using a battery that can be charged through an electric socket at home.

Many environmental advocates see them as the best available technology to reduce gasoline consumption and global-warming greenhouse gas emissions, but engineers say battery technology is still insufficient to store enough energy for long-distance travel.

<more>

[robinlynne]

1. I don't understand why the auto companies all say they can be ready for sale

in 5-10 years, when they were available for sale 10 years ago? They must be sitting on the patents and not letting the available technology be used. Seems to me it would be in the public interest for the patent office to liberate the existing technology, since it is not being used. Is there such a possibility?

[TheWraith]

20. There's no real patent issue involved.

The basic technologies for electric motors and vehicles are completely public domain, and have been practically forever. Remember, the EV1 electric cars that they sold in the late 90's cost $80,000 to make, and even then had a very limited range (compared to electric vehicles being designed today) with a long recharging phase, several hours at least. When they talk about electric cars today, they're talking about average size cars (as opposed to sub-compacts like the EV1), with a range of 200 miles or more, and with a partial recharge taking minutes rather than hours.

[skids]

21. Actually there is.

Cobasys's patent on "large format" NiMH cells.

Fortunately that patent is becoming less of an obstacle as the high tech Li-ion chemistries/electrodes are starting to turn up the volume.

[TheWraith]

22. NiMH is obsolete.

Lead-acid batteries are used in many low-end EVs for their cheapness and relatively large capacity, but Lithium Ion is the gold standard for power density versus parasitic weight.

[wtmusic]

25. Large format Lithium-Ion is also twice as expensive and has safety issues

they tend to explode violently and need an expensive battery management system (if overcharged they are destroyed --$8,000 down the drain).

If NiMH was obsolete Toyota wouldn't be using them in Priuses and Chevron wouldn't be guarding them with their life.

[TheWraith]

27. Any batteries will explode if you mistreat them.

Any batteries can be destroyed by overcharging, too. The only reason NiMH is still used is because it's cheaper than Lithium Ion. That's primarily because there's been very little production of large Lithium Ion batteries--they're typically used for small devices like laptops and cell phones. Li Ion provides much more power density, which is essential to produce a vehicle with better range.

[skids]

29. The explosion problem is solved in the new chemistries.

...but only three companies make those and volume is still scaling up. And there's potential patent trouble there too with the Texas University patent holders trying to sue down people using Li-ion phosphate chemistries.

At any rate neither NiMH nor lead acid are obselete -- both can be improved with nanotech. Caterpillar has been working on this for lead acid and I forget who's been using nanorod electrodes for NiMH. And then there's ultracaps.

Were it we lived in a world where we didn't have to worry about someone "siting on" technology. Sigh.

[wtmusic]

33. May take a reworking of patent law

There is no doubt that sitting on patents violates the spirit and intent of the whole idea -- to foster innovation.

Yet another example where the interests of corporate America are directly in conflict with those of the people.

[phantom power]

40. I can imagine a reasonable incarnation of such a law.

If no product that is covered by patent-X is manufactured for N years, then that patent becomes public domain. That would forbid any person or corporation from sitting on a patent for more than N years, without utilizing the technology covered by that patent, or at least allowing somebody else to pay the patent-holder to apply that technology.

I imagine that N=10, or 20 years, would be reasonable.

[wtmusic]

42. While there at it, they can apply that principle to cybersquatting

--- way out of control.

[funflower]

45. When you say "sue down people" on the patent, do you mean they are trying to license?

Patents should not be an insurmountable obstacle to the development of this technology, although they will boost the pricing for a while.

Permanent injunctions against an infringer are not very common in patent cases.

A recent Sup. Ct. case, eBay v. MercExchange, set down these factors for deciding whether to impose a permanent injunction.

(1)that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2)that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3)that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted
(4)that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

I find it hard to imagine a situation where a university could meet this test as against an infringer who was trying to build a plug-in hybrid. The more likely result would be that the infringer would have to pay royalties to license the patent.

[robinlynne]

24. I wouldn't care if took hours, would you?

[TheWraith]

26. You want to stand at a recharging station for eight hours?

Fast charging batteries allow for electric vehicles to be used on longer drives, which would otherwise need liquid-fueled vehicles for their ability to be quickly replenished.

[skids]

30. In my case, I would charge overnight in my garage...

...in the rare instances I need to drive huge mileages with no time to recharge, I would rent. It's really not a selling point for me nor a whole lot of other potential buyers.

[TheWraith]

31. It is an issue for anyone driving more than 75 miles per day.

That's what you could expect reliably from NiMH batteries. Less if you need a normal-sized car. LiIon, on the other hand, will deliver up to 200 miles, and fast recharge cycles. Some cells have been tested as fast as an 80% charge in three minutes. Really, I don't see how it's even competitive, when you're talking about a price increase of only a few thousand dollars on the price of a brand new car.

[wtmusic]

34. Li-Ion holds more promise for the future; NiMH are ready now

The EV1 (not a subcompact, a midsize two-seater) got 175 miles on NiMH. 90% of American drivers drive less than 30mi/day.

[TheWraith]

38. Actually, the guaranteed range was 75 miles, not 175.

Though an EV1 with a NiMH battery could get up to 150 miles at a maximum, 75 was the only guaranteed level. And chances are that people living in LA would have significantly over-average drives, which limited the available market. And Li Ion works now, too.

[robinlynne]

36. As they said in the film "It will only serve 95% of the American population well".

the film being, who killed the electric car.

[TheWraith]

39. Save only for the price tag of $80k.

If they had designed it better, making use of the same parts as other existing vehicles rather than redesigning it, it could have been a better vehicle. The Chevy Volt is a good example of bringing the cost down, but they've skimped on the battery capacity, giving it a maximum range of 40 miles on a charge, which is silly.

[skids]

41. Agree about the capacity...

...40 miles is not enough.

However making use of parts from ICE cars isn't all it's cracked up to be, other than body and interior parts.

A real electric car system looks like this:



This system has:

4 motors that are all exactly the same and thus have 4x the "mass manufacturing bonus" on price.
No primary brake system -- no hydrolics, brake lines, or brake pads
No transmission -- no gears, no transaxle, no u-joints
4wd without a crankshaft down the center of the body

...and of course none of the emissions and fuel system nor alternator like any electric car.

Tell me that a total parts reduction that large is not worth the diversion from the mainstream parts market.


(though coincidentally this system is perhaps the most friendly as far as being used as a retrofit kit of ICE cars, and the particular car design pictured is based around Lotus's APX chassis.)

[TheWraith]

43. Oh, it is. Unfortunately a proper complete redesign is also phenomenally expensive

Not the least reason being that aluminum, which would reduce mass and thus greatly increase the range of the vehicle, is far more expensive than steel. While aluminum is 1/3rd the mass of an equivalent block of steel, it's also about 10x the price.

But yes, in general a reengineering of the vehicle is all to the good. However, in terms of cheap initial engineering, it's a roadblock. That's why early electric vehicles will almost certainly be fairly simple retrofits of existing designs, replacing the ICE and fuel supply with an electric motor and battery packs. But eventually, it will allow for more efficient and simpler vehicles.

[skids]

44. Except the engineering has already been done.

The drive system in the above link is already engineered, already in production, and being OEM'd to two car companies.

So there's really no point in slapping an electric motor on the end of a crankshaft, when you can just
bolt the motors onto the wheels instead, program a few parameters into the ABS/traction control system,
and hack out a space for the battery.

The company that produces this system's first demo car was a mini cooper.

[Ready4Change]

28. It would take a change in mindset.

I could be totally ok with it, if the choice was between that and not travelling at all.

With a 200 mile range, that could be 4 hours behind the wheel. After that I'm often ready to stop for lunch and a leg stretch. If I could plug the car in, go get a meal, then return and pay for the full charge my car took up during that time? No problem.

Now, if that some charge took 4 hours? That's tougher. However, if that's what it took to travel, I'd learn to deal.

[robinlynne]

35. 10 years ago there were 80,000 people on a waiting list in california....

and that's way before we had a war going on or knew what we know about global warming.

[TheWraith]

37. Actually, the interested customer list was only 5,000 people

And most of those chose not to actually seek a vehicle once they understood the range and charging limitations.

[wtmusic]

2. Author Chang-Ran Kim is very confused

"Unlike earlier gasoline-electric hybrids, which run on a parallel system twinning battery power and a combustion engine, plug-in cars are designed to enable short trips powered entirely by the electric motor, using a battery that can be charged through an electric socket at home."

This car is not at all unlike "earlier gasoline-electric hybrids". The only difference is that the batteries can be recharged by plugging them into a wall socket. It too runs on a parallel system...hence "hybrid".

"engineers say battery technology is still insufficient to store enough energy for long-distance travel"

That's why it's a hybrid. He apparently believes the car can only go 8 miles.

Fox must have helped him with the "some say" part, because the engineers who designed the EV1 had no problem making a car that went 170 miles -- on the very same NiMH-technology batteries this Prius uses, and without any help from an ICE.

[LSK]

4. I gathered that too

The cars can run for most commuters needs on batteries if they are only going 50 - 100 miles per day and plugged in all night. If they are going on a road trip, then the gas engine will kick in for longer distances.

[Gregorian]

5. He's talking about the motor/engine configuration.

All he means is it can run solely off the motor. It is uniquely different than most hybrids in that way.

[wtmusic]

7. A stock Prius runs solely off the motor

"While decelerating and braking, electricity is generated and partly recharges the battery. However, it is in traffic and stop-and-go situations that the car excels as opposed to other vehicles since the engine stops automatically and the car runs on electricity alone."

http://motoring.timesofmalta.com/article.php?id=1019

[Gregorian]

13. Here's a good basic description of the systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid#Powertrains


Series hybrids use an internal combustion engine (ICE) to turn a generator, which in turn supplies current to an electric motor, which then rotates the vehicle’s drive wheels. A battery or capacitor pack, or a combination of the two, can be used as a buffer of sorts to store excess charge. Examples of series hybrids include the Renault Kangoo Elect'Road, Toyota's Japan-only Coaster light-duty passenger bus, DaimlerChrysler's hybrid Orion bus, the Chevrolet Volt concept car, and many diesel-electric locomotives. With an appropriate balance of components this type can operate over a substantial distance with its full range of power without engaging the ICE. As is the case for other architectures, series hybrids can operate without plugging in as long as there is liquid fuel in the tank.<20>

Parallel hybrids, such as Honda's Insight, Civic, and Accord hybrids, can simultaneously transmit power to their drive wheels from two distinct sources—for example, an internal-combustion engine and a battery-powered electric drive. Although most parallel hybrids incorporate an electric motor between the vehicle's engine and transmission, a parallel hybrid can also use its engine to drive one of the vehicle's axles, while its electric motor drives the other axle. The Audi Duo plug-in hybrid concept car is an example of this type of parallel hybrid architecture. Parallel hybrids can be programmed to use the electric motor to substitute for the ICE at lower power demands and to substantially increase the power available to a smaller ICE than would normally be used, either mode substantially increasing fuel economy compared to a simple ICE vehicle.<21>

[Schema Thing]

14. That is not different from current Prius'

[Gregorian]

19. I think it is different in that the Prius has an engine that kicks in under high loads.

I'm still new to this stuff. I'm a purist. Electric or nothing. I have not been paying much attention to the hybrids.

I think the Prius doesn't have the option of running solely on the electric motor under high load conditions. "I think" being the key phrase. I don't know for certain.

[Kolesar]

32. I think that EVs are the product that people will be able to afford to do essential tasks

...like commuting to work, school, and the market. It is going to be an expensive product as it is since it has an expensive battery. EVs with a gasoline engine will be the product that those with means will buy: vacationers and business travelers.

I suppose that motorists will rent gasoline-powered automobiles when they have to do some long distance traveling.

[sabbat hunter]

46. EV's are an issue

if you live in an apartment building, like many city dwellers do, and own a car. There is no place for you to plug in and recharge, hells often you are lucky to find a spot near your building.

[Strelnikov_]

17. What is the problem with NiMH battery (other than Chevron holding the patent)?

As you note, the NiMH successfully powered an EV.

{tinfoil}Maybe this is their way of not coming out and saying that the NiMH battery is not available due to patent restrictions. They do have to keep the supply of NiMH batteries (produced under license from Chevron) flowing for the Prius, after all. Time for a Congressional investigation?{/tinfoil}


http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/cobasys_providi.html

The fact is that Chevron (through Cobasys) effectively controls the patent for large format NiMH batteries (aka the E95 battery used in the Rav4 EV). There are other manufacturers that have developed competing large format NiMH batteries, but none that have been tested and deployed like the E95.

Here's what drives the conspiracy theorists: Chevron (via Cobasys) WILL NOT SELL E95 BATTERIES OR ALLOW ANYONE ELSE TO MANUFACTURE THEM FOR SALE. PERIOD. If you have an old Rav4 EV and need new batteries... you are out of luck. Panasonic (who manufactured those E95's for the Rav4 EV) was successfully sued by Chevron/Cobasys and forced to stop manufacturing them. Even worse, they were not given the option to pay royalties or to license the technology (a very normal business practice). They were forced to completely stop production. That killed the Rav4 EV.

Side note: Old Rav4 EV's, even with ones well over 100,000 miles are still going strong on those old (now irreplaceabe!) batteries, getting 100+ miles per charge.

Anyway the question is, why would a battery company not sell its own product? Well, obvuously the answer has to be that not selling it will make them more money. It's not a "conspiracy", it's simple economics. Chevron makes billions selling oil products, and they found an easy way to quash a (potential) competitor.

Now, Panasonic is allowed to make the NiMH batteries that go in the Prius hybrid (and pay royalties to Cobasys), however those are small batteries not suitable for use in a full electric, or plug in electric car. EVs and PEVs would requre the forbidden E95 batteries.

There's probably a pretty good class action case for stripping away Chevron's E95 patents, but who has the $billions and time to fight them?

And now A123 and Cobasys/Chevron are teaming up to develop Lithium batteries for auto use. It's no wonder the conspiracy people are screaming!

. . More . . .

http://www.ocweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content2&task=view&id=25134&Itemid=47

The battery we use is the NiMH, same as used in cameras and small cylinder AA, AAA, etc. Toyota-Panasonic formed a partnership "PEVE" to license and improve NiMH for EVs. Around this time, GM purchased the worldwide patent rights to the NiMH battery. Later, GM decided to sell those rights to Texaco, which then merged with Chevron. Chevron then put the battery rights under control of a Joint Venture, "COBASYS," and decided to fund a lawsuit against large-format (electric car battery) competitors such as Toyota-Panasonic.

Chevron's lawsuit led to a settlement agreement with PEVE (and Sanyo, etc.) whereby Toyota paid $30M to Chevron, Toyota was granted the rights to use "small-format" batteries on the Prius, and Toyota agreed not to build "large-format" versions of its batteries (needed for plug-in cars) for export to the U.S. until 2014. At least, that's what it seems to be; portions of the settlement agreement are still secret.

Hence, Chevron and GM together led to the end of Toyota's RAV4-EV program, it seems; at the current time, only Chevron is allowed to market "large-format" NiMH batteries in the USA, and Chevron has decided not to do so. In fact, Chevron won't sell its NiMH batteries to anyone except large fleets, it says. When I say Chevron, I am referring to their Joint Venture, "COBASYS," which is their unit controlling the batteries.

[wtmusic]

18. Absolutely right -- the only problem is, they're too small

and the University of Texas Board of Regents is now claiming they own the patents to all Lithium formats (that's right -- ALL) and is suing DeWalt to stop them from using them in power tools. Who funded the research that resulted in the U of T patents? The Welch Foundation, an oil-industry consortium.

All adds up. No conspiracy necessary.

[LSK]

3. just as the other manufacters start to move to hybirds, Toyota takes it a step further

Plug-in hybrids are the next big step.

[hughee99]

6. Can someone help me with this...

I haven't been able to find any statistics of CO2 output from power plants vs. that of a combustion engine. Does a normal car engine produce more CO2 per mile than it would take a power plant to produce the same amount of electricity.

If a combustion engine is more efficient, then wouldn't plugging your car in produce more CO2 than using the standard engine? If the power plant is more efficient, how much more efficient is it? I imagine this second question would depend on the type of power plant that is producing the electricity (hydro, nuclear, coal, etc...), since the amount of CO2 would be dependant on the way the power is produced.

[wtmusic]

8. Even when the electricity is generated by burning coal

it's 20% cleaner than an internal combusion engine. With NG it's up to 90% cleaner, and with nuclear...100%?

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

[hughee99]

9. Thank you. Exactly what I was looking for. n/t

[TheWraith]

23. Not to mention the fact that even powered by a coal-fired plant

It still eliminates oil import demand.

[LSK]

10. there was a study done that assuming plugins charged overnight

Then we already had unused existing capacity to take on the load of overnight plugins.

[Kolesar]

11. New press release by EPRI & NRDC

EPRI-NRDC Report Finds Environmental Benefits of Deploying PHEVs

Analysis Cites Curb in Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Potential for
Improved Air Quality

PALO ALTO, Calif. - July 19, 2007 - The Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
today released a comprehensive assessment that finds that widespread
use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in the United States
could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and potential for improve
ambient air quality.

The research measures the impact of increasing numbers of PHEVs
between 2010 and 2050, including the nationwide environmental impact
of potentially large fleets that would use electricity from the grid
as their primary fuel source.

Among study's key findings were:

* Widespread adoption of PHEVs can reduce GHG emissions from vehicles
by more than 450 million metric tons annually in 2050 -- equivalent
to removing 82.5 million passenger cars from the road

* There is an abundant supply of electricity for transportation; a 60
percent U.S. market share for PHEVs would use 7 percent to 8 percent
of grid-supplied electricity in 2050

* PHEVs can improve nationwide air quality and reduce petroleum
consumption by 3 million to 4 million barrels per day in 2050

The analysis is the first to combine detailed models of the U.S.
electric system and transportation sector with sophisticated
atmospheric air quality models -- accounting for the future evolution
of both sectors in technological advances, electricity load growth
and capacity expansion.

"This research accelerates our understanding of the interplay of
emissions from various sources," said Steve Specker, EPRI President
and Chief Executive Officer. "We now see that widespread use of PHEVs
could expand the fuel options in our transportation sector and at the
same time yield net benefits to our environment."

The EPRI-NRDC study represents the most comprehensive analysis of the
potential reductions of global warming and other emissions from
wide-scale introduction of PHEVs over time. The study addresses the
impact that lower-emitting electricity generation can have for
increasing these benefits.

"NRDC believes that a combination of more efficient vehicles,
improved battery technology, and a lower-emitting electric power
plant fleet can produce substantial reduction in global warming
pollution from both the electric power and the transportation
sectors, said David Hawkins, Director of NRDC's Climate Center. "Our
results show that PHEVs recharged from low- and non-emitting
electricity sources can decrease the carbon footprint in the nation's
transportation sector."

Several benefits result from the use of grid electricity as a
transportation fuel. PHEVs can reduce direct emissions at the vehicle
tailpipe and indirect emissions at the fuel source when they recharge
by electricity produced by a portfolio of efficient combustion,
non-emitting or renewable generation. It is this linkage to a cleaner
grid that could enable PHEVs to produce less GHG emissions than
conventional or hybrid vehicles.

Using electricity produced from diverse domestic resources, PHEVs can
reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. The scale of the greenhouse
gas benefit from PHEVs will depend on the efficiency of the vehicles,
their range on a battery charge and the greenhouse gas emissions from
the electric generation fleet.

"The EPRI-NRDC study demonstrates that plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles can contribute significantly to the national effort to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said John E. Bryson, chairman and
CEO of Edison International. "With public support, it is likely that
someday millions of Americans will fill up their vehicles at the plug
instead of the pump, saving money and protecting the environment."

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles combine operational aspects of both
battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and power assist hybrid electric
vehicles (HEVs). A PHEV, like a BEV, can be recharged from the
electric grid, stores energy in an onboard battery and uses the
energy while depleting the battery during daily driving.

Unlike a BEV, a PHEV can use its internal combustion engine for
propulsion in highway driving or when the battery is depleted.
Because of this versatility, a PHEV can serve as a direct replacement
for a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle or HEV.

A joint press conference will be held today at 10:30 a.m.
in the Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club. Reporters may also
dial into the conference by calling 1.800.926.9174. The entire PHEV
environmental assessment will be posted online at
www.epri-reports.org at 12 noon EDT, July 19, 2007.

About EPRI
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with major locations in
Palo Alto, Calif., Charlotte, N.C., and Knoxville, Tenn., was
established in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit center for public
interest energy and environmental research. EPRI brings together
member organizations, the Institute's scientists and engineers, and
other leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the
challenges of electric power. These solutions span nearly every area
of power generation, delivery, and use, including health, safety, and
environment. EPRI's members represent over 90% of the electricity
generated in the United States. International participation
represents nearly 15% of EPRI's total R&D program.

About NRDC
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit
organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists
dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in
1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists, served from
offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco
and Beijing. More information on NRDC is available at its Web site:
www.nrdc.org.

Contacts: Heather Lynch Hansen [e-mail]
Clay Perry [e-mail]

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer [e-mail]
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org

[Gregorian]

12. Thanks. I trust EPRI.

This is not a solution by any means. But it's an improvement.

[GliderGuider]

16. Not bad. Now the big question is

Do we have until 2050?

[GliderGuider]

15. I've done such a study.

Electric cars and CO2