It also endorses range anxiety, praising hybrids -- like the Prius.
So that's why there are sooooo many fuel cell cars on the road right now.......... Oh wait.......
I find Toyotas statement very strange considering their current ownership of Tesla shares. From my point of view it just seem as a way of getting the most out of a proven and cheap technology without making any effort inventing and investing in new tech. It's a pure financial strategy game comment, nothing else.
they've figured there's no market for yet another ugly small car with no range, and they don't have cars to offer other than hybrids.
The RAV4 EV deal is laughable, it's purely to keep regulators off of their backs.
From the article: "Takeshi Uchiyamada, the executive overseeing technology and new model development at Toyota, said the long-term potential for fuel cells was great, compared to electric cars, because of greater cruise range and shorter charging time. He said tens of thousands of fuel cell vehicles were likely to get sold in the 2020s."
But TM is going to sell 2 'tens of thousands' in 2013 and 3 in 2014. Say 3 again in 2015, then 10 in each of 2016-2020. 580,000 with all the supercharger infrastructure, it's hard to see where the fuel cells are really going to get traction and their own infrastructure built out in the 2020's.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail"
In other words if all Toyota currently has to offer are hybrids and a tiny complement of prototype fuel cell vehicles then competition from BEVs is to be deemphasized. Sell what you have, right?
Their statement can be further critiqued when considering the current source of most of the hydrogen used to power fuelcell vehicles - Natural Gas.
Fuel cell cars are better than EVs, with the few Model S's that are out there being the exception.
If they managed to make an awesome car, like the Model S, the story would be different.
Apologies to the other forum members that own the Leafs and Priuses, but these two cars suck. They're butt ugly and have crappy performance. In an ICE cars, this would mean you're trading some quality for price, and thus still get value, but with this two cars, you get less than what you would if you spent the same money on an ICE car.
So of course anyone could say ICE is better than BEV. The only examples so far are only for people who want to sacrifice quality and utility for being green or whatever.
Sorry, I started talking about ICE, which made my pos tlook confusing.
What I was trying to say is that the fuel cell cars can be made to be like ICE vehicles. The consumer BEVs that are out there, aside from the Roadster and S, have all of these compromises.
Even the Karma, with cost being less of a barrier to quality, has crappy performance and other compromises, even if you disregard its defects.
Yeah, just burn that natural gas in a suitable engine, it uses virtually the same energy as a fuel cell vehicle. Without all the expense of storing and transporting hydrogen. Natural Gas network is pretty developed in the US and Europe. Hydrogen makes sense for buses and trucks, but strangely the only hydrogen buses are some demonstration vehicles that cost a fortune.
*provided the hydrogen comes from natural gas
You forgot GenIII, which will shoot for 200,000 per year starting in 2016-7. Swamps all the other numbers put together.
Natural gas is better suited to transport (semis and trains) than to mass produced transportation. IMHO anyway.
Canada's got a natural gas powered train in testing out in Alberta. I'd link the article but that's a pain on my iPhone :P
"Canada's got a natural gas powered train in testing out in Alberta. I'd link the article but that's a pain on my iPhone :P"
Totally unsurprising for two reasons:
I've seen what appear to be Natural Gas powered semis on highway 401 here in Toronto. Although impossible to check by looking strictly at their external characteristics, the trucks did not appear to have been significantly modified. I speculate that diesel engines may be easily modified to run on Natural Gas.
The second reason I don't find it surprising is that Alberta drills and fracks for Natural Gas like noone's business. Even if it means poisoning peoples' wells or causing estuary contamination. Their politicians are literally paid by oil and gas companies.
Sorry for the rant everyone - have a good day.
Sorry - estuary is the wrong word; marsh is better. Apologies.
Poisoning wells is hard, too, since there's generally a few thousand feet of impermeable rock underlying and supporting the water table between the fracing and the wells. "Gasland" was a fraud; the flaming faucets shots were rigged by hooking up a gas feed into the tap's water line. Places with real flaming faucets always had them, from shallow gas deposits in their areas; nothing to do with fracing (or drilling of any kind).
Frac gas is going to power the electric plants that EVs depend on, well into the future. Cheap NG is now almost the sole source of fuel for new generators commissioned. It also is permitting the refurbishment and reopening of heavy industry (e.g., steel plants in Ohio) that went bye-bye long ago when oil sky-rocketed.
BTW, there's a new Cdn. company called GasFrac that eliminates the need for any water in fracing. It uses gelled butane from the well itself instead!
Brian H I am still very skeptical regarding fracking. I'd rather not take chances with our health and welfare. Where did you find this information about faked faucet flames? I've also read of other incidents outside of the faucet flame issue. It strikes me as difficult to understand the motivation of unincentivized people to report health concerns after fracking is performed nearby unless there is cause for alarm.
In my opinion Natural Gas powered plants should only be installed where there are no wind turbine or solar options. In the future we will definitely collect energy from many sources but based on my readings I'd much rather see further research into biofuels than NG. I'm hoping the plants you are discussing in Ohio will be environmentally conscious. We do need industry however it must (in my opinion) be tempered with concern for the future. Ideally these plants would prioritize recycling.
Anyways, thanks for the good conversation. I'll stop here to allow others to discuss the OP's topic.
Jewish , what I take away from your dislike of American natural gas, is that you prefer to use middle east oil to power our trucks and coal to power our utilities.... What is ideal is solar and wind. However we do need a bridge fuel
Sorry, my I pad corrected... Jewsh, my apology
"Jewish , what I take away from your dislike of American natural gas, is that you prefer to use middle east oil to power our trucks and coal to power our utilities.... What is ideal is solar and wind. However we do need a bridge fuel"
No worries about my nickname. It's something I got in high school and it stuck. :-)
In any case, just to be correct, I much prefer biofuels (as mentioned) to any fossil fuel as far as hydrocarbons are concerned. As you say, beyond "bridge" biofuels wind and solar are indeed much preferable to NG or otherwise. In specific I was commenting on Alberta-based (Canadian) Natural Gas.
Getting back on topic:
How unfortunate that someone would be so short-sighted and show no understanding of emerging technology.
Oil companies receive subsidies and tax breaks, but electric vehicles should have to stand on their own merits? Hardly.
Biofuels are the devil. They cost more energy, ultimately fossil fuel, to create than they return. Most of them are created from corn, whose production distorts and price-inflates the whole grain market and causes world-wide starvation, or from palm oil, grown in plantations that replace forest and farm land in the tropics.
Ethanol is the worst and stupidest, but none of them make any sense. Except as vehicles for trillion-dollar international scam shell games.
"Biofuels are the devil."
How is algae based diesel fuel a problem? Not all biofuels are equal. I agree 100% about ethanol.
The subsidies as set up are reasonable (1st 200K cars produced by each maker). IMO, Tesla would make it without them. Few of the others would.
The "oil subsidies" is meme is BS, of course. Relative to the size of the industry, they're trivial, and they pay far more in direct and indirect taxes than they receive. For the 30+ years that the wind and solar companies have been subsidized (hugely more on a % of capital and sales basis), they have never returned more tax than they were given. Not even close. And they're still claiming "baby" status!
A Germany and Spain, and gradually even the UK, have discovered, the rent-seekers in the renewables industry will suck the treasury and economy dry if given a bit of rope. They have had to slash support and repeal legislation to avoid being dragged over the cliff.
Reality Bites: in order to avoid energy implosion, Germany is having to go full bore building brown coal-burning electric generating plants. Wind and solar are so twitchy and uncontrollable that industry is fleeing to jurisdictions where they can get reliable power, at less than nose-bleed prices.
typo: "As Germany and Spain..."
Algae need food. Their fertilizers are generated, directly or indirectly, from fossil fuel. Again, if you audit the full sequence you find that harvesting each gallon of algae oil entailed using more energy than it returns, especially in large installations. You can't extrapolate from small pretend pilot projects.
"Reality Bites: in order to avoid energy implosion, Germany is having to go full bore building brown coal-burning electric generating plants. Wind and solar are so twitchy and uncontrollable that industry is fleeing to jurisdictions where they can get reliable power, at less than nose-bleed prices."
The fossil fuel industry continues to exist because they excel at externalizing costs and fossil fuels are still relatively easy to extract. Neither condition can last forever.
When considering the social injustices committed to obtain crude or natural gas, the additional strain on our healthcare system caused by pollution or the cost of environmental cleanup it is false to suggest fossil fuels are cheaper.
We have to admit that energy is expensive and learn to use less of it. I'd rather pay more for renewable energy and pay the true cost than mortgage my future.
Algae need food. Their fertilizers are generated, directly or indirectly, from fossil fuel. Again, if you audit the full sequence you find that harvesting each gallon of algae oil entailed using more energy than it returns, especially in large installations. You can't extrapolate from small pretend pilot projects."
Thanks for the excellent conversation, by the way. I just read now that a significant source of phosphate is urine! I see now that algae could potentially be used to break down human waste as part of water treatment. This could lessen any dependency on fossil fuel based fertilizers and potentially make biodiesel more palatable from an environmental perspective:
The pollution argument only goes so far. Emissions of hydrocarbons and particulates have been reduced by orders of magnitude in the developed countries, to the point that it is a marginal or minor problem. Health costs are much exaggerated, based on decades-old stereotypes. And fossil fuels are cheap, concentrated and efficient. The proof is all around you: the entirety of your lifestyle, product, and energy supply arose from their exploitation. The surplus value they have provided (cheapness) is what the underdeveloped nations have lacked, and are determined to have a share in.
As far as CO2 damage, the results are in. World CO2 output has soared past the highest projections a decade or two ago, and temperature has been stable or falling for almost a decade and a half. The proposition/hypothesis is decisively rejected. The boondoggles and gravy train it fueled will continue for a while yet, but "the thrill is gone".
Most of what needs to be said has been said in this thread:
There can be not doubt that Tesla will not pursue hydrogen while Elon is at the helm. Check out this video. During the Q&A towards the end, someone asks Elon for his view on hydrogen and his answer is pretty clear: http://youtu.be/uegOUmgKB4E
"Externalizing costs"? Renewables, with their subsidies, are the all-time champeens at that. And the general proposition is falsified by the real-world test: economies like CA, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Greece, UK that have relied big-time on renewables are going bust and desperately trying to backtrack. Those like China, India, Canada, Poland, etc. that said, "Thanks, but no thanks!" are doing far better. In fact, the entirety of industrialized society was built on them, and "costs" the environment far less than much smaller "traditional" economies do, both per capita and per square mile.
If wishes were Porsches then beggars could drive.
the "subsidies are more for hydrocarbons" argument is trash, of course. Per energy unit contributed, and/or net of taxes paid, renewables are a serious drain on revenues. Hydrocarbons are massively positive contributors. "Tax breaks" are adjustments to tax paid; NO renewables pay tax which is a significant fraction of what they receive.