Toyota engineer: BEVs won't spread even with rapid chargers

[dgpcolorado]

Does every non-LEAF thread have to get hijacked into climate change? There is a thread for that.

I realize that hydrogen fuel cells have been much debated in that dedicated thread. For myself, I realized that the physics didn't make much sense, compared to BEVs, years ago and don't care to get into it.

Regardless of whether or not hydrogen can be practical for cars, the Toyota guy thinks BEVs can't work for long distances, yet Tesla has already proved otherwise. So this anti-BEV campaign by Toyota (and some other companies) is pure disinformation, as EVDRIVER said. It also isn't surprising, since Toyota has been at it for some years now and I view them with utter contempt.

 

[smkettner]

<facepalm> Might want to have those blinders checked. :evil: Seriously - the youtube comments? Fine - I'll cross-post here what's already on this forum in a 'more appropriate' area:

Just saying the video has nothing to do with anything on this entire message board.
JMHO

 

[adric22]

My hope is that Toyota is planning some better PHEV models (with more than 11 miles of range) and when the new Prius comes out, maybe we'll see. In the meantime they might as well badmouth other EV products since they have nothing to really lose.

 

[AndyH]

Does every non-LEAF thread have to get hijacked into climate change? There is a thread for that.

I realize that hydrogen fuel cells have been much debated in that dedicated thread. For myself, I realized that the physics didn't make much sense, compared to BEVs, years ago and don't care to get into it.

Regardless of whether or not hydrogen can be practical for cars, the Toyota guy thinks BEVs can't work for long distances, yet Tesla has already proved otherwise. So this anti-BEV campaign by Toyota (and some other companies) is pure disinformation, as EVDRIVER said. It also isn't surprising, since Toyota has been at it for some years now and I view them with utter contempt.

Yes, "there's a thread for that". There's also the simple fact that all aspects of the human experience aren't contained by cubicle walls.

You're welcome to "not care" to look beyond an easy way to contain something you don't believe in. It's probably not reasonable to expect others will choose that particular set of blinders. As has been made very clear in a number of threads on this forum, even the all-mighty Tesla has strengths and weaknesses - and it CANNOT and NEVER WILL be a 100% solution to electric transportation. Anyone that refuses to acknowledge that fact should probably leave any BEV topics as they're disqualified themselves. Regardless of anyone's "religious choice" the reason we are electrifying transportation is not just because Prius-smug is wearing thin and some need to replace it with BEV-smug. it's not just because we're past peak oil. It's not just because diesels emit too much black carbon. It's not just because ICE is responsible for too much ground-level ozone. It's not just because humans are continuing to contaminate our atmosphere with too much fossil carbon and directly causing global warming. It's ALL of those things.

There's plenty of pressure to cut 80% of fossil fuel emissions by 2050 if we want to keep atmospheric CO2 under 450ppm. Some say that's too little, too late. But if we're going to get even remotely close to that, we need to electrify a LOT of our transportation system. And we don't have enough battery factories on the planet to supply even a portion of the BEVs we need to hit 40% much less 80%. And even if Korea, BYD, Tesla, and Germany not only build their first 'giga-factories' but quickly build 10 more, we'll STILL not be able to make enough batteries to get close to a 2050 goal. We MUST have other ZEV options or we might as well quit now.

Of COURSE EVDRIVER nailed it. It's a basic marketing and corporate positioning function to highlight how your company is different from the rest. Nissan does that, GM does that (even if they have to make up their own words), and thus Toyota will continue to do that. Don't forget, though, that the ONLY difference between a BEV and a FCEV is the size of the battery and the existence of a fuel cell stack and storage tanks. Toyota's been the world leader in hybrids, they've fielded FCEV and BEV. Is there another company on the planet with the 'corporate knowledge' that allows them to very quickly re-power their cars if they need to change directions? I'm not sure even Tesla could dramatically change course as easily.

Getting wrapped around the axle about a single engineer at Toyota is lunacy. It's just another tech-related Kardashian fetish. In order to get behind this, one has to forget that FCEV are ZEVs. They have to forget that FCEV are fully electric. They have to forget that we have BEVs today with efficient motors and controllers because of the collaboration with FCEV research, and vice versa. And finally, they have to forget that the tech we must must MUST replace is ICE. Oh yeah - then there's that thing about needing to build rapid charging across the entire WORLD to get the level of BEV saturation we need. And last time I checked, the vast majority of the world will NEVER be able to afford a Tesla, and no other BEV in the world can use the SuperCharger network...

I keep asking this but so far have had zero answers. Here it is again: If anyone thinks that we can replace at least 50% of ICE by 2050, how will we do it? How will we replace 80% by 2050? Tell me how many more Giga-Factories we'll need to replace the approximately 2 million class 8 trucks on the road in the just the US today. Tell me how we're going to get where we need to go and I'll leave this thread and all others that complain about Toyota or fuel cells or climate change. Anyone that can't or won't look at the entire problem should probably concentrate on Entertainment Tonight or Wheel of Fortune...

 

[SteveInSeattle]

I am an avid Leaf owner and supporter but I happen to agree, BEVs will not become mainstream. I enjoy mine, I advocate for them with my friends, but they are not for everyone. I see 100mpg hybrids as a much more practical long-term alternative... no range issues and less vehicle weight. The Leaf batteries contain the same amount of stored energy as 3/4th of a gallon of gasoline-- even with improvements they are not an optimal source of energy storage. We don't have any 100mpg hybrids yet, but I see them being possible in the pretty near term future.

 

[JohnBike]

Back to the original topic.
See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19142.

If the Toyota "engineer" is right, then why does Japan have so many charging stations, public and private.

 

[AndyH]

Back to the original topic.
See http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19142.

If the Toyota "engineer" is right, then why does Japan have so many charging stations, public and private.

So far the topic's not wandered away.

It's more than the number of charging stations, and it's more than the number of garages with outlets. One must include the number of cars, the way the cars are used, and the time it takes to charge to meet mission needs. Once those are racked and stacked, we might learn that Japan has too few, enough, or too many chargers for today, estimates to 2025, and to 2050.

But that still doesn't even remotely cover ALL transportation or even 80% of transportation - even if we leave out ships and aircraft. And it seems important that the engineer very likely wasn't limiting his point to Japan, but to the rest of the world. So...maybe he'll change his tune when even sub-Saharan Africa has a similar charging infrastructure as Japan. Even CA doesn't - much less the rest of the country. :lol:

 

[desiv]

Does every non-LEAF thread have to get hijacked into climate change?

Of course not..
Most of them (including Leaf threads) just get hijacked by the "Tesla/Supercharger" front. ;-)

As I've said before, I don't think the charging infrastructure will slow down BEVs, especially once they hit the magic "200 mile / affordable" area.
That will more comfortably cover such a large percentage of the population (who can charge at home) that it won't matter.
That said, I think the infrastructure will improve to catch the other areas (apartment dwellers, single car families who want longer drives, etc..) eventually also.
I think the ball is rolling and there's no stopping it now. Just a question of how easy or not the transition is... But it's happening.
(And no, I don't think BEVs will replace gas vehicles totally. But I do eventually see them becoming the dominant car. But not for a long while...)

desiv

 

[abasile]

I am an avid Leaf owner and supporter but I happen to agree, BEVs will not become mainstream. I enjoy mine, I advocate for them with my friends, but they are not for everyone. I see 100mpg hybrids as a much more practical long-term alternative... no range issues and less vehicle weight. The Leaf batteries contain the same amount of stored energy as 3/4th of a gallon of gasoline-- even with improvements they are not an optimal source of energy storage. We don't have any 100mpg hybrids yet, but I see them being possible in the pretty near term future.

For day-to-day use, you can get a 100 mpg hybrid today. It's called a PHEV (plug-in hybrid). You can drive electric most of time, and not need to worry about range on longer trips.

Hopefully, we shall soon see what works better in the market, a 200 mile BEV (Tesla Model 3) or 50 mile (AER) PHEV (2016 Chevy Volt). As batteries improve, both types of vehicles will provide more electric range.

Personally, I like the simplicity of the BEV approach and I'd rather go a bit out of my way on longer trips to avoid needing to burn gasoline. But I can also understand the appeal of PHEVs.

 

[AndyH]

As an aside - here's another competitor for the currently undersized global LiIon cell production infrastructure:

Just in the last year, California, New York, and Texas utilities alone announced plans to procure more than 6GW of energy storage on the grid by 2020—that’s almost 50% of New York City’s peak load. These states alone are creating a $10+ billion market opportunity and are driving widespread adoption of grid-connected battery storage. In short, this transformation is happening today and will forever change the way we generate, deliver, and consume electricity.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chipreg...ication-discussion-with-eos-energy-storage/2/

I'll set up a GoFundMe page as soon as at least five members of MNL pledge $500,000 each towards the next GigaFactory.

Anyone?

 

[dgpcolorado]

Yes, "there's a thread for that". There's also the simple fact that all aspects of the human experience aren't contained by cubicle walls.

You're welcome to "not care" to look beyond an easy way to contain something you don't believe in. It's probably not reasonable to expect others will choose that particular set of blinders. As has been made very clear in a number of threads on this forum, even the all-mighty Tesla has strengths and weaknesses - and it CANNOT and NEVER WILL be a 100% solution to electric transportation. Anyone that refuses to acknowledge that fact should probably leave any BEV topics as they're disqualified themselves. Regardless of anyone's "religious choice" the reason we are electrifying transportation is not just because Prius-smug is wearing thin and some need to replace it with BEV-smug. it's not just because we're past peak oil. It's not just because diesels emit too much black carbon. It's not just because ICE is responsible for too much ground-level ozone. It's not just because humans are continuing to contaminate our atmosphere with too much fossil carbon and directly causing global warming. It's ALL of those things...

The person who is smug and holier than thou here is you. You know nothing about me. I, a scientist, long ago accepted the validity AGW and I consider it a settled issue, deniers notwithstanding. And when it comes to such concerns I've been walking the walk for many, many years, so you can take your BS assumptions about me and shove them. I'll leave you to harp on your pet subject all you like and put you on the ignore list.

This is a BEV enthusiasts forum. What a shock to find actual BEV enthusiasts here!

 

[AndyH]

Yes, "there's a thread for that". There's also the simple fact that all aspects of the human experience aren't contained by cubicle walls.

You're welcome to "not care" to look beyond an easy way to contain something you don't believe in. It's probably not reasonable to expect others will choose that particular set of blinders. As has been made very clear in a number of threads on this forum, even the all-mighty Tesla has strengths and weaknesses - and it CANNOT and NEVER WILL be a 100% solution to electric transportation. Anyone that refuses to acknowledge that fact should probably leave any BEV topics as they're disqualified themselves. Regardless of anyone's "religious choice" the reason we are electrifying transportation is not just because Prius-smug is wearing thin and some need to replace it with BEV-smug. it's not just because we're past peak oil. It's not just because diesels emit too much black carbon. It's not just because ICE is responsible for too much ground-level ozone. It's not just because humans are continuing to contaminate our atmosphere with too much fossil carbon and directly causing global warming. It's ALL of those things...

The person who is smug and holier than thou here is you. You know nothing about me. I, a scientist, long ago accepted the validity AGW and I consider it a settled issue, deniers notwithstanding. And when it comes to such concerns I've been walking the walk for many, many years, so you can take your BS assumptions about me and shove them. I'll leave you to harp on your pet subject all you like and put you on the ignore list.

This is a BEV enthusiasts forum. What a shock to find actual BEV enthusiasts here!

Yes, this is a BEV enthusiasts forum. I'm here because I'm a BEV repeat offender and have been pushing for 100% electrification of transportation.

You're right - I don't know you. I'm not making assumptions about who you are, what you believe, or what you do. All I know is what people say here and based on that, a conversation requires that each of us should be open to being questioned. My confusion here (in yet another "FCEV are the spawn of the devil" threads) is PRECISELY because some here say they 'believe' in AGW but then they fight some of the solutions that can fix the problem!

My career and skillset has been heavily weighted towards data collection, analysis, and fusion - processes that tend to work toward holistic big-picture views and understanding. I completely realize that is in contrast to people with backgrounds in science and academia where the main thrust is to learn more and more about less and less in environments where the big-picture folks were laid off long ago in previous rounds of cost-cutting.

So - should you choose to peek out from under the ignore list - help me understand why otherwise intelligent people would rather promote plug-in hybrids rather than 100% fossil-fuel free solutions? Or, much more importantly, why do so many seem to think that once they 'accept AGW' they should be off the hook? AGW is not our only problem here folks - it's huge and certainly needs to be pretty close to the center of our collective radar screens - but no - driving a BEV, putting solar panels on the house and changing the thermostat a bit is nowhere near enough - especially in the USA.

If wanting to fix ALL the problems, or to point out that maybe we here have some more to learn, makes me 'holier than thou' then, well, it's still incorrect but as I chose to put the target on my forehead, feel free to keep shooting if you think that's the best choice.

Finally, since this is a Business, economy, and politics section of a forum - and since this is very much a business, economy, and politics problem - I do intend to keep asking questions so that I can continue to learn. If viewing questions that might bruise one's religious view is unsettling, then stay up in the sections about BEVs.

Back on topic: If you and others so strongly believe that ONLY BEV need apply, PLEASE help the rest of us understand how to make them happen as quickly as possible! Time's running out and the fossil fuel industry's still winning. And by the way - we STILL cannot make enough BEVs even at Model S prices to replace 80% of passenger cars by 2050 even if everyone in the world could afford to buy them! HOW WILL WE MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

Again - I ask because while I'm trying to understand why some believe as they do, much more importantly I'm trying to figure out how to FIX THE PROBLEMS that electric transportation will fix - and I absolutely do not know enough to do it alone.

edit...typos

 

[camasleaf]

"That totally goes against the need to stabilize electricity use on the grid."

That depends a lot on how the chargers are programmed. Right now most of them are a constant power load, that can be really destabilizing for the grid. But they can be easily programmed to be a constant impedance load, and that helps with the grid stability. Car charging can be one (big) load that the system operator can reduce fast for a few seconds to help the grid stabilize in an event. I do not believe any EV driver will be upset that charging took 3 seconds longer because the system operator send "reduce load to x%" to all quick charger in their system. Even the other way around, maybe the batteries/chargers can easily absorb 3 seconds "increase load to x%". (what about 30 seconds? an eternity for transient events). The more chargers the more predictable this capability is. Properly implemented EV car charging can really be an asset to the grid stability.

I heard there was a meeting in Phoenix early this year between EV car manufacturers and grid experts. Some of the EV manufacturers had not idea how helpful or damaging to the grid stability their car charging algorithms can be. Things are moving in the right directions.

As for the big load turning on and off, the more chargers the more the bumps will level.

 

[smkettner]

"That totally goes against the need to stabilize electricity use on the grid."

Maybe the grid situation is a bit different in the USA. AFAIK we currently have plenty of excess capacity and as we keep adding solar the glut will get worse.

 

[EdmondLeaf]

I like the FCEV idea but there is one big problem. It is exactly same problem that CNG is facing after so many years of development; it is cost of compression of natural gas. In case of CNG that is "just" 3,600 psi in case of H2 is 10,000 psi. Cost of home CNG compressors are very high, and they are high maintenance items. Even worst in case of commercial compressors where repairs can cost hundreds of thousands. Owner of public CNG station close to my home decided not to repair compressor when it become clear that will cost about $300,000.00. Situation is very different with BEV where refueling equipment is fraction of mentioned costs. I am really looking forward to economical EV that will have a range around 150 highway miles. If that is available, I will not need charging infrastructure for most of my trips, I will just plug into my home installation, and do not worry that soon maybe I have to spend big money to refurbish my compressor or compressor at public station is out of service..

 

[mjblazin]

While plug in hybrids eliminate concerns about range, they eliminate the major benefit of BEVs: low maintenance. Hybrids retain the old infrastructure and then throw in new stuff that can break. No solution will do everything. It would be good if people could rationalize their needs and then buy on the spectrum the right car(s) their household needs. The two earner household likely needs at least one ICE, but the second one can be a BEV for many people. Trucks making long distance runs can be CNG refueling at truck stops where volume dictates infrastructure has support. Local trucks can be gasoline or maybe BEV. Singles in urban areas could go BEV supplemented by ad hoc rentals.

Gas getting expensive is not going to be the driver for ICE alternatives. Lower purchase and maintenance costs have to become the drivers.

Too many people make their choice based on the far right of the distribution graph only thinking about that gas pump price. Overpaying in purchase and maintenance costs is the result of basing your decision on scenario that occurs 1% of the time.

 

[AndyH]

I like the FCEV idea but there is one big problem. It is exactly same problem that CNG is facing after so many years of development; it is cost of compression of natural gas. In case of CNG that is "just" 3,600 psi in case of H2 is 10,000 psi. Cost of home CNG compressors are very high, and they are high maintenance items. Even worst in case of commercial compressors where repairs can cost hundreds of thousands. Owner of public CNG station close to my home decided not to repair compressor when it become clear that will cost about $300,000.00. Situation is very different with BEV where refueling equipment is fraction of mentioned costs. I am really looking forward to economical EV that will have a range around 150 highway miles. If that is available, I will not need charging infrastructure for most of my trips, I will just plug into my home installation, and do not worry that soon maybe I have to spend big money to refurbish my compressor or compressor at public station is out of service..

I'm not sure this is a real problem, and really don't expect this to be a problem for a homeowner.

Yes, on the technical side someone will have to maintain pumps and other infrastructure, just as someone maintains everything we've used to this point. They'll continue to do that as part of their normal business. However...

It's very unlikely that people will produce 10KPSI in their garages for light vehicles. Buses and other larger vehicles on the road today are filled to 7500PSI. Light duty vehicles don't need to be filled to 10KPSI to be usable - just for max range. A neighborhood electrolyzer would be very usable 'even' if it could only produce 6KPSI gas and give vehicles 'half a tank' - that'll give about 200 miles of range with today's vehicles, give or take.

Additionally, pumps are not necessarily required for H2 because high-pressure alkaline electrolyzers are in use today that can approach 10KPSI directly. Dispensers don't input gas at ~100 PSI and raise it to 10K - they're working from much higher input pressures; the differential is much lower than for CNG and so is wear on pumps.

My personal view/choice/expectation is for BEV local/commuter vehicles and plug-in 'hybrid' FCEV for the '2nd car' or for long-range travel. They'd be plugged-in at home as we do now. The fueling infrastructure could look a lot more like the Tesla Supercharger network than today's gasoline station infrastructure.

 

[Slow1]

I'm not sure this is a real problem, and really don't expect this to be a problem for a homeowner.

Yes, on the technical side someone will have to maintain pumps and other infrastructure, just as someone maintains everything we've used to this point. They'll continue to do that as part of their normal business. However...

Ok, so let us assume for the sake of discussion that all compression technical issues are resolved. Where do you propose the H2 come from and how much energy will it require from source to 'in the car's tank'?

I'd really like to see a reasonable breakdown and estimate of this. From what I have seen so far, the two main sources are hydrocarbons (natural gas) and water (lots of H2 in there eh?). So I am biased against the natural gas solution as I believe we need to move away from any fossil fuels.

Then if we pull it out of water we have break it down which is very energy intensive. Face it, from a physics point of view, whatever energy we expect to get from combining the H2 and O2 is going to be required in order to break that bond. No 'free energy' being magically created here. My guess is that this will come from the electrical grid making the H2 systems a way of storing/transporting this energy.

Ok, so now we have our H2 ready to go but whatever energy is available has been spent getting it ready; is the efficiency of this system as a whole better than what it takes to get batteries charged? I.e. if we calculate the net energy input to the system and net energy used for motive power, what percentage are we at for each?

For rate of fueling - H2 likely wins
For energy density/weight - H2 likely wins
For energy efficiency and reduction of hydrocarbon use - do batteries win?

Long term I expect this really speaks to the meat of the issue. IF the H2 solution is better it will justify the additional expense to put a solution in place to refuel. As someone else stated - right now pure battery is a poor solution for long-haul trucking and the energy density of H2 or hydrocarbons wins. Increasing the efficiency of these systems (hybrid trucks) could go a long way to improve things, but in the end they are likely to remain on hydrocarbons for quite some time I would imagine. However for personal transport BEVs may be closer to a viable solution right now simply due to relatively lower cost of infrastructure. How much more efficiency can we gain in terms of actual energy storage/use with H2 vs batteries?

 

[AndyH]

I'm not sure this is a real problem, and really don't expect this to be a problem for a homeowner.

Yes, on the technical side someone will have to maintain pumps and other infrastructure, just as someone maintains everything we've used to this point. They'll continue to do that as part of their normal business. However...

Ok, so let us assume for the sake of discussion that all compression technical issues are resolved. Where do you propose the H2 come from and how much energy will it require from source to 'in the car's tank'?

I'd really like to see a reasonable breakdown and estimate of this. From what I have seen so far, the two main sources are hydrocarbons (natural gas) and water (lots of H2 in there eh?). So I am biased against the natural gas solution as I believe we need to move away from any fossil fuels.
<snips>

This has been covered in gory detail in the H2/FCEV thread. As I've already killed one of dgpcolorado's sacred cows, it would probably be better to chat 'over there.'

 

[AndyH]

Folks in CA might not be able to change hearts and minds in Japan, but you should have a 'fighting chance' with the folks at the Los Angeles Times, right?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwreRvL738Y[/youtube]