This is TM's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following TM's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I would think that all ICE cars will transition to hybrids much sooner than EVs cracking the 10% market share point. Hybrids save a lot of gasoline and with regenerative braking, the brake pad people are going to get lonely. I don't know anyone who has changed brake pads on their Prius yet. The addition of the electric motor and battery of the hybrid will become commonplace and people wont even think anything of it - that's my prediction.
One way to fight back: So if you haven't already, go get yourself a Leaf, Volt, Bolt, or Tesla (or some other stingy fuel user like the Prius).
Solar on the roof? Do the math please before making such a statement.
Even if all new cars sold today were suddenly all electric, it would take a decade or two to replace all existing cars. That day can't come too soon for me. However, in the meantime, 90%+ cars sold every year have an ICE so I welcome research and technology improvement that makes those cars cleaner and more efficient.
Even 50 kW is slow. When I visit a supercharger, I generally leave when the charging rate gets down to 50 kW. However, these may remove range anxiety and help people get more comfortable with EV driving. However, I don't think these slow (50 kW)chargers will be useful 5 to 10 yrs down the road.
I'd like to see how a hybrid would stack up. I think it would make the ICE engine more efficient and would delay parity even further.
That sounds great, except what does it do for batteries and how do they charge the batteries? Hopefully not with a diesel generator out at sea.
I also think Toyota has missed the transition. Of course the transition doesn't happen for another 5 yrs at the earliest, but I'd say Toyota has perfected the ICE vehicle by making it a hybrid. Taking the next step towards a no-gas car, it seems like Toyota is not playing that game. Prius Prime is a yawner (4 seater? what were they thinking?), and the fuel cell vehicle is way too early (but it is a nice research vehicle). Tesla's supercharger network could be the vital piece of the puzzle that everyone else is missing - it is needed to elevate sales into the millions of cars in my opinion.
People also underestimate how nice it is not to visit gas stations. Visiting a supercharger on a trip is actually relaxing - you get the needed 30 minute break every 3 hrs, without the guilt of feeling like you are ruining your average mph - because you have to take the 30 or 35 mins, you don't rush through the stop like you (I) would with a gas car. And for all of those weeks and months you stay in town, you never have to pull into a mini-mart, which for me is a joy.
But the bad news is that they didn't put the 3rd seat in. Only 2 riders in the back is a deal breaker for me. I'll stick with my 2012 PiP thank you.
Seems slow, but geologically speaking, pretty fast. Change isn't a step function. Real life rates of change have ramps in them.
Bernard: The PiP demand is there, Toyota has just decided not to make many of the 1st gen PiP and recently stopped manufacturing them. If they made more, they would have had a lot of sales. So Toyota decided it wouldn't be a success, not the customers. Gen IV PiP due out next year. I've got a 2012 PiP and even with the small EV battery, I still have 1/3 of my total miles via EV. Perhaps they stopped production because they felt that the car, in the wrong user's hands, would be a blemish on Toyota. In the right user's hands, it is fine and very nice. So I'll agree that the PiP was not successful, but I'll argue that Toyota pulled the rug out from under it and it could have been successful had Toyota decided to put embrace it.
They are also buying back older Model S cars and reselling them as Certified Pre-owned. Easy way to make money and up the number of cars sold.
They are investing in the future. I guess people don't understand that you have to spend money to make money. Put your money under the bed mattress or bury it in the back yard - nice and safe and useless.
strange that they don't charge for KWh. 10 mins on an 80% full battery gets you less energy into the battery than when starting with a 10% full battery. Maybe that is incentive to get off the meter once you are at 50 or 60%
@SJC - Roadster pack upgrade (small volume) today is $29,000. OK fine, but has no bearing on what a model S pack will cost in 10 yrs. Tesla aims for $100 / KWh by 2020. Cost = 8500 in 2020. Price should fall further by 2025. I can't see it being above $10,000 - and it will most likely be a 100 KWh pack in 2025. Don't apply static logic to a dynamic situation.
@SJC - you think that in 10 yrs from now the battery is going to be 2x higher than prices today? No, not a fair assumption at all - way off the mark.
oops 60,000 KWh not 66,000 KWh. Still, I can't see anyway to get to $42K in fuel savings.
@ How do you save $42,222 of fuel with 200,000 miles driven in 10 yrs? A prius would get you there at 50 mpg in 4000 gallons of gas. at $3 / gallon, this is $12,000 total in fuel. OK - maybe you are comparing it to a 20 mpg car but then that is still $30,000. I'll bet you didn't include the electricity cost either. Model S gets about 3.3 miles per KWh - That means 200,000 miles needs 66,000 KWh at 10 cents per KWh that is $6600 in electricity - say you get half of that from superchargers, that is still $3300 unaccounted for. How is $42222 a conservative number?
@SJC - where do you get your numbers that 85 KWh batteries will cost $20-30,000 in the year 2025? I'd like to see the assumptions you made.
Norway is not a member of the EU, thus Norway is not included. They have nearly 62,000 such vehicles according to the study below. Go Electric!
Wow, lots of negative comments here. This is more like a vision statement from Toyota, as nobody seriously plans specifics 35 yrs out - too much will change along the way. Autonomous driving is coming. Humans are not bad at it, but sorry, computers will have fewer fatal accidents. If all of the light duty vehicle miles driven in the US were suddenly converted to electric, the annual US usage of electricity would increase 10% from ~4000 TWh to 4400 TWh. I wish people would do some math before making claims.
@Davemart, Yes, good points. However, the factor was 50% before wind or solar was a significant number. Germany has managed to integrate high percentages of wind power, but OK, their country is smaller. I'd argue that solar tracks air conditioning use, so that relieves some of the intermittent issues of solar. I have not run the numbers on how much storage is needed to avoid adding gas fired turbines to the mix, but smart metering and smart appliances may be able to help avoid shortages during max hours. I would think the biggest concern would be figuring out the probability curve of solar/wind minimum output vs duration - what do you have to prepare for based upon your renewable mix.
Overall US capacity is ~1 TW and annual generation is ~4000 TWh. Since there is ~ 8000 hrs in a year, the overall average capacity factor (if I'm using that term correctly) is ~50%. There must be a lot of idle generating capacity out there to bring the average down to 50%. So when I see that solar's is ~25%, and wind ~30%, it's not actually as bad as it seems.
Best comments I've heard in awhile. (-: There is also the chance that peak oil demand has occured.