Toyota Reveals Its Plan To Catch Up On EV Battery Technology (arstechnica.com) 93
An anonymous reader writes: Toyota, the world's largest automaker, has a problem. Although the company is famous for pioneering lean methods of manufacturing and being an early pioneer of hybrid electric powertrains, the switch to battery electric vehicles caught it somewhat unprepared. As rivals locked up contracts for critical minerals and formed joint ventures with battery makers (or built their own), Toyota has appeared to fall behind. Now, it has released a new roadmap showing how it will regain competitiveness and sell 3.5 million EVs by 2030. After some early experiments with electric-converted RAV4s (including a partnership with Tesla), Toyota has finally released a modern BEV, the bZ4x. The car had a difficult launch -- a recall for wheels falling off will lead to that -- but a week's test of a bZ4x exceeded our low expectations. A look at the car's specs makes clear Toyota's problem, though: There are different battery packs for the single-motor and dual-motor versions, made by Panasonic and CATL, respectively. [...] "We will need various options for batteries, just like we have different variations of engines. It is important to offer battery solutions compatible with a variety of models and customer needs," said Takero Kato, president of BEV Factory. To that end, Toyota is working on four different solutions. Three of these will use liquid electrolytes and are meant for different applications.
A performance-focused liquid electrolyte lithium-ion battery is slated to be the first to appear in 2026. Toyota says it's targeting a 20-minute fast-charging time and wants these cells to be 20 percent cheaper than the cells used in the bZ4x. The company plans to use this in a BEV that can travel almost 500 miles (800 km) on a single charge. For lower-cost vehicles, Toyota is looking at lithium iron phosphate cells, a chemistry that's already extremely popular in China and is being used by Tesla. Toyota plans to construct these as bipolar batteries, where the active materials for the anode and cathode are on either side of a common electrode carrier rather than having separate electrodes for each. (Toyota already uses this approach for the nickel metal hydride batteries it uses in many of its hybrid models.) LFP cells are targeting a 40 percent cost reduction compared to the bZ4x battery and 20 percent more range. LFP cells don't charge as fast, but Toyota wants a 10-80 percent DC fast-charging time of 30 minutes. If it pans out, the company expects these cells in 2026 or 2027.
There's also a high-performance lithium-ion chemistry in development, though it may not be ready until 2028. Toyota wants to combine its bipolar electrode structure with a high percentage of nickel in the cathode to create a pack with extremely long range -- up to 621 miles (1,000 km). But it's also targeting a 10 percent cost reduction compared to the performance-focused pack mentioned earlier. The fourth battery technology is one that Toyota has talked about a lot in the past -- solid state. Both electrodes and electrolytes in a solid state battery are solid, which means the battery can be smaller and lighter than a cell with liquid electrodes. The technology is tantalizing, but it's troubled by the formation of dendrites -- spikes of lithium crystals that can grow and puncture the cathode. Toyota says it has made a breakthrough in durability for lithium-ion solid state cells -- it's being coy as to exactly what -- that has allowed it to switch to putting these batteries into mass production, with commercial use scheduled for 2027 or 2028. Interestingly, Toyota was originally planning to use solid state cells in its hybrids only, but it appears to have revised that idea and will put them in BEVs, with a target range of more than 600 miles and a fast-charging time of just 10 minutes.
A performance-focused liquid electrolyte lithium-ion battery is slated to be the first to appear in 2026. Toyota says it's targeting a 20-minute fast-charging time and wants these cells to be 20 percent cheaper than the cells used in the bZ4x. The company plans to use this in a BEV that can travel almost 500 miles (800 km) on a single charge. For lower-cost vehicles, Toyota is looking at lithium iron phosphate cells, a chemistry that's already extremely popular in China and is being used by Tesla. Toyota plans to construct these as bipolar batteries, where the active materials for the anode and cathode are on either side of a common electrode carrier rather than having separate electrodes for each. (Toyota already uses this approach for the nickel metal hydride batteries it uses in many of its hybrid models.) LFP cells are targeting a 40 percent cost reduction compared to the bZ4x battery and 20 percent more range. LFP cells don't charge as fast, but Toyota wants a 10-80 percent DC fast-charging time of 30 minutes. If it pans out, the company expects these cells in 2026 or 2027.
There's also a high-performance lithium-ion chemistry in development, though it may not be ready until 2028. Toyota wants to combine its bipolar electrode structure with a high percentage of nickel in the cathode to create a pack with extremely long range -- up to 621 miles (1,000 km). But it's also targeting a 10 percent cost reduction compared to the performance-focused pack mentioned earlier. The fourth battery technology is one that Toyota has talked about a lot in the past -- solid state. Both electrodes and electrolytes in a solid state battery are solid, which means the battery can be smaller and lighter than a cell with liquid electrodes. The technology is tantalizing, but it's troubled by the formation of dendrites -- spikes of lithium crystals that can grow and puncture the cathode. Toyota says it has made a breakthrough in durability for lithium-ion solid state cells -- it's being coy as to exactly what -- that has allowed it to switch to putting these batteries into mass production, with commercial use scheduled for 2027 or 2028. Interestingly, Toyota was originally planning to use solid state cells in its hybrids only, but it appears to have revised that idea and will put them in BEVs, with a target range of more than 600 miles and a fast-charging time of just 10 minutes.
LEV (Score:2)
Liquid electrolyte, nice. So does that mean I can just pump in pre-charged electrolyte so I don't have to wait 30+ minutes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:LEV (Score:5, Informative)
Liquid electrolyte, nice. So does that mean I can just pump in pre-charged electrolyte so I don't have to wait 30+ minutes?
No, it means that the batteries are just like all the other Lithium Ion batteries out there.
That is not how a battery works. (Score:2)
>>So does that mean I can just pump in pre-charged electrolyte
That is not how a battery works. The electrolyte attacks the metal electrodes. You have to replace that also.
Re: (Score:2)
yea Toyota (Score:1)
Toyota is doomed. Too late, Captain Kodak. (Score:1)
Hybrid is obsolete.
Toyota is doomed.
Too late, Captain Kodak.
Re: (Score:2)
Once they develop a solid state battery with 20 year lifespan and 400 mile range even at 20 years then maybe we will talk.
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrid, so funny.
Obsolete.
One-upsmanship (Score:1)
Let's see... Tesla's had their car roofs occasionally fly off, but Toyota's been able to beat that... what with losing those wheels.
If Chevy, Ford, and GM want to get on top of this game, they might need a BEV that goes full RUD [theguardian.com] at freeway speeds.
CCP One-upsmanship (Score:1)
Copied something wrong...
Re:One-upsmanship (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder when people will stop sensationalizing every car recall as if A) it means the problem is universal, and B) it means that the company is the only company ever to have issues. All companies have recalls. Even recalls that affect large numbers of vehicles usually have only had the problem affect a relatively small number of vehicles (or none at all, in the case of theoretical risks). And often the recalls aren't even the fault of the company itself, but rather parts suppliers. Furthermore, these days OTA software updates are increasingly being forced to be classed as "recalls", so you get "recalls" where owners never had any problems and didn't have to do anything to fix them.
If you want to get a sense of how much cars break (by brand) and how expensive (relative to the cost of the car) they are to fix, I'd recommend looking at worldwide warranty claims rates [warrantyweek.com] (the percentage of a company's annual revenue that it has to pay out on warranty claims). It's not a perfect metric, but it will give you a sense of the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
often the recalls aren't even the fault of the company itself, but rather parts suppliers
1) that's irrelevant, QA is a thing or it isn't.
2) "roof flies off" is not a supplier's fault, it's the manufacturer's.
3) "wheels fall off" might be a supplier's fault. But it might be design or installation failure.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a perfect metric, but whenever I've been in the market for a car - I check what owners have been reporting about various makes and models in Consumer Reports surveys. You get a decent sense of relative owner satisfaction across manufacturers.
Oh, Toyota... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm going to reply to you and Kiliani.
You said...
ICE and hybrids will still be around for longer than you think.
He said...
It will take the better part of 2 decades to replace ICE with electric vehicles
It's not about what will be on the road or how long it will take to replace ICE vehicles. It's about what Toyota can actually sell.
1. The sale of new ICE vehicles are definitely going to get banned on a state by state basis. Bad for Toyota.
2. Sales of new Regular Hybrids might also see a state by state ban. Bad for Toyota.
3. Plugin Hybrids might be fine for a long time, assuming gas station availability. Good for Toyota.
4. Hybrids are still
Re: (Score:2)
My (biased) opinion is that there are too many EV manufacturers out there that can kill Totota's profitability over the next few years that they are likely in a death spiral already. Tesla is projected to sell over 4 million cars in 2025, and the Chinese (and VinFast) are coming in fast and will likely match that number. Those are all shrinking market share for legacy manufacturers that haven't figured out the next-generation vehicles yet.
Re: Oh, Toyota... (Score:2)
Sounds (aside from the telemetry) like a Hyundai Kona EV might work for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I think for the next ten years plug-in hybrids will be the sweet spot for user convenience; plus they will have a very significant positive environmental impact over ICE, particularly in places with smog problems.
But Toyota absolutely needs a plan to transition to BEV after 2030. As competitors' BEVs become cheaper and more capable, BEVs will become the vehicle of choice for more people. Governments will create economic incentives for people to ditch gasoline, and eventually gasoline stations are going to
Re: (Score:2)
Until I can charge at work or at home (apartment) EV is not going to be an option. I'm very happy with my hybrid and will be driving that for at least another 100k miles. That gives me a solid 8 more years on my car. Hopefully you are correct and that by 2030 there will be a plethora of options and price ranges for EVs as well as suitable infrastructure to handle it.
I have a hard time seeing the infrastructure arriving but hopefully I'm wrong on that one. EV will definitely not be saving anyone money given
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. It will take the better part of 2 decades to replace ICE with electric vehicles (do the math!) ... in the rich world (incl. China). Forget about elsewhere. And who knows what happens along the way, both good (better batter technology) and bad (how about some nice large scale EV fires in a couple of garages below big buildings - self-combustion of non-running cars is not something I worry about with ICE cars even though they do have a fire bomb strapped to their belly).
Where I live we have no gua
Re:Oh, Toyota... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like they're having their RCA moment: They got too comfortable with being the biggest car manufacturer in the world and bet the farm on losing propositions. The rest of the vehicle world has passed them by and now they're stuck playing catch-up with no licensable EV patent technologies and no EV component suppliers to back them up.
They've been making pretty much continuous bad decisions when it comes to EVs for a long time now, and I think they finally realized that they couldn't wait any longer to act when the Camry lost its spot as the #1 selling car, knocked off its pedestal by the Tesla Model Y.
On the flip side, if you ignore all the R&D money they wasted on hydrogen, their hydrogen and plug-in hybrid cars are basically just a bigger battery pack away from being EVs.
They'll be dead in a decade, their trading name sold off to decorate whitegoods and entertainment equipment made by the lowest-cost suppliers.
Maybe, but probably not. One advantage of starting out in a position of power is that you can sit back and wait, watch how things shake out, and come in pretty late to the party and still do reasonably well. They may or may not be in the #1 car spot again for a while, and they are probably going to burn through a lot of cash catching up on battery production facilities construction (though they're already ramping up in that space), but they have a lot of assets they can leverage to take on debt, so as long as they execute well, I see no reason they can't remain solvent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Take away the subsidy and the model Y still has class-leading range.
The other vehicles also enjoy a subsidy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you change the subject
Skipped your ritalin today, eh? The subject is sales success, and the model Y would likely still sell well without the subsidies which all EV automakers enjoy, both because the others' prices would also rise and because the Y would still have superior range. That will likely not be true forever, but it's still true now.
Re: (Score:2)
After a certain point, 'range' is meaningless to the majority of the market.
Charging speed is a much more important metric. I don't care if my car can do eight hours of highway driving; I, the human, cannot. But I do care if during my rest break, my car is charging at 40 kw, or 240 kw.
Re: (Score:2)
After a certain point, 'range' is meaningless to the majority of the market.
We're not there yet.
Charging speed is a much more important metric.
That's true in metro areas where there are plenty of chargers. If you are in rural areas then chargers are few and far between. A lot of shitty little towns have one or two, but they are near almost nothing so they don't actually help.
That doesn't mean EVs are for nobody, they suit the needs of lots of people. But they don't serve lots of other people. And some of those people want an EV. One of my coworkers traded in a Raptor for a Mach E. Unfortunately even in summer on "cold" days on
Re: (Score:2)
After a certain point, 'range' is meaningless to the majority of the market.
We're not there yet.
Depends on whether you're talking about reality or perception. I think way more than half the market would be comfortable with the range of the longest-range vehicles on the market, if they actually tried them. It isn't meaningless for the probably 1% who tow regularly, or course, and maybe not for the new percent who frequently take solo road trips from sea to shining sea, but that's about it. The problem is that a lot more people *think* that it isn't meaningless.
Charging speed is a much more important metric.
That's true in metro areas where there are plenty of chargers. If you are in rural areas then chargers are few and far between. A lot of shitty little towns have one or two, but they are near almost nothing so they don't actually help.
Charging speed's relevance isn't specif
Re: (Score:2)
If you're near home, charging speed usually isn't that important, because if you're even bothering to charge while you're at the store or work rather than at home, it is probably because of a cost advantage rather than because you absolutely have to charge.
Other than the millions of people who don't have a garage, which is an infrastructure problem that is going to have to be solved. I haven't heard of much action on that front.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're near home, charging speed usually isn't that important, because if you're even bothering to charge while you're at the store or work rather than at home, it is probably because of a cost advantage rather than because you absolutely have to charge.
Other than the millions of people who don't have a garage, which is an infrastructure problem that is going to have to be solved. I haven't heard of much action on that front.
Why do you think you need a garage? Nothing prevents you from having EVSE equipment in a carport or driveway. Nothing prevents apartment complexes from having ChargePoint EVSEs at every space and billing it to the resident who taps in, even if they don't have specific spots reserved for specific residents.
The only people who don't have any real at-home charging options are the ones who rely on street-side parking because of weak/flawed zoning laws, and folks who live in cities like that have only themselv
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think you need a garage? Nothing prevents you from having EVSE equipment in a carport or driveway.
OK, a home with somewhere to put a charging station.
Nothing prevents apartment complexes from having ChargePoint EVSEs at every space and billing it to the resident who taps in
If nothing prevented that then it would be happening everywhere already. It's not impossible to do, but since not every apartment complex has chargers installed (in fact I would be surprised if it's much greater than 1% of them) clearly something is preventing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to pay for all those apartment complex spots to get EV charging put in? I could maybe see a third party coming in and doing all the work if they also get all the profit, but most apartments aren't going to make this investment. We can't even get double pane windows installed!
I could see retail/employer parking lots get EV charging before apartment complexes do. I do realize EVENTUALLY we'll get the infrastructure setup but I don't think we're going to be there in 10 years. Maybe in 20.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think you need a garage? Nothing prevents you from having EVSE equipment in a carport or driveway.
OK, a home with somewhere to put a charging station.
Nothing prevents apartment complexes from having ChargePoint EVSEs at every space and billing it to the resident who taps in
If nothing prevented that then it would be happening everywhere already. It's not impossible to do, but since not every apartment complex has chargers installed (in fact I would be surprised if it's much greater than 1% of them) clearly something is preventing it.
Yeah. Lack of demand. As demand grows, apartment complex owners will install charging stations to appeal to high-end renters who see that as an important feature in their next apartment. As EVs make their way to people with less and less money, cheaper and cheaper apartments will install EVSEs.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to pay for all those apartment complex spots to get EV charging put in? I could maybe see a third party coming in and doing all the work if they also get all the profit, but most apartments aren't going to make this investment. We can't even get double pane windows installed!
Supply and demand is a powerful thing. Every time you switch apartments, ask if they have EV charging. Call up even apartments that you're not seriously considering, and ask that. If enough people ask and then don't choose those apartments, the apartment complex owners will realize that they have the opportunity to make more money if they improve the infrastructure, and they will do so. :-)
I could see retail/employer parking lots get EV charging before apartment complexes do. I do realize EVENTUALLY we'll get the infrastructure setup but I don't think we're going to be there in 10 years. Maybe in 20.
Realistically, though, in a lot of places, 20 years might be soon enough. In a lot of major cities, there's already
Re: (Score:2)
They got too comfortable with being the biggest car manufacturer in the world and bet the farm on losing propositions.
Not just Toyota, the entire Japan auto industry all bet big on hydrogen and walled it off with patents, thinking they can get fat enjoying licensing fees for decades to come. Too bad the rest of the world looked at the patent wall and decided to forge another path with EV instead.
Japan's problem was they were too greedy and left nothing on the table for others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, Toyota... (Score:4, Informative)
Tesla's market cap is 846 billion with earnings of 13.5 billion (and a spotty earnings history).Toyota's market cap is 266 billion with earnings of 30 billion (with a consistent earnings history).
So Tesla dominates in market cap. But not in earnings. Also, Toyota has 284 billion in revenue. Tesla has 94 billion in revenue.
Let's see, Tesla has $2+B debt on the books, Toyota has $200+B.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That suggests that lenders have much more faith in Toyota being around for the long term, and remaining profitable.
The more resilient and stable a company is, the more it can borrow. Also keep in mind that interest rates in Japan are very low, with the BoJ often lending at negative interest rates. They literally pay other banks to take the money and lend it out (at zero or low positive rates) for long term investments.
Re: (Score:2)
That suggests that lenders have much more faith in Toyota being around for the long term, and remaining profitable.
Toyota is leveraged about 65+% debt to assets - a far cry from Tesla even with it's ludicrous market cap. It's more suggestive of government subsidies to maintain a no longer as efficient car manufacturer, which of itself is useful to the economy regardless of profits
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dead in a decade? I disagree. Japan will quietly do what it can to prop the company up since it is a corporate crown jewel. Part of that will be keeping regulations and subsidies favorable for hybrids in their home turf.
And as others have pointed out, ICEVs and HEVs will remain popular enough around the world that they'll likely be able to survive the shift. Though I do believe that they will shed significant market share over the next decade in locations where BEVs are popular, such as California, Chin
JP gov would be foolish to save a Kodak. (Score:2)
>> Japan will quietly do what it can to prop the company up
That is a possible outcome. Not guaranteed.
An I think the JP gov would be foolish to try to save a Kodak.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless those cheap Chinese BEVs meet US safety standards, you won't be seeing the USA awash in cheap affordable EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW Toyota does have a decent patent portfolio. A lot of the technologies used in BEVs are also used in hybrids, such as blended braking and controls that feel similar to fossil cars.
They were just hoping that hybrids remained the preferred technology for longer than this. Same reason they put money into hydrogen - it leverages their existing hybrid tech.
BEV? (Score:2)
Re:BEV? (Score:4, Informative)
The term "BEV" is usually used to make it clear that they're excluding hybrid electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids from the topic at hand.
(If you're now tempted to say "HEVs have batteries too!!! Why aren't those also called BEVs????", then just put down the pedantic juice. This is the terminology that the industry uses.)
Re: (Score:2)
...just put down the pedantic juice...
But it tastes so good!
Re:BEV? (Score:5, Informative)
The common acronyms are BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle), HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle), PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle), and FCEV (Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicle). Technically all of those have batteries, but the acronyms do still differentiate them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've never understood why 'BEV' caught on with some people, as I never use that term. It would be like using the acronym GICE (Gasoline Internal Combustion Enginer), instead of just ICE. It's either an EV, a hybrid, or a plug-in hybrid.
To distinguish it from a FCEV.
FCEVs are now a standing joke. (Score:2)
FCEVs are a running joke.
Actually, not any more. As more and more H2 stations are closed. FCEVs are now a standing joke.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that even IF hydrogen cars catch on, that people are going to say FCEV? Riiiiiight....
Normal people (not you, apparently) will call them fuel cell cars or hydrogen cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I swear, people that reply to a post that they don't even bother to read are just weird. I listed the terms that actual, normal people use for PHEV and HEV. Here, since I'd hate to have you take the time and energy to go look at the post you replied to:
It's either an EV, a hybrid, or a plug-in hybrid.
And the reason that PHEV and HEV are stupid acronyms anyways is that they aren't really 'EV's anyways. I could easily call them PHICE or HICE, since the use internal combustion engines as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why it's called a *hybrid* EV, which differentiates it from a *battery* EV. Hence PHEV vs BEV.
Also, as to your tangential point, my partner has a PHEV, and she's gone for long enough stretches of not using the ICE engine that gas going stale and needing to exercise the engine is something to bear in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
and she's gone for long enough stretches of not using the ICE engine that gas going stale and needing to exercise the engine is something to bear in mind.
Then why did she get a plug-in hybrid if she never ever uses the ICE? That seems like a silly waste of money and energy to lug around an engine and fuel you don't use. And regular people still call it a 'plug-in hybrid', not a PHEV.
Re: (Score:2)
Because between those stretches, she travels four or five hours to Toronto for various reasons. And because it was the best choice available at the time, in her circumstances, for her wants and needs.
But now that I finally got my Ioniq 5, she's reevaluating if she even wants to keep her car, because suddenly we just recharge the electric space vehicle on the half hour break we'd be taking anyway to get lunch and hit the crapper.
That's the thing. That's how fast the market is moving, and the infrastructure
Ignore the hype! (Score:5, Insightful)
Toyota has been talking a big game on batteries and EVs for more than a decade now.
Until they actually start producing something new/impressive at scale with a reasonable price tag on it, ignore the hype.
Yep. World Champion of Automotive Vaporware. (Score:2)
Yep. World Champion of Automotive Vaporware.
They'd better pull something out of somewhere (Score:2)
The 2023 Lexus RZ has class-trailing range of ~200mi, it's embarrassing really. Toyota desperately needs to execute a plan. The concern with a new battery, though, is whether it will have at least the stability of existing types of battery. A liquid electrolyte potentially offers superior thermal transfer, but it also provides exciting opportunities for failure which we have already experienced with lots of other kinds of batteries with liquid electrolyte.
OTOH, it's very good that they're planning to use LF
Energy density is a bitch. (Score:2, Interesting)
How much energy is there in the liquid hydrocarbons we use for transportation fuel compared to the batteries on the market today?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, fuel oil, most other petroleum based fuels and a few other non-petroleum fuels such as ethanol and methanol, contain about 40 MJ/kg or at least on that order of magnitude. Lithium batteries and most other batteries on the market get more like 0.40 MJ/kg or somewhere in that order of magnitude. That's a mass proble
Kinda nearly evens out. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's nice to have 40x more energy in fossil fuel weight than in batteries.
But then, the use of the FF in an ICE wastes 80%. Also a FF powertrain is much more heavy than it's fuel tank, so when comparing, it should be compared with the complete powertrain.
Kinda nearly evens out.
Re:Kinda nearly evens out. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't "nearly even out". It has a lot to do with energy density and the related issue of recharge time compared to refuel time.
A gasoline Ford F-150 with the high efficiency drive train (which might be the hybrid or the "nano" small engine option, reports vary) the fuel economy can be 24 MPG on the highway. I believe that's better than my old V6 sedan. With the 36 gallon tank option that's over 800 miles of range. The F-150 Lightning BEV gets a reported 320 mile range. I suspect some people might dispute either or both estimates but I will emphasize "estimate" and given the wide disparity here there's not much room to argue on which is better.
I expect few people much need 800 miles of range but with a truck towing something with a large frontal area, like a camper or cargo trailer, the fuel economy can be cut in half. This also applies to the BEV. For someone towing with their F-150, and even with the smaller 23 gallon tank and wind not in their favor, they can likely expect to get at least 400 miles on a tank. Assume 60 MPH average, some stops for food and such, that's an 8 hour day of travels before stopping for fuel. Assume after 8 hours the refuel/recharge time is irrelevant because that's an overnight stop or reaching the destination. With the F-150 BEV with its already limited 320 mile range the halving of miles per charge means getting only 160 miles. Assuming 60 MPH average and that truck needs to stop for a full or nearly full recharge every 2.5 hours or so. A bit of web searching tells me that the F-150 BEV can recharge up to 80% in 40 minutes. The BEV can put in 8 hours of travel time in a day but to get as far as the ICEV or HEV equivalent requires charging stations in just the right spots on the path to minimize stops, the chargers be the high power type for power hungry trucks to minimize time at each stop, and to not run out of charge on the way.
I'm assuming an 8 hour day of towing, among other assumptions, which might not be realistic but people can put in their own assumptions and recalculate. To assume a longer day, and/or perhaps multiple days, then the refuel time for the ICEV or HEV option comes into play more. Even then that's a short stop to restore maximum range. With the BEV we can certainly put in shorter stops for recharge but that means not getting even 80% of range back.
If I hadn't made it clear enough before then I'll make it clear now that a BEV with a 250+ mile range per charge is a very useful vehicle that will make many drivers happy. Even with range cut shorter by bad weather, towing or a heavy load, or not having access to a fast charger while traveling, getting 2 or 3 hours of driving between stops is likely acceptable for most drivers. With an ample supply of chargers on their route there's likely to be no problems, even with towing a cargo trailer to take a big bite out of the range per charge.
The problem with getting this 250+ mile range is this comes with higher upfront cost, and that can be a deal breaker. The F-150 is a poor example for this because the BEV model has a sticker price on par with the ICEV and/or HEV versions. From what I've seen this is the exception, not the rule. There's a "nearly even out" thing going on since the BEV will use cheap electricity than highly taxed gasoline for energy to make up for that extra cost for the BEV.
I don't know how the reported MPG for a Ford F-150 works out into thermal efficiency of the engine, I don't much care either. What matters for the comparison I was making is the miles per recharge/refuel, and to a lesser extent the mass of the vehicle since mass can impact the number of passengers and/or mass of cargo the vehicle can safely handle. If people are willing to take a big hit to the range of their BEV then perhaps they can get a BEV for a much lower cost than the 250+ mile offerings. I've seen estimates that the battery in some Tesla costs over $20,000. That's a lot of money, more than the total cost of some new cars. Bring that battery cost down to something like $5000 and it might mean some nice new $20,000 BEV that people would love to drive. It is unlikely they will tow anything with such a vehicle but like the F-150 BEV it's really not intended to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
If people regularly need a F150 and 8 hours of towing... Perhaps their best investment is a new petrol or diesel truck + an electric Ford Fiesta for their *passenger vehicle needs* rather than a more expensive electric version of the F150?
If ICE bans are set for new sales from 2030, there is still plenty of time to buy that last ICE and make it last another 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
If people regularly need a F150 and 8 hours of towing... Perhaps their best investment is a new petrol or diesel truck + an electric Ford Fiesta for their *passenger vehicle needs* rather than a more expensive electric version of the F150?
Where is that Ford Fiesta supposed to be so it is available when needed? In the bed of the Ford truck? People buy camper trailers in part because it means having a truck as both the prime mover and as something that meets their passenger vehicle needs, both as a daily driver and as the vehicle for driving about while the camper is parked at the destination away from home. I know people that have a truck and a BEV with the primary use of the truck being the prime mover for a trailer and the BEV the daily
Re: (Score:1)
to summarize your post
BEVs are cool and good on range and recharging are only going to come down in price, their only impediment for most people
if you are towing 8 hours a day a BEV is probably not for you
also the thermal efficiency of most ICE engines is 10-30%, as in that's the amount of energy in the gas that actually movers the vehicle and people after thermal, mechanical and drivetrain losses.
most electric vehicles are in the 70-80% efficiency range.
so if we want to compare reality using 46MJ/kg is dec
Re:Energy density is a bitch. (Score:5)
We are already at the point where BEV has more than enough range and fast enough charging for most people. It's just that most people greatly over-estimate their needs, and don't understand the benefits of owning an EV.
100kWh batteries and 20 minute charge times are a waste of money for most people. The really interesting end of the market is the affordable one, where long range and reasonably quickly charging vehicles are now available.
Re: (Score:2)
It's this. My BEV has more range than I do; I, the human, need a brake.
And my BEV has made charging speed the important factor, which is where it should be; I can drive three hours, stop, recharge in twenty or thirty minutes, and be back on the road. The car is probably ready to head out again before I am.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see if I was older maybe, but at 39 I can drive at least 4 hours before needing 5 minutes to take a restroom break and be back on the road for another four hours. 30 minutes every 3 hours sounds terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
We are already at the point where BEV has more than enough range and fast enough charging for most people. It's just that most people greatly over-estimate their needs, and don't understand the benefits of owning an EV.
I do not believe that people over estimate the range they need out of their vehicle. I suspect they look back at the last few years of their driving habits to inform what they may need in the future. They see the annual family road trip for summer vacation, to send the kids off to college, or whatever else. They see a monthly trip to visit Grandma, go shopping, or some such. They see a hassle if they have to interrupt these trips with a stop for 45 minutes to recharge.
I believe they understand the benef
Re: (Score:2)
When I first got an EV, people used to ask me if I could get to the next city... 23 miles from my house.
People vastly over estimate distances, and seem to assume that 75mph is a realistic average speed.
Re: (Score:2)
and seem to assume that 75mph is a realistic average speed.
It certainly is where I live.
I agree with everything else you wrote, but a lot of folks (particularly those from the northeast, I find) vastly underestimate just how fast the roads are in large swaths of the country. The main thoroughfare through my city still goes at 75mph, despite them dropping the limit to 70mph within the city limits a few years ago. And once you get out of city limits to where it's still posted at 75mph, people average 80mph. The roads were designed for those sorts of speeds, so the la
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you, but in USA, that's what a large percentage of the population drives at. It's frustrating in the major cities because the other half realize the speed limit is 65 and we drive it. Outside of the major cities and outside of California, there is a lot of space and the speed limits are often times 70-80mph.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest impediment for me is lack of overall charging infrastructure. I don't own my own home so I can't charge at home. My work has 4 chargers that any car can use and then there is a Tesla setup that some cars can use. Overall, not nearly enough charging infrastructure if we all switched over to BEV from ICEV.
The other major problem, at least for me, is the overall lack of choice in cars that are BEV. That's slowly changing and I'm sure by the time I'm ready for a new car, the options will exist but i
Li-iron phosphate is old. (Score:3)
Li-ion won because of the willingness of cellphone laptop camcorder users to pay upwards of 10,000 $/kwh. For pathetic capacities measured in milli-amp hours. The race for profits there made them too costly to be bought up and bottles. Its possible, if the same amount of R&D went into LFP or nickel metal hydride they too might become as compelling as li-ion.
Toyota, Honda, BMW are all proud of their mechanical engg skills and intellectual properties. Prius transaxle with two motors and an IC engine in one gear set, that allows power to flow from ice-to-wheel, ice-to-mg1, mg1-to-wheel, wheel-to-mg1, mg2-to-wheel smoothly is a marvel... alas its as irrelevant as the ingenious self-winding Rolex chronometer.
They can come back to the forefront. But the technical leadership internally should go from mech engg to electronics people.
Re: (Score:2)
So its possible nickel-metal hydride, now out f patents, might offer a better option.
LFP has way more storage capacity than NiMH and weighs less too. NiMH only has a cost advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
They did not bother with LFP. Very much possible their idea of viable battery was full of holes and LFP is indeed a better option for cars.
If enough R&D is thrown in they might make LFP as good as Li-ion.
Bluff (Score:4, Insightful)
Toyotas plan seems to be bluff until this EV thing blows over.
This sounds more promising than some say.... (Score:2)
I feel like this whole thing is getting spun as a negative for Toyota; a sign that they waited too long to get into the EV game and are doomed, etc. etc.
Instead? What I'm reading here is really more that the company finally feels pressured to innovate in the EV sector, after waiting things out long enough to make sure it really was a path worth going down. And Toyota probably has the talent to come up with something more advanced than the current industry standard.
I look at it this way. Building a rock soli
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm reading here is really more that the company finally feels pressured to innovate in the EV sector, after waiting things out long enough to make sure it really was a path worth going down.
That isn't it at all.
People forget that Toyota was at the very forefront of electric vehicles. They brought a fully electric RAV4 to market to meet California fleet emission standards—twenty years ago. They got sued for patent infringement over battery patents by an oil company and lost and they've been gunshy ever since.