Toyota to build electric town car, plug-in hybrids

Toyota Motor Sales announced an expanded commitment to electric vehicles on Saturday, disclosing plans to manufacture an all-electric city car by 2012 and a wider fleet of gas-electric hybrids.

At the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit, Toyota showed off a concept car called the FT-EV, a battery-powered four-seat compact car. Although it's concept car, Toyota said it will release an "urban commuter" electric car in 2012.

Based on an existing car sold in Japan called the iQ, the FT-EV runs entirely on batteries and has a range of about 50 miles. Like many all-electric cars planned for release in the next few years, the FT-EV is designed for commutes and short trips, potentially as a second car.

In a statement, Toyota Motor Sales' group vice president of environmental and public affairs Irv Miller said that even though gasoline prices have dipped substantially in the past half year, the auto industry should focus on fuel-efficiency.

"We must address the inevitability of peak oil by developing vehicles powered by alternatives to liquid-oil fuel, as well as new concepts, like the iQ, that are lighter in weight and smaller in size. This kind of vehicle, electrified or not, is where our industry must focus its creativity," he said.

A number of auto companies, including Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Think, plan to bring out small all-electric cars in the next two years. The commitment of Toyota--maker of the iconic Prius hybrid car--adds more validity to the small electric commuter car category.

Toyota's FT-EV, a concept car that will be the basis for an all-electric commuter car due in 2012.

(Credit: Toyota)

Still, Toyota said the the gas-electric powertrain of the Prius represents its "core" technology because it can be used with larger vehicles.

On Sunday, the company said that it will move up its previously announced plan to test plug-in hybrid cars using lithium-ion batteries. Current Priuses use Nickel-metal hydride technology but most auto makers are pursuing lithium-ion chemistry for an upcoming wave of electric cars.

At the end of 2009, it will begin testing a fleet of plug-in electric Priuses using lithium-ion batteries. Of the 500, 150 will be made available to U.S. customers for lease.

Toyota's goal is to sell one million gas-electric hybrids a year in the early 2010s. It will have 10 new hybrid models in that time, including the third-generation Prius and the Lexus HS250h, both of which it introduced this week in Detroit at the NAIAS.

[kacirooroo]

Chrysler will unveil their new electric car at the North American Auto Show at noon today, EST. There is a link on this page to watch it. https://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innovation/envi/overview/

The high cost of fuel this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. After a brief reprieve gas prices are inching back up again. Our nation should not allow other nations to have such power over us and our economy . We have so much available to us in the way of technology and free sources of energy. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered. Added to the strain on supplies developing countries populations are bursting as they add more vehicles to their roads furthering the depletion of this finite source of energy. WE seriously need to get on with becoming an energy independent nation. We are spending billions upon billions in bail out dollars. Why not spend some of those billions in getting alternative energy projects set up. We could create clean cheap energy, millions of badly needed new green jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil all in one fell swoop. I just read an eye opening book by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009. It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to drive and charge an electric car.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Why don't we use some of the billions in bail out money to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come.

[Jim3006]

I agree 100%. The problem is many elected officials are in bed with the oil industry. The electric car would solve so many problems. It will free up a lot of money the consumer spends on gas where they can spend it in our local economy. The benefits are very low cost of driving it at the 60 cents per gallon, low maintenance cost, lower pollution, there just isn't a down side. The one I am looking at is the BYD because they seem to be closer to getting it to market than others. It runs 183 miles per charge, 93 mph speed, 375,000 mile battery life, and will sell for about $20,000. If you watch the video who killed the electric car on you tube you will see why so many organizations are trying to kill the idea. Car manufacturers will lose tons of money in selling replacement parts because the electric car is a very simple design with few moving parts compared the the fossil fuel burning gas engine. Congress should be selling off shares of GM and handing it and the bail out money to a company like Tesla who is really working on the electric car, not just building one for show to get a hand out every few months. Phoenix motors is building a nice one, miles is building one, BYD is building the BYD E6, etc. The only reason our local manufacturers are going to build electrics is to appease congress and the bail out. The hybrids are a joke, you still have the same parts to go out as the old gas cars and it only uses the electric motor up to 40 mph when it has to switch to the gas motor. Most people drive over 40 mph. They also cost way more than a regular gas car or a pure electric car. My next car is going to be pure electric. No Plug, No Deal.

[ericyen]

Its time to realize that Big 3 decided to live it its own past and did not move forward fast enough. Innovative companies have the technology NOW. Look at http://www.teslamotors.com/ . We don't have to wait for Chrysler or any of the Big 3 auto. Invest OUR tax payer (bailout money) into company that are ready to go. If the Big 3 are serious do what Tech companies do. Buy the company that owns the Tech. If one of the Big 3 would buy Tesla motors (assuming they would sell) that would leapfrog Big 3 ahead of the foreign auto makers. They are somethings you don't fix just simple admit that the mistake and move forward.

[phineas2]

Hey, I love the Tesla. And I'm in no way defending the big three or disputing the notion that purchasing technology is a good idea (if you can swing it) when the market passes you by on R&D -- as it has done in Detroit's case.

But let's keep the Tesla in perspective. At $109K per unit, this is not the vehicle or even the technology that's going to solve any Detroit auto-maker's problems. It's fairly easy to make a very good car using the best of today's technology if price is no object to your customer. But GM and Ford (my opinion, Chrysler is out of it -- and going down) not only need top notch green automotive technology, they need to make it affordable to the U.S. auto buying public. The fact that oil prices have dropped in a major global recession also means that no one's spending extra to buy a hybrid vehicle or a plug-in electric. There are already trade-offs with both types -- esp. plug-in. If people are buying cars, they will probably want low price, exceptional fuel economy, reliability, and safety.

There's a reason why Toyota has essentially been selling the Prius as a loss leader -- making little or no money on it. It is a helluva value. There's another reason why Toyota postponed its plans to build a new Prius here in the U.S. for at least a year. Honda was really the first with gasoline-electric hybrid technology. And oddly, Toyota jumped into this when Clinton tried to give the big three the incentive to build green automobile technology. The fact that the U.S. auto makers gave up on that effort is coming home to roost now. Toyota continued to pursue gas-electric hybrid technology until it perfected it. Then it set out to build market share. Smart company.

But it's hit a snag. So long as oil remains low, and the economy is this bad, new car buyers in the U.S. may just focus on economy -- not hybrid or plug-in electric technology. So here's to hoping the recession has a V-shaped recovery and, while I hate to say this, oil prices return to the $75 a barrel OPEC wants.

One thing, let's not forget that GM and Ford have hybrid technology (which, I believe, was licensed). Ford also makes some pretty good small vehicles. Both companies need to make reliable, smaller, more economical vehicles that get great gas mileage and extremely low emissions -- like the Prius or Honda's forthcoming Insight.

I'm skeptical about GM's Chevy Volt. I don't expect it in 2010 or 2011. And I wonder how well it will really work, what compromises it may involve. It's the right project, started about 10 years too late. Too bad GM didn't keep going with Clinton initiative. It would have had a predecessor to the ambitious Volt to build on.

I wouldn't write off Ford just yet. It has the best management and is also the best-positioned auto maker in the U.S. to survive in the current environment -- and probably into the future.

[voyetra8]

The economy was not destroyed due to our dependence on foreign oil, it was due to our dependeence on government to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. In addition, there are many arguments against the peak oil theory. Some oil pools actually seem to be filling from below, which supports the deep hot biosphere theory. Google "peak oil theory debunked" and you will find out why the scare tactics are being used. Anti-capitalists WANT our economy to go downhill so we'll reduce emissions based on another false theory of theirs, man-made global warming. As far as Chrysler vs. Toyota goes, I'd buy a Toyota any day. Their quality is higher, and I know I won't be supporting the unions.

[phineas2]

Oh, c'mon. I agree that our economy wasn't destroyed by dependence on foreign oil. That's true enough. But you don't view that dependence as a major vulnerability to the security of the U.S., you're drinking the oil. It's not about when oil will run out -- no one truly knows when that will happen. It's about the fact that we only produce something like 20% of the oil we consume. What's more, what is the burning of oil and coal doing to our environment? The ticking clock is not so much on when oil runs out, it's about global warming. You're arguing about a red herring.

[marc_90292]

So you are saying that the reduction in purchase power by crude prices over $100 - a goal anounced by bin Laden on December 15, 2004 - and the subsequent outflow of billions of dollars to foreign countries had no impact on our economy. Interesting economic theory, who teaches it? Oh yes, Harvard!
And by the way, the mortgages were not sold by Governments but by banks and finance corporations that did not explain that an increase of just 1% in the prime rate would more than double the mortgage costs. How can we blame Joe the Plumber for not understanding the cause and consequence of economics when Harvard doesn't understand Macro Economics 101.

[shane--2008]

"The economy was not destroyed due to our dependence on foreign oil, it was due to our dependeence on government to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. In addition, there are many arguments against the peak oil theory. Some oil pools actually seem to be filling from below"

also, http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2009/01/11/

Best of luck with that....

[brett_cgb]

The video was too long. Three photos and a 15 Sec video would have been more effective. Not that a 15 second video conveys much....

[42istheanswer]

It's always just a few years away, isn't it...

[cjwirth]

Good car, but it will take 15 years to change the fleet of cars in the U.S. and we are out of time.

The top story of the year is that global crude oil production peaked in 2008.

The media, governments, world leaders, and public should focus on this issue.

Global crude oil production had been rising briskly until 2004, then plateaued for four years. Because oil producers were extracting at maximum effort to profit from high oil prices, this plateau is a clear indication of Peak Oil.

Then in August and September of 2008 while oil prices were still very high, global crude oil production fell nearly one million barrels per day, clear evidence of Peak Oil (See Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of "Oil Watch Monthly," December 2008, page 1) http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_december_oilwatch_monthly.pdf.

Peak Oil is now.

Credit for accurate Peak Oil predictions (within a few years) goes to the following (projected year for peak given in parentheses):

* Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)

* Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of ?Oil Watch Monthly? (2008)

* Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst; Samuel Foucher, oil analyst; and Stuart Staniford, Physicist [Wikipedia Oil Megaprojects] (2008)

* Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)

* T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)

* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)

* Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell geologist (2005)

* Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)

* Chris Skrebowski, Editor of ?Petroleum Review? (2010)

* Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)

* Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)

* Fredrik Robelius, Oil analyst and author of "Giant Oil Fields" (2008 to 2018)

Oil production will now begin to decline terminally.

Within a year or two, it is likely that oil prices will skyrocket as supply falls below demand. OPEC cuts could exacerbate the gap between supply and demand and drive prices even higher.

Independent studies indicate that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. There is no plan nor capital for a so-called electric economy. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report titled: ?Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:?

"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."

With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won?t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.

Documented here.
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/

[UITD]

Better charge the same price as any other vehicle of its size or I will NEVER look twice at it.

[Brian]

Seriously, it's those huge MAC trucks that pollute the environment -- switch them to electric.

Do you know the gas mileage of a MAC truck?

<1 MPG most likely.

That Toyota model looks to fragile to survive a head on, side or rear collision with a MAC truck.

Seriously, safety MUST come first!

While they are building cars to save our planet, how about building cars to protect the passengers?

Where's the bumper on that... ... ... ... ...thing?

[streamline35]

Bigger does not always equal safer. While the laws of physics tend to favor larger vehicles when they hit head on, smaller vehicles are far less likely to be in accidents in the first place (shorter stopping distances and better handling).

I wouldn't want to be in anything that got hit with a semitruck (I assume that's what you meant by mac truck), short of another semitruck. By your logic that's what everyone should drive, because it's the only thing you would probably survive that collision in. They are far more effective ways to make safe cars than making them big - seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, electronic stability control, stronger materials used in frames, compaction points on the cars (that crush purposely during an accident), etc...

BTW check the accident rates for SUVs vs cars sometime. Quite a bit higher.

[Jim3006]

Why must the manufacturers always build the electric cars to look stupid and have no room. It is like they are trying not to sell the car. If you google "30 electric cars" the first site you will find numerous pictures of electric cars someone thought was a good idea. I fully support the electric car, I know it is the best way to go. Why can't they just put a regular looking body on it instead of trying to sell something that looks like they converted a piece of fruit into a car. Put the motor and batteries into a corolla or a camry, you will actually sell a few. If you google BYD E6 you will see a few links to their electric, it looks normal (and has an attractive model on the treehugger web site, but I degress). Google Phoenix SUV and it looks like a normal crossover suv. Mine is the voice of the average consumer trying to tell Toyota, build one you would not be embarrassed to be seen in. The EV1 GM developed 10 years go was beautiful until they took them all back from the people they leased them to and crushed them. They don't even have to develop a new car, just start building the EV 1 again with a newer typed battery instead of trying to develop the volt.

[iamrexmantooth2]

i wanna try one out!

[Desertstraw]

Is this a joke? Users still on the road have reported ranges of 125 miles with the Toyota RAV4 Electrtic which uses NiMH batteries. Southern California Edison has reportedly gotten 150 miles on theirs. Now more than 10 years later Toyota is coming out with an small electric car that goes 50 miles. The Chevron patent on the NiMH battery expires in 2014 then anybody can make a good electric vehicle.