Gene Network May Lead to Brain Cancer Breakthrough
Surveying Network of Genes Helps Doctors Predict Patient Survival, Attack Tumors
By MICHAEL SMITH
MedPage Today North American Correspondent
TORONTO, July 14, 2009
In what one expert called a "fantastic breakthrough," researchers have described a network of genetic changes involved in the development and progression of fatal brain tumors.
Researchers may have uncovered more genetic clues behind the development of brain cancers, such as the one for which Senator Ted Kennedy has received treatment.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)While research interest in brain tumors has always been high, the treatment of brain cancer has been the focus of heightened media interest since Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a tumor more than a year ago.
The details of Kennedy's condition have been closely guarded, but the senator has not been present in Congress for the latest healthcare reform debate.
In the new study, researchers led by Dr. Markus Bredel of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago analyzed tissue from almost 200 tumors and identified the same pattern of mutations occurring in the same area or territories on 10 chromosomes.
WATCH: The Artist's SanctuaryWant to Lose Weight? Have Brain Surgery By carefully tracking these so-called "landscape genes," the researchers were able to predict how long the patients would live, according Bredel's study, which was published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The National Cancer Institute estimates that about 51,000 new cases of brain and central nervous system tumors are diagnosed in the United States each year. That number includes both malignant and non-malignant tumors, but the researchers in this study concentrated on glioblastoma -- a type of tumor that is uniformly fatal.
Analysis of glioblastoma in several patient populations yielded persistent patterns of genetic alteration involving so-called "territories" on 10 chromosomes, according to Bredel and his colleagues.
According to NCI statistics, brain tumors are more likely and more deadly in whites than in other races, and men have a higher brain cancer rate than women.
The finding that landscape genes appear to predict survival may also have an implication for treatment of glioblastoma, since attempts to intervene with therapies targeting single genes have not been successful.
The complexity of the landscape model "helps explain the lack of therapeutic efficacy of strategies targeting single gene products," the authors said.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
MSN Money - Why health care reform matters
Why health care reform matters
If you want to see why health care is so high on the agenda in Washington, D.C., just read the story on "What's most likely to bankrupt you."
Medical problems accounted for 62% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007 (the most recent year studied), up from a mere 8% in 1981. Those busted, according to researchers, included many middle-class families, and more than three-quarters of those had health insurance when they ran into trouble.
No one knows exactly what shape the reform package coming out of the nation's capital will take, or even if one will pass. But the BusinessWeek article is a great look at one facet of the problem.
We've also served up a pair of guides that could help you cut your own costs. Kiplinger offers several ideas on how to "Save thousands on health care -- now." And SmartMoney's "Look abroad for cheaper health care" examines the boom in what's often referred to as medical tourism.
If you want to see why health care is so high on the agenda in Washington, D.C., just read the story on "What's most likely to bankrupt you."
Medical problems accounted for 62% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007 (the most recent year studied), up from a mere 8% in 1981. Those busted, according to researchers, included many middle-class families, and more than three-quarters of those had health insurance when they ran into trouble.
No one knows exactly what shape the reform package coming out of the nation's capital will take, or even if one will pass. But the BusinessWeek article is a great look at one facet of the problem.
We've also served up a pair of guides that could help you cut your own costs. Kiplinger offers several ideas on how to "Save thousands on health care -- now." And SmartMoney's "Look abroad for cheaper health care" examines the boom in what's often referred to as medical tourism.
U.S. Air Force cancels plans for coal to liquid fuel project
U.S. Air Force cancels plans for coal to liquid fuel project
by Sam Abuelsamid on Feb 2nd 2009 at 8:55AM
For a military forces, a steady reliable supply of fuel is critical to success. Given that, the U.S. Air Force has been investigating the idea of putting a coal-to-liquid facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Coal is readily available in the continental U.S. and being able to economically produce synthetic liquid fuel would be highly beneficial to the military.
The proposals that the Air Force looked at involved having a privately-funded and -operated fuel plant on the site. However, the investigators found that the proposals would have interfered with normal operations at the base and hurt security. There were also safety concerns because of the weapons stored on site. The Air Force has chosen to abandon the idea for now, but it hasn't said whether it will pursue other alternatives for synthetic fuel production.
[Source: U.S. Air Force]
Tags: coal to fuel, coal to liquid, CoalToFuel, CoalToLiquid, us air force, UsAirForce
(6)Share
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1jharlan
12:11PM (2/02/2009)
Using coal in any way increases atmospheric CO2. It's never going to be carbon neutral. The argument can be made that biofuels are carbon neutral.
Reply
↓↑report2BOB DOWELL
12:30PM (3/15/2009)
It will be if they use nuclear energy to develop the fuel
↓↑report3harlanx6
2:26PM (3/15/2009)
Why not use nuclear energy? Do we need to go any further than producing electricity with it?
I don't have all the answers, but I believe those who oppose nuclear energy are a group of subversives that want the US to fail. If the French can use it safely, COME ON!
↓↑report4simms
12:21PM (2/02/2009)
You don't mention that coal to liquid fuel pollutes twice as much as oil, a backwards idea!
Reply
↓↑report5Scott
11:35PM (3/12/2009)
Your brain forgot to think that we cannot produce enough oil to guarantee enough fuel supply, hence any additional fuel we can supply increases our National Security. How much carbon/green house gas is put in the air transporting oil from the Middle East or South America to the US Tree Hugger Commy Moron?
↓↑report6BOB DOWELL
1:57PM (3/15/2009)
None of you guys are willing to park your cars and go back to horse and buggy.
You are all idealistic dreamers and refuse to be realistic.
Here is what is happening. The rest of the world has already gone 50 to 70% diesel because they are at least 30% more efficient. Every foreign car manufacturer on the US streets has a diesel version of what they sell us that they sell in the rest of the world. (I rented a Toyota rav 5 diesel in Costa Rica last year that got 60 mpg) These diesel versions get 50 to 60 mpg while we are struggling with 30 mpg. That means Americans have less money to spend on food, clothing, consumables.
If you do a little investigating, you will find out that the end result fuel that is made from coal is the cleanest purest fuel that can be made. The pollution does not come from the fuel. The co2 comes from the fact that the process takes 2 high temperature firings to convert the coal. If conventional coal or natural gas is used to produce the firings, the process does create much co2. However there is an answer that gets around that. The latest break through in nuclear energy is what is called a pebble bed reactor. The whole world is going to these because they are extremely save and produce no co2.
Oil companies do not want to go down this street because of the nightmare of permits and EPA regulations. They don't have the money. They can barely stay afloat now.
If the Obama administration was smart, which they are not) they would buy up 100 acre tracks of land in strategic places that already have the EPA permits attached. They would give the oil companies a 30% subsidy to build the plants. If the government wanted to create jobs they could set up on site housing and training for workers. Then for extra motivation they should give the oil companies a 20% tax deduction on what is sold. They should also mandate that 10% of their net profits go into the general Social Security fund.
To fuel the plants, the government should build what ever number of nuclear plants around the country with tax payers money. The plants should be a non-profit organization that only services the coal to liquid projects. The cost could be added to the end cost of making the fuel. Similar housing and training could be set up to train and house workers. Excess power could be sold to the power companies.
Oil companies are racking up RECORD profits! Barely stay afloat? Dont have the money ????
by Sam Abuelsamid on Feb 2nd 2009 at 8:55AM
For a military forces, a steady reliable supply of fuel is critical to success. Given that, the U.S. Air Force has been investigating the idea of putting a coal-to-liquid facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Coal is readily available in the continental U.S. and being able to economically produce synthetic liquid fuel would be highly beneficial to the military.
The proposals that the Air Force looked at involved having a privately-funded and -operated fuel plant on the site. However, the investigators found that the proposals would have interfered with normal operations at the base and hurt security. There were also safety concerns because of the weapons stored on site. The Air Force has chosen to abandon the idea for now, but it hasn't said whether it will pursue other alternatives for synthetic fuel production.
[Source: U.S. Air Force]
Tags: coal to fuel, coal to liquid, CoalToFuel, CoalToLiquid, us air force, UsAirForce
(6)Share
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1jharlan
12:11PM (2/02/2009)
Using coal in any way increases atmospheric CO2. It's never going to be carbon neutral. The argument can be made that biofuels are carbon neutral.
Reply
↓↑report2BOB DOWELL
12:30PM (3/15/2009)
It will be if they use nuclear energy to develop the fuel
↓↑report3harlanx6
2:26PM (3/15/2009)
Why not use nuclear energy? Do we need to go any further than producing electricity with it?
I don't have all the answers, but I believe those who oppose nuclear energy are a group of subversives that want the US to fail. If the French can use it safely, COME ON!
↓↑report4simms
12:21PM (2/02/2009)
You don't mention that coal to liquid fuel pollutes twice as much as oil, a backwards idea!
Reply
↓↑report5Scott
11:35PM (3/12/2009)
Your brain forgot to think that we cannot produce enough oil to guarantee enough fuel supply, hence any additional fuel we can supply increases our National Security. How much carbon/green house gas is put in the air transporting oil from the Middle East or South America to the US Tree Hugger Commy Moron?
↓↑report6BOB DOWELL
1:57PM (3/15/2009)
None of you guys are willing to park your cars and go back to horse and buggy.
You are all idealistic dreamers and refuse to be realistic.
Here is what is happening. The rest of the world has already gone 50 to 70% diesel because they are at least 30% more efficient. Every foreign car manufacturer on the US streets has a diesel version of what they sell us that they sell in the rest of the world. (I rented a Toyota rav 5 diesel in Costa Rica last year that got 60 mpg) These diesel versions get 50 to 60 mpg while we are struggling with 30 mpg. That means Americans have less money to spend on food, clothing, consumables.
If you do a little investigating, you will find out that the end result fuel that is made from coal is the cleanest purest fuel that can be made. The pollution does not come from the fuel. The co2 comes from the fact that the process takes 2 high temperature firings to convert the coal. If conventional coal or natural gas is used to produce the firings, the process does create much co2. However there is an answer that gets around that. The latest break through in nuclear energy is what is called a pebble bed reactor. The whole world is going to these because they are extremely save and produce no co2.
Oil companies do not want to go down this street because of the nightmare of permits and EPA regulations. They don't have the money. They can barely stay afloat now.
If the Obama administration was smart, which they are not) they would buy up 100 acre tracks of land in strategic places that already have the EPA permits attached. They would give the oil companies a 30% subsidy to build the plants. If the government wanted to create jobs they could set up on site housing and training for workers. Then for extra motivation they should give the oil companies a 20% tax deduction on what is sold. They should also mandate that 10% of their net profits go into the general Social Security fund.
To fuel the plants, the government should build what ever number of nuclear plants around the country with tax payers money. The plants should be a non-profit organization that only services the coal to liquid projects. The cost could be added to the end cost of making the fuel. Similar housing and training could be set up to train and house workers. Excess power could be sold to the power companies.
Oil companies are racking up RECORD profits! Barely stay afloat? Dont have the money ????
Where is the government spending for plug-in hybrid conversions?
Where is the government spending for plug-in hybrid conversions?
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 2:35PM
Fact 1: Over the last few months, we've seen the federal government spend all sorts of money to try and reach the twin goals of economic resurrection and a cleaner/greener society. In the auto industry, we have the CARS program, the ending (or not?) of the DOE's hydrogen vehicle program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVMLP) – which gave $5.9 billion to Ford, $1.6 billion to Nissan and $465 million to Tesla – and, of course, the bailout of GM and Chrysler. This is a big pile of cash.
Fact 2: President Obama, when he was campaigning for his current job, said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. His proposal, at the time, was to give companies about $4 billion in loans and loan guarantees to develop the plug-ins and to offer consumers a $7,000 tax credit to purchase these vehicles.
Fact 3: 2015 is just over five years away, and there are currently zero production PHEVs available for purchase. The road to getting a million of them out the door in 60 months is not going to be easy.
We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology. We've put some details after the jump.
We're currently spending a week with a converted Prius from Hymotion, a vehicle similar to the one President Bush was shown in 2007. Sure, if you don't drive it like a plug-in, you're not going to get 100 mpg. But learning correct driving and recharging style will be paramount to any successful adoption of PHEVs. And, considering that the Hymotion Prius conversion packs (and others) are available now, why doesn't the government sink some money into making sure that anyone who wants to convert their hybrid to a plug-in vehicle can afford to do so?
The government has been helping to fund natural gas conversions for years, so there's a precedent for this, a precedent that should limit the number of people arguing that the plugs need to be installed at the factory or they won't be safe. Any conversion pack that would qualify for federal money would naturally be required to be safe, but this is a hurdle that has been and can again be cleared. If some money was diverted to a.) expanding the number of hybrid models that conversion packs were available for and b.) to giving consumers a rebate to buy those systems, wouldn't this be an affordable, fairly easy way to at least get a few hundred thousand PHEVs on the roads soon?
Let's play with some numbers. Since we're driving the Hymotion Prius, we'll use their dollar amounts, but all conversion options are pretty pricey right now. For $10,000, someone like Pat Cadam can turn your second-gen Prius into a PHEV in a few hours. For your money, you'll get a car that can go 40ish miles and has a top speed of 35 mph in EV mode. Go further or faster, of course, and the Prius behaves just like it did before the conversion happened. A price point this high is really only attractive to early adopters. What would it take to make getting a conversion done a no-brainer? How about a 30-mile pack for $5,000? Or a 20-mile pack for $3,500 (we're just throwing out numbers here, btw). And, let's say that instead of $4,500 for a new car that gets better than 28 mpg under the CARS program, how about $4,500 off the price of a PHEV conversion? Would people bite at that price? Or, what if the $7,500 plug-in credit that factory-produced PHEVs like the Volt (sorry, ER-EV) will get could be applied to conversions? If so, would $2,500 for a somewhat limited 40-mile range PHEV Prius be too sweet to pass up?
What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?
Tags: conversion, featured, phev, phev conversion, PhevConversion, plug-in hybrid, plug-in hybrid conversion, plug-in hybrids, plug-in prius, Plug-inHybrid, Plug-inHybridConversion, Plug-inHybrids, Plug-inPrius
PermalinkEmail thisPrint thisTweet thisComments (22)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Toyota to lease 200 PHEV Priuses in Japan starting in late 2009
46 days ago
eBay find of the day: Hymotion Plug-in Prius
157 days ago
CARB puts off plug-in hybrid conversion warranty, emissions decision
176 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog Green for 07.15.09
5 days ago
Toyota Prius plug-in tops 65 mpg
168 days ago
Maximum Bob: No plug-in hybrid race between GM, Toyota
325 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1Andrew
2:58PM (7/14/2009)
Here's what you're missing: not everyone drives a hybrid, and not every hybrid is designed for high mileage. Why waste money focusing on converting a small segment of the market into an even smaller segment of the market, when you could probably get a lot more bang for your buck investing in how to convert regular ICE vehicles to hybrids?? With millions of non-hybrid ICE vehicles on the road right now, THOSE are the vehicles you have to target.
Reply
↓↑report2meme
3:01PM (7/14/2009)
The primary constraint on the number of EVs we can produce is battery production capacity. Since conversions are based on vehicles that aren't necessarily uber-light/uber-aero, they tend to get fewer miles per watt hour. Thus you could actually *decrease* the amount of vehicles we could get on the road that way.
Conversions in general make for poor EVs. The weight distribution is wrong, the space available is wrong, and all sorts of components are driven by the gasoline engine. Even on a "professional", "factory" conversion like the Mini-E, you can see the compromises that went into it.
Reply
↓↑report3Serge
3:19PM (7/14/2009)
I'd rather see more money made available as low-cost loans to domestic advanced battery manufacturers. You have companies like Yardney Technical Products or Sion Power demonstrating and developing great product. Now let's get production capacity going and fill the market with lower-cost batteries.
Reply
↓↑report4LaughingTooHard
3:33PM (7/14/2009)
After reading the Title I was less than thrilled about this article.
After reading the content I was, as expected, fired up.
Let's take a look the Demographics of the Prius owner:
* 71 percent of respondents earned more than $100,000 per year.
* 73 percent were 40 years or older.
* 58 percent were men.
* 88 percent were “very happy” with their Prius; 12 percent were “somewhat happy.”
These are the people we need to reward with tax credits?
Laughable.
Show me a program is designed to puts some of unemployed 9.7% of this country's workforce BACK to work and I will be happy to sign off on it. . And don't give me that crap that R&D money wasted on "bridge technologies" like PHEV provide any return in employed workforce numbers. Tesla employs what 250? Wow, impressive.
We need the unemployed back to work so the whole country can recover so green technology can continue to thrive and evolve.
Oh I am sorry didn't you get the memo: unless the country recovers pronto, few people will care about Eco this or Green that - they will be too busy caring about food and shelter.
What we don't need is another tax credit for the working White Male 40+ $100K+ demographic.
Reply
↓↑report5sac
4:30PM (7/14/2009)
I agree that Prius or other hybrid conversions are too small of a market segment to really make a difference, but I do think it makes sense to offer incentives for conversions. It would help for one thing to stimulate addtional demand for batteries. However, I think that it would be really great to offer incentives for conversions of gas vehicles to electric vehicles. How many tired gas vehicles are out there serving as second (or lets face it, third) cars that get driven very little and and for short distances? If an electric conversion costs $10-12k for a 20-30 mile range, and the vehicle is already a second vehicle, there may well be plenty of people willing to invest money in a conversion. Now if there were a tax credit available for, say $2500 - $4500 towards a conversion from gas to BEV, I think alot of people would jump on it (myself included). This would make the cost of entry into electric vehicles (
Reply
↓↑report6sac
4:33PM (7/14/2009)
-continued from comment above-
(say under $10k) much more affordadable and less risky for alot of people and could really take off.
Reply
↓↑report7arw
4:40PM (7/14/2009)
How about just taxing fuel up to about $10 a gallon like in Europe then letting people and the markets decide what the best solution is?
Reply
↓↑report8Sebastian
4:46PM (7/14/2009)
you're right. $10 might be a bit high (at first), but it's hard to argue against a price floor ($5?) to really move things forward
↓↑report9paulwesterberg
5:24PM (7/14/2009)
Just pass a bill to raise fuel taxes by 25 cents every year. Then people will know that high prices will be coming in 10 years even if they don't have to pay them now.
↓↑report10falbhan
7:02PM (7/14/2009)
Yeah, definitely need to phase it in, but it seems it's the only
thing that accurately and fairly deal with the issues at hand.
Unfortunately there is a shortage of political will here in the US and
we'll likely never see this happen.
↓↑report11Throwback
4:47PM (7/14/2009)
"We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology"
I think we have borrowed and spent enough money already this year. Obama still does not know how we are going to pay for a healthcare overall, which I would give a higher prioirty than plugin cars.
Reply
↓↑report12locoyocal
5:12PM (7/14/2009)
Why are people still talking about hybrids.... Its like talking about a titanium bicycle.
Reply
↓↑report13paulwesterberg
5:30PM (7/14/2009)
Actually I think there are still interesting opportunities for titanium bicycles:
http://www.ttinet.com/tf/index.htm
Wind resistance eats up 80% of your cycling output. Bicycle weight has less impact on performance than aerodynamics.
↓↑report14kert
6:23PM (7/14/2009)
Up the fuel taxes, use the earned tax dollars to rebuild the roads.
Prescribing solutions ( PHEV, hydrogen, ethanol , whatever the next fad ) or picking winners at starting lines ends in disasters.
The problem is oil dependency ( to a lesser degree, pollution ) and to resolve this you have to start making oil less available ( meaning, increase its prices ), market will figure out the rest.
Reply
↓↑report15win39
7:38PM (7/14/2009)
I see no way way to solve this problem. The rational thing to do is to raise the gasoline tax and use a portion of it to fund research on alternative transportation technologies like batteries. The only problem is the politics in that it would be a completely visible tax and people would curse the current administration with every fill up, the Obama tax. They would be thrown out with the next election and everything would be reversed and the problem would not be approached until half the coastal cities are inundated,there are famines everywhere, population die off, and martial law declared to keep public order when people refuse to quietly starve to death. I pity the children of a generation unwilling to make sacrifices for the future.
Reply
↓↑report16jonwil2002
10:03PM (7/14/2009)
Don't tax the consumer, tax the oil companies. Tell the consumer that you are removing subsidies for the oil companies and making them pay more to fund solutions to make America less dependent on foriegn oil. Oil companies are big greedy corporations and the public wont complain if you tax a big greedy corporation. Also, any price increases can be attributed to the oil companies and not the government. And, the "lets make America less dependent on foriegn oil" mantra is popular with the public too.
Reply
↓↑report17GenWaylaid
11:58PM (7/14/2009)
"President Obama...said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015."
Obama's a politician. Politicians say a lot of things. What's your point?
Reply
↓↑report18Charles Whalen
12:16AM (7/15/2009)
You are behind the curve and behind the times. What you are missing -- (you must not have researched your article very carefully) -- is that your “idea” and “plan” have already been thought of a long time ago and are already being implemented. Many thousands of plug-in hybrid conversions are being funded by federal stimulus dollars, and states are also implementing consumer rebate programs for plug-in hybrid conversions, some of them funded through federal stimulus block grants to the states.
Reply
↓↑report19Jim
7:28AM (7/15/2009)
"What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?"
No. Problem is that it could lead to a lot of half-assed conversion kits which have been through minimal (if any) validation testing. Mucking with the control and charging systems on a hybrid is something you cannot screw up. A tax credit is all well and good until you need the car fixed every month 'cos of the conversion kit (which would void the warranty, mind you) or if a flaw in the charging system burns your house down.
Reply
↓↑report20steve
8:56AM (7/15/2009)
There are numerous problems with conversion kits, not the least of which is durability. Getting past five years of regular driving with a battery pack is a big deal. Combine this with the fact that there aren't many suitable cars to convert and the people who own them have more money than the average American - this is just a dumb transfer of money.
It would be much more cost effective to promote biking in some cities (like Portland has done). Make it safer and give people places to park. Not using a car for short trips has many practical consequences.
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 2:35PM
Fact 1: Over the last few months, we've seen the federal government spend all sorts of money to try and reach the twin goals of economic resurrection and a cleaner/greener society. In the auto industry, we have the CARS program, the ending (or not?) of the DOE's hydrogen vehicle program, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVMLP) – which gave $5.9 billion to Ford, $1.6 billion to Nissan and $465 million to Tesla – and, of course, the bailout of GM and Chrysler. This is a big pile of cash.
Fact 2: President Obama, when he was campaigning for his current job, said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. His proposal, at the time, was to give companies about $4 billion in loans and loan guarantees to develop the plug-ins and to offer consumers a $7,000 tax credit to purchase these vehicles.
Fact 3: 2015 is just over five years away, and there are currently zero production PHEVs available for purchase. The road to getting a million of them out the door in 60 months is not going to be easy.
We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology. We've put some details after the jump.
We're currently spending a week with a converted Prius from Hymotion, a vehicle similar to the one President Bush was shown in 2007. Sure, if you don't drive it like a plug-in, you're not going to get 100 mpg. But learning correct driving and recharging style will be paramount to any successful adoption of PHEVs. And, considering that the Hymotion Prius conversion packs (and others) are available now, why doesn't the government sink some money into making sure that anyone who wants to convert their hybrid to a plug-in vehicle can afford to do so?
The government has been helping to fund natural gas conversions for years, so there's a precedent for this, a precedent that should limit the number of people arguing that the plugs need to be installed at the factory or they won't be safe. Any conversion pack that would qualify for federal money would naturally be required to be safe, but this is a hurdle that has been and can again be cleared. If some money was diverted to a.) expanding the number of hybrid models that conversion packs were available for and b.) to giving consumers a rebate to buy those systems, wouldn't this be an affordable, fairly easy way to at least get a few hundred thousand PHEVs on the roads soon?
Let's play with some numbers. Since we're driving the Hymotion Prius, we'll use their dollar amounts, but all conversion options are pretty pricey right now. For $10,000, someone like Pat Cadam can turn your second-gen Prius into a PHEV in a few hours. For your money, you'll get a car that can go 40ish miles and has a top speed of 35 mph in EV mode. Go further or faster, of course, and the Prius behaves just like it did before the conversion happened. A price point this high is really only attractive to early adopters. What would it take to make getting a conversion done a no-brainer? How about a 30-mile pack for $5,000? Or a 20-mile pack for $3,500 (we're just throwing out numbers here, btw). And, let's say that instead of $4,500 for a new car that gets better than 28 mpg under the CARS program, how about $4,500 off the price of a PHEV conversion? Would people bite at that price? Or, what if the $7,500 plug-in credit that factory-produced PHEVs like the Volt (sorry, ER-EV) will get could be applied to conversions? If so, would $2,500 for a somewhat limited 40-mile range PHEV Prius be too sweet to pass up?
What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?
Tags: conversion, featured, phev, phev conversion, PhevConversion, plug-in hybrid, plug-in hybrid conversion, plug-in hybrids, plug-in prius, Plug-inHybrid, Plug-inHybridConversion, Plug-inHybrids, Plug-inPrius
PermalinkEmail thisPrint thisTweet thisComments (22)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Toyota to lease 200 PHEV Priuses in Japan starting in late 2009
46 days ago
eBay find of the day: Hymotion Plug-in Prius
157 days ago
CARB puts off plug-in hybrid conversion warranty, emissions decision
176 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog Green for 07.15.09
5 days ago
Toyota Prius plug-in tops 65 mpg
168 days ago
Maximum Bob: No plug-in hybrid race between GM, Toyota
325 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1Andrew
2:58PM (7/14/2009)
Here's what you're missing: not everyone drives a hybrid, and not every hybrid is designed for high mileage. Why waste money focusing on converting a small segment of the market into an even smaller segment of the market, when you could probably get a lot more bang for your buck investing in how to convert regular ICE vehicles to hybrids?? With millions of non-hybrid ICE vehicles on the road right now, THOSE are the vehicles you have to target.
Reply
↓↑report2meme
3:01PM (7/14/2009)
The primary constraint on the number of EVs we can produce is battery production capacity. Since conversions are based on vehicles that aren't necessarily uber-light/uber-aero, they tend to get fewer miles per watt hour. Thus you could actually *decrease* the amount of vehicles we could get on the road that way.
Conversions in general make for poor EVs. The weight distribution is wrong, the space available is wrong, and all sorts of components are driven by the gasoline engine. Even on a "professional", "factory" conversion like the Mini-E, you can see the compromises that went into it.
Reply
↓↑report3Serge
3:19PM (7/14/2009)
I'd rather see more money made available as low-cost loans to domestic advanced battery manufacturers. You have companies like Yardney Technical Products or Sion Power demonstrating and developing great product. Now let's get production capacity going and fill the market with lower-cost batteries.
Reply
↓↑report4LaughingTooHard
3:33PM (7/14/2009)
After reading the Title I was less than thrilled about this article.
After reading the content I was, as expected, fired up.
Let's take a look the Demographics of the Prius owner:
* 71 percent of respondents earned more than $100,000 per year.
* 73 percent were 40 years or older.
* 58 percent were men.
* 88 percent were “very happy” with their Prius; 12 percent were “somewhat happy.”
These are the people we need to reward with tax credits?
Laughable.
Show me a program is designed to puts some of unemployed 9.7% of this country's workforce BACK to work and I will be happy to sign off on it. . And don't give me that crap that R&D money wasted on "bridge technologies" like PHEV provide any return in employed workforce numbers. Tesla employs what 250? Wow, impressive.
We need the unemployed back to work so the whole country can recover so green technology can continue to thrive and evolve.
Oh I am sorry didn't you get the memo: unless the country recovers pronto, few people will care about Eco this or Green that - they will be too busy caring about food and shelter.
What we don't need is another tax credit for the working White Male 40+ $100K+ demographic.
Reply
↓↑report5sac
4:30PM (7/14/2009)
I agree that Prius or other hybrid conversions are too small of a market segment to really make a difference, but I do think it makes sense to offer incentives for conversions. It would help for one thing to stimulate addtional demand for batteries. However, I think that it would be really great to offer incentives for conversions of gas vehicles to electric vehicles. How many tired gas vehicles are out there serving as second (or lets face it, third) cars that get driven very little and and for short distances? If an electric conversion costs $10-12k for a 20-30 mile range, and the vehicle is already a second vehicle, there may well be plenty of people willing to invest money in a conversion. Now if there were a tax credit available for, say $2500 - $4500 towards a conversion from gas to BEV, I think alot of people would jump on it (myself included). This would make the cost of entry into electric vehicles (
Reply
↓↑report6sac
4:33PM (7/14/2009)
-continued from comment above-
(say under $10k) much more affordadable and less risky for alot of people and could really take off.
Reply
↓↑report7arw
4:40PM (7/14/2009)
How about just taxing fuel up to about $10 a gallon like in Europe then letting people and the markets decide what the best solution is?
Reply
↓↑report8Sebastian
4:46PM (7/14/2009)
you're right. $10 might be a bit high (at first), but it's hard to argue against a price floor ($5?) to really move things forward
↓↑report9paulwesterberg
5:24PM (7/14/2009)
Just pass a bill to raise fuel taxes by 25 cents every year. Then people will know that high prices will be coming in 10 years even if they don't have to pay them now.
↓↑report10falbhan
7:02PM (7/14/2009)
Yeah, definitely need to phase it in, but it seems it's the only
thing that accurately and fairly deal with the issues at hand.
Unfortunately there is a shortage of political will here in the US and
we'll likely never see this happen.
↓↑report11Throwback
4:47PM (7/14/2009)
"We have an idea for how to reach – or at least approach – Obama's goal: spend some real money on plug-in conversion technology"
I think we have borrowed and spent enough money already this year. Obama still does not know how we are going to pay for a healthcare overall, which I would give a higher prioirty than plugin cars.
Reply
↓↑report12locoyocal
5:12PM (7/14/2009)
Why are people still talking about hybrids.... Its like talking about a titanium bicycle.
Reply
↓↑report13paulwesterberg
5:30PM (7/14/2009)
Actually I think there are still interesting opportunities for titanium bicycles:
http://www.ttinet.com/tf/index.htm
Wind resistance eats up 80% of your cycling output. Bicycle weight has less impact on performance than aerodynamics.
↓↑report14kert
6:23PM (7/14/2009)
Up the fuel taxes, use the earned tax dollars to rebuild the roads.
Prescribing solutions ( PHEV, hydrogen, ethanol , whatever the next fad ) or picking winners at starting lines ends in disasters.
The problem is oil dependency ( to a lesser degree, pollution ) and to resolve this you have to start making oil less available ( meaning, increase its prices ), market will figure out the rest.
Reply
↓↑report15win39
7:38PM (7/14/2009)
I see no way way to solve this problem. The rational thing to do is to raise the gasoline tax and use a portion of it to fund research on alternative transportation technologies like batteries. The only problem is the politics in that it would be a completely visible tax and people would curse the current administration with every fill up, the Obama tax. They would be thrown out with the next election and everything would be reversed and the problem would not be approached until half the coastal cities are inundated,there are famines everywhere, population die off, and martial law declared to keep public order when people refuse to quietly starve to death. I pity the children of a generation unwilling to make sacrifices for the future.
Reply
↓↑report16jonwil2002
10:03PM (7/14/2009)
Don't tax the consumer, tax the oil companies. Tell the consumer that you are removing subsidies for the oil companies and making them pay more to fund solutions to make America less dependent on foriegn oil. Oil companies are big greedy corporations and the public wont complain if you tax a big greedy corporation. Also, any price increases can be attributed to the oil companies and not the government. And, the "lets make America less dependent on foriegn oil" mantra is popular with the public too.
Reply
↓↑report17GenWaylaid
11:58PM (7/14/2009)
"President Obama...said that he wanted a million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015."
Obama's a politician. Politicians say a lot of things. What's your point?
Reply
↓↑report18Charles Whalen
12:16AM (7/15/2009)
You are behind the curve and behind the times. What you are missing -- (you must not have researched your article very carefully) -- is that your “idea” and “plan” have already been thought of a long time ago and are already being implemented. Many thousands of plug-in hybrid conversions are being funded by federal stimulus dollars, and states are also implementing consumer rebate programs for plug-in hybrid conversions, some of them funded through federal stimulus block grants to the states.
Reply
↓↑report19Jim
7:28AM (7/15/2009)
"What are we missing? Is this a plan that should be promoted or not?"
No. Problem is that it could lead to a lot of half-assed conversion kits which have been through minimal (if any) validation testing. Mucking with the control and charging systems on a hybrid is something you cannot screw up. A tax credit is all well and good until you need the car fixed every month 'cos of the conversion kit (which would void the warranty, mind you) or if a flaw in the charging system burns your house down.
Reply
↓↑report20steve
8:56AM (7/15/2009)
There are numerous problems with conversion kits, not the least of which is durability. Getting past five years of regular driving with a battery pack is a big deal. Combine this with the fact that there aren't many suitable cars to convert and the people who own them have more money than the average American - this is just a dumb transfer of money.
It would be much more cost effective to promote biking in some cities (like Portland has done). Make it safer and give people places to park. Not using a car for short trips has many practical consequences.
Shell brings H2 fueling stations to NYC
Shell brings H2 fueling stations to NYC
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 7:56PM
Does Shell know something about the DOE's hydrogen funding plans that others don't? Or did it forget that the Shell CEO said recently that biofuels are the future? Whatever's going in internally, the energy giant is moving forward with plans to open a series of hydrogen refueling stations in New York. Today, the company opened a second NYC station – at JFK international airport – and will break the seal on another, this one in the Bronx, later this month. An H2 station in White Plains has been open since April 2008. Shell calls it their "first cluster of hydrogen filling stations," and the stations are all about 30 miles apart. The new JFK location can be used by "agreed vehicles only."
Last year, Shell opened a combined hydrogen and gasoline refueling station in Los Angeles (pictured) and also operates stations in Tokyo, Reykjavik, Shanghai, Washington, D.C. and New York..
[Source: Shell via Green Car Congress, GM]
GM Welcomes Shell Hydrogen Station Opening at JFK
Creates First Cluster of Hydrogen filling stations
JAMAICA, New York - Shell today opened its second hydrogen filling station in the greater New York City area, providing improved access to hydrogen for drivers of fuel cell Chevrolet Equinoxes participating in Project Driveway.
Project Driveway selects consumers who sign up on the Internet in the greater New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to participate for two months at a time in the demonstration. Chevy.com/fuelsolutions
Shell will open a third third station this summer in the Bronx in conjunction with the New York City Department of Sanitation.
Shell hydrogen station in White Plains has been operating there for more than a year, making up Shell's first cluster of hydrogen filling stations.
The station opening Tuesday at JFK International Airport is a partnership between Shell, General Motors Co., the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the US Department of Energy.
"These partnerships are critical to building the infrastructure that will make hydrogen a relevant alternative fuel in the future as well as a key to the ongoing success of Project Driveway," said Larry Burns, GM vice president of R&D and Strategic Planning.
The cluster of stations that will provide New York drivers of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with greater flexibility and convenience is a significant step on from stand-alone, demonstration stations and is part of Shell's strategy to build expertise in the distribution and dispensing of hydrogen.
"The prospects for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are strong in the longer-term", said Duncan Macleod, Shell vice president of Hydrogen. "This first cluster is an important step as we continue to build capability in retailing hydrogen fuel, in line with the auto makers' plans to develop hydrogen vehicles."
About General Motors: General Motors Company, one of the world's largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM's largest national market is the United States, followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Germany. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. General Motors Company acquired operations from General Motors Corporation on July 10, 2009, and references to prior periods in this and other press materials refer to operations of the old General Motors Corporation. More information on the new General Motors Company can be found at www.gm.com.
Tags: hydrogen, hydrogen new york, hydrogen nyc, HydrogenNewYork, HydrogenNyc, shell, shell hydrogen, shell new york, ShellHydrogen, ShellNewYork
(43)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Financial crisis delays Iceland's hydrogen transportation project
19 days ago
Baden-Württemberg, Germany gets its first public hydrogen filling station
31 days ago
CARB grants $6.8 billion for four hydrogen refueling stations
103 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog
Early obits attempt to analyze, make sense of General Motors bankruptcy
49 days ago
Malcolm Bricklin has hydrogen visions for displaced Chrysler and GM dealers...
53 days ago
Port Authority skittish over BMW Hydrogen 7
360 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1km
8:43PM (7/14/2009)
What the greater NYC area needs is natural gas stations not Hydrogen...
Reply
↓↑report2jjpro
12:05PM (7/15/2009)
I say, way to go GM & Shell. This program is very much needed. Hydrogen & fuel cells are an important component of the portfolio of technologies that will address our environmental concerns. Hydrogen used in a fuel-cell drivetrain is efficient: it is 3 times more efficient than the gasoline car you are now driving! Large trucks are not going to run on batteries alone anytime soon; they can on hydrogen. I will take my hydrogen car that can go 350 miles and refuel in 5 minutes over my battery-only car that can only go 100 miles and needs 8 hours to recharge.
↓↑report3Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
This is a very positive step for alternative fuels. Nice job GM and Shell to provide some leadership in another important metro area outside of LA!
These few stations will allow the people already driving hydrogen vehicles in the area to have more convenient fueling and to drive their emission-free fuel cell electric vehicles all over the NYC area.
↓↑report4ShaunneyCakes
8:52PM (7/14/2009)
Uh oh, here comes the stampede of Anti-Hydrogen Eco-Snob posts!
Reply
↓↑report5BillySharps
9:18PM (7/14/2009)
There are good reasons to oppose hydrogen. I'm not sure why that's snobbery.
↓↑report6ShaunneyCakes
9:52PM (7/14/2009)
@BillySharps
There are good reasons to oppose EVERY technology. Even EVs and Plug In Hybrids has many "good" reasons to oppose them. What makes someone a snob is they ignore all the good things because they prefer an alternative technology. I prefer EV's, but hydrogen has a lot of potential as well.
↓↑report7fnc
10:12PM (7/14/2009)
Considering the energy ROI of various ways to generate electricity makes one a snob?
↓↑report8jpm
2:04AM (7/15/2009)
stfu moron
↓↑report9guyledouche
8:58AM (7/15/2009)
Hey ShaunnyCakes,
You say tomato, I say tomaaato.
You call us "anti-hydrogen eco snobs", I call us informed, logical, intelligent, green vehicle tech advocates.
I, along with many other folks on this site, am no more an advocate of EV's as I am an advocate of CNG vehicles.
CNG makes a hell of a lot more sense as an interim fuel source in ICE cars and trucks than Hydrogen ever will, from every aspect. I am not going to go into detail about why H2 does not make sense because that horse has been beaten to death multiple times on this site as of late. It is getting old. The bottom line is that it doesn't make sense and the sooner you and guys like Glen Blencoe get that thru your thick skulls, the better. Do you think people promote EV's and CNG vehicles here because they are paid by some underground organization to pump our wares? NO Sherlocke, its because the aforementioned technologies make sense, work, can be made affordable, can be fairly easily adopted into our CURRENT refueling infrastructure, whether at home or at a station, and can and will be adopted my the US populous.
If anything, you are truly the closed-minded eco-snob here, promoting and defending one of the biggest wastes of time and money we have ever seen in green vehicle technology. H2 is a joke and just another way for large oil companies to keep a stronghold on our wallets. Enough is enough, we need to do things that make sense and not just listen to what ever you hear on the news.
EV's and CNG are the only CURRENT technologies that make sense and should be promoted as an alternative to petrol. H2 is a joke. Even our corrupt, oil industry funded government has seen the light at the end of the tunnel and slashed their spending on H2. To me, that means a lot! For them to make that kind of a move should make it very obvious to folks like you and Blencoe, that H2 is a waste of time and money.
Feel free to bash my comments, but I think I and others on this site make very good points to support these arguments.
↓↑report10gorr
10:42AM (7/15/2009)
Natural gas is the easiest green technology. If there is not available anywhere it's because goverment folks need to study how to suffocate the peoples like hitler did with the jews. Look at the career of al gore and g.w.b , they propose greenery tech all the time but it's just for public relations, on the real table only destructive gasoline and diesel are sold. It's them that constructed this petrol business worldwide and they are still protecting it and promoting it with goverment money. All their talks is to erase your awareness. All the greenery tech if we listen to them is coming soon, but strangelly they cannot recognise any green tech at all and despite billions of dollars of taxmoney given to many crooks, not a single greenery is on the market.
↓↑report11Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
Way to call it ShaunnyCakes. As predictable as a metronome. You're right of course. Hydrogen has a lot of potential. And so do other technologies.
That's why we need to be so open-minded to a variety of good technologies and help them all to market. Once they get to market (probably at different times), we can let the market decide which kinds of vehicles will be purchased.
↓↑report12Yanquetino
9:04PM (7/14/2009)
Questions:
* How many fuel cell "agreed vehicles" are there in the NY area?
* Who makes those FCVs and who drives them?
* Any idea how much one of these "agreed vehicles" costs?
* Since Shell opened this new station at the JFK airport, does this mean that some select rental car agencies will be renting them to travelers?
* How much is this new fueling station charging for the H2?
* Where is it getting its H2 from?
* How is it produced?
* How is it transferred and stored there?
* What is the maximum psi that the station can put into a vehicle's tanks?
* How long does a "fillup" take at that psi?
Thanks!
Reply
↓↑report13j
9:27PM (7/14/2009)
so they opened a covered parking lot?
Reply
↓↑report14Earthplane
9:46PM (7/14/2009)
Some followup questions! Did Shell fund these H2 facilities, or are they subsidized by Project Driveway or by GM, or maybe by DOE? If they just did it as part of a demonstration program, they get no credit for that - they have no risk. End of program, end of facility.
It's not for public use, only for participating vehicles, but still, what is Shell charging for the refueling, on a weight or gge basis? Of course, none of these H2 facilities will even approach economic feasibility at this point, but participating drivers should be expected to pay something toward the fuel they're using as part of the program.
Interesting story, how about more information from our writer?
Reply
↓↑report15PopSmith
12:47AM (7/15/2009)
I have these questions as well. If Shell put out the money for this station with no "help" from the government that is interesting and shows they are serious about it in my opinion. However, if Exxon and other oil companies jump on the Hydrogen bandwagon that means that eventual price fixing/price hikes such as what we have seen with gasoline is inevitable.
On the topic of Hydrogen, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is mainly generated (at least in America) from natural gas via natural gas reforming. This process separates methane (CH4) from natural gas which is then further separated so the Hydrogen can be used.
From energy.gov:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html
In steam-methane reforming, methane reacts with steam under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide.
This means that carbon monoxide (CO) is still being emitted, in ever-increasing numbers if Hydrogen takes off, and in the end the Hydrogen is ran though a fuel cell that combines Hydrogen with Oxygen making H2O (aka water) which then charges a battery to power the car.
I am not against Hydrogen, I think the idea is great but I prefer a pure-electric car. If the Hydrogen is used to charge a battery that means that, in the end, the car is an electric-hybrid that has had it's gasoline engine replaced with a Hydrogen generator.
For cars that need to go on road-trips that might be a good idea. However, for an "everyday driver" I still believe an all-electric vehicle would be a better choice.
↓↑report16Chris M
12:45AM (7/16/2009)
You got it almost right, PopSmith. A 2nd phase of that steam reforming process takes that carbon monoxide and reacts it with more steam at higher temperatures to get more H2 and CO2. It is necessary to remove carbon monoxide from the H2 fuel, as it can damage some types of fuel cells.
Most H2 production is from steam reformed fossil fuels, and the "Hydrogen Hyway" plans call for most of the H2 to be produced that way, as that is the cheapest source. The few H2 fuel stations using electrolysis are demo units for promotional use.
↓↑report17murc
10:35PM (7/14/2009)
Its obvious now, with electric cars coming fast....the hydrogen makers are realizing that the time for hydrogen is now or never...and they dont want to concede that all of the millions they sunk into hydrogen research wasn't wasted......but the truth is, it was.
Reply
↓↑report18Nozferat
4:17AM (7/15/2009)
Not really. It would be a mistake for them to do that when the technology out there hasn't fully matured. Same goes for EVs. Anyone pitching a cheap EV today that will do what a petrol car can do is committing suicide.
This shouldn't be a race. It should be a union of technologies.
↓↑report19Patrick
4:54PM (7/15/2009)
Guess where the most advanced automotive electric motors, batteries and controllers can be found on the road today? In hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells and batteries all work together.
↓↑report20Serge
5:22PM (7/15/2009)
Patrick, I believe you are mistaken. Those items you've mentioned can be found in a Tesla Roadster. It does not have a fuel cell.
There are more comments, and as usual, the comments are frequently more informative than the original article. I find it interesting that the federal government put fuel cells on the back burner and the oil companies are pushing it ! Fuel cells have been a great technology for at least the past ten years, and have potential, but arent close to being ready for production. Perhaps if people believe that fuel cells are right around the corner they will wait on buying a hybrid, plug-in, or electric vehicle. T Boone Pickens is pushing natural gas vehicles and trucks, with power from wind farms.
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 14th 2009 at 7:56PM
Does Shell know something about the DOE's hydrogen funding plans that others don't? Or did it forget that the Shell CEO said recently that biofuels are the future? Whatever's going in internally, the energy giant is moving forward with plans to open a series of hydrogen refueling stations in New York. Today, the company opened a second NYC station – at JFK international airport – and will break the seal on another, this one in the Bronx, later this month. An H2 station in White Plains has been open since April 2008. Shell calls it their "first cluster of hydrogen filling stations," and the stations are all about 30 miles apart. The new JFK location can be used by "agreed vehicles only."
Last year, Shell opened a combined hydrogen and gasoline refueling station in Los Angeles (pictured) and also operates stations in Tokyo, Reykjavik, Shanghai, Washington, D.C. and New York..
[Source: Shell via Green Car Congress, GM]
GM Welcomes Shell Hydrogen Station Opening at JFK
Creates First Cluster of Hydrogen filling stations
JAMAICA, New York - Shell today opened its second hydrogen filling station in the greater New York City area, providing improved access to hydrogen for drivers of fuel cell Chevrolet Equinoxes participating in Project Driveway.
Project Driveway selects consumers who sign up on the Internet in the greater New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to participate for two months at a time in the demonstration. Chevy.com/fuelsolutions
Shell will open a third third station this summer in the Bronx in conjunction with the New York City Department of Sanitation.
Shell hydrogen station in White Plains has been operating there for more than a year, making up Shell's first cluster of hydrogen filling stations.
The station opening Tuesday at JFK International Airport is a partnership between Shell, General Motors Co., the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the US Department of Energy.
"These partnerships are critical to building the infrastructure that will make hydrogen a relevant alternative fuel in the future as well as a key to the ongoing success of Project Driveway," said Larry Burns, GM vice president of R&D and Strategic Planning.
The cluster of stations that will provide New York drivers of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with greater flexibility and convenience is a significant step on from stand-alone, demonstration stations and is part of Shell's strategy to build expertise in the distribution and dispensing of hydrogen.
"The prospects for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are strong in the longer-term", said Duncan Macleod, Shell vice president of Hydrogen. "This first cluster is an important step as we continue to build capability in retailing hydrogen fuel, in line with the auto makers' plans to develop hydrogen vehicles."
About General Motors: General Motors Company, one of the world's largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 235,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in some 140 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 34 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM's largest national market is the United States, followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Germany. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. General Motors Company acquired operations from General Motors Corporation on July 10, 2009, and references to prior periods in this and other press materials refer to operations of the old General Motors Corporation. More information on the new General Motors Company can be found at www.gm.com.
Tags: hydrogen, hydrogen new york, hydrogen nyc, HydrogenNewYork, HydrogenNyc, shell, shell hydrogen, shell new york, ShellHydrogen, ShellNewYork
(43)Share
.
Related Articles From Autoblog Green
Financial crisis delays Iceland's hydrogen transportation project
19 days ago
Baden-Württemberg, Germany gets its first public hydrogen filling station
31 days ago
CARB grants $6.8 billion for four hydrogen refueling stations
103 days ago
Related Articles From Autoblog
Early obits attempt to analyze, make sense of General Motors bankruptcy
49 days ago
Malcolm Bricklin has hydrogen visions for displaced Chrysler and GM dealers...
53 days ago
Port Authority skittish over BMW Hydrogen 7
360 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1km
8:43PM (7/14/2009)
What the greater NYC area needs is natural gas stations not Hydrogen...
Reply
↓↑report2jjpro
12:05PM (7/15/2009)
I say, way to go GM & Shell. This program is very much needed. Hydrogen & fuel cells are an important component of the portfolio of technologies that will address our environmental concerns. Hydrogen used in a fuel-cell drivetrain is efficient: it is 3 times more efficient than the gasoline car you are now driving! Large trucks are not going to run on batteries alone anytime soon; they can on hydrogen. I will take my hydrogen car that can go 350 miles and refuel in 5 minutes over my battery-only car that can only go 100 miles and needs 8 hours to recharge.
↓↑report3Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
This is a very positive step for alternative fuels. Nice job GM and Shell to provide some leadership in another important metro area outside of LA!
These few stations will allow the people already driving hydrogen vehicles in the area to have more convenient fueling and to drive their emission-free fuel cell electric vehicles all over the NYC area.
↓↑report4ShaunneyCakes
8:52PM (7/14/2009)
Uh oh, here comes the stampede of Anti-Hydrogen Eco-Snob posts!
Reply
↓↑report5BillySharps
9:18PM (7/14/2009)
There are good reasons to oppose hydrogen. I'm not sure why that's snobbery.
↓↑report6ShaunneyCakes
9:52PM (7/14/2009)
@BillySharps
There are good reasons to oppose EVERY technology. Even EVs and Plug In Hybrids has many "good" reasons to oppose them. What makes someone a snob is they ignore all the good things because they prefer an alternative technology. I prefer EV's, but hydrogen has a lot of potential as well.
↓↑report7fnc
10:12PM (7/14/2009)
Considering the energy ROI of various ways to generate electricity makes one a snob?
↓↑report8jpm
2:04AM (7/15/2009)
stfu moron
↓↑report9guyledouche
8:58AM (7/15/2009)
Hey ShaunnyCakes,
You say tomato, I say tomaaato.
You call us "anti-hydrogen eco snobs", I call us informed, logical, intelligent, green vehicle tech advocates.
I, along with many other folks on this site, am no more an advocate of EV's as I am an advocate of CNG vehicles.
CNG makes a hell of a lot more sense as an interim fuel source in ICE cars and trucks than Hydrogen ever will, from every aspect. I am not going to go into detail about why H2 does not make sense because that horse has been beaten to death multiple times on this site as of late. It is getting old. The bottom line is that it doesn't make sense and the sooner you and guys like Glen Blencoe get that thru your thick skulls, the better. Do you think people promote EV's and CNG vehicles here because they are paid by some underground organization to pump our wares? NO Sherlocke, its because the aforementioned technologies make sense, work, can be made affordable, can be fairly easily adopted into our CURRENT refueling infrastructure, whether at home or at a station, and can and will be adopted my the US populous.
If anything, you are truly the closed-minded eco-snob here, promoting and defending one of the biggest wastes of time and money we have ever seen in green vehicle technology. H2 is a joke and just another way for large oil companies to keep a stronghold on our wallets. Enough is enough, we need to do things that make sense and not just listen to what ever you hear on the news.
EV's and CNG are the only CURRENT technologies that make sense and should be promoted as an alternative to petrol. H2 is a joke. Even our corrupt, oil industry funded government has seen the light at the end of the tunnel and slashed their spending on H2. To me, that means a lot! For them to make that kind of a move should make it very obvious to folks like you and Blencoe, that H2 is a waste of time and money.
Feel free to bash my comments, but I think I and others on this site make very good points to support these arguments.
↓↑report10gorr
10:42AM (7/15/2009)
Natural gas is the easiest green technology. If there is not available anywhere it's because goverment folks need to study how to suffocate the peoples like hitler did with the jews. Look at the career of al gore and g.w.b , they propose greenery tech all the time but it's just for public relations, on the real table only destructive gasoline and diesel are sold. It's them that constructed this petrol business worldwide and they are still protecting it and promoting it with goverment money. All their talks is to erase your awareness. All the greenery tech if we listen to them is coming soon, but strangelly they cannot recognise any green tech at all and despite billions of dollars of taxmoney given to many crooks, not a single greenery is on the market.
↓↑report11Patrick
4:59PM (7/15/2009)
Way to call it ShaunnyCakes. As predictable as a metronome. You're right of course. Hydrogen has a lot of potential. And so do other technologies.
That's why we need to be so open-minded to a variety of good technologies and help them all to market. Once they get to market (probably at different times), we can let the market decide which kinds of vehicles will be purchased.
↓↑report12Yanquetino
9:04PM (7/14/2009)
Questions:
* How many fuel cell "agreed vehicles" are there in the NY area?
* Who makes those FCVs and who drives them?
* Any idea how much one of these "agreed vehicles" costs?
* Since Shell opened this new station at the JFK airport, does this mean that some select rental car agencies will be renting them to travelers?
* How much is this new fueling station charging for the H2?
* Where is it getting its H2 from?
* How is it produced?
* How is it transferred and stored there?
* What is the maximum psi that the station can put into a vehicle's tanks?
* How long does a "fillup" take at that psi?
Thanks!
Reply
↓↑report13j
9:27PM (7/14/2009)
so they opened a covered parking lot?
Reply
↓↑report14Earthplane
9:46PM (7/14/2009)
Some followup questions! Did Shell fund these H2 facilities, or are they subsidized by Project Driveway or by GM, or maybe by DOE? If they just did it as part of a demonstration program, they get no credit for that - they have no risk. End of program, end of facility.
It's not for public use, only for participating vehicles, but still, what is Shell charging for the refueling, on a weight or gge basis? Of course, none of these H2 facilities will even approach economic feasibility at this point, but participating drivers should be expected to pay something toward the fuel they're using as part of the program.
Interesting story, how about more information from our writer?
Reply
↓↑report15PopSmith
12:47AM (7/15/2009)
I have these questions as well. If Shell put out the money for this station with no "help" from the government that is interesting and shows they are serious about it in my opinion. However, if Exxon and other oil companies jump on the Hydrogen bandwagon that means that eventual price fixing/price hikes such as what we have seen with gasoline is inevitable.
On the topic of Hydrogen, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is mainly generated (at least in America) from natural gas via natural gas reforming. This process separates methane (CH4) from natural gas which is then further separated so the Hydrogen can be used.
From energy.gov:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html
In steam-methane reforming, methane reacts with steam under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide.
This means that carbon monoxide (CO) is still being emitted, in ever-increasing numbers if Hydrogen takes off, and in the end the Hydrogen is ran though a fuel cell that combines Hydrogen with Oxygen making H2O (aka water) which then charges a battery to power the car.
I am not against Hydrogen, I think the idea is great but I prefer a pure-electric car. If the Hydrogen is used to charge a battery that means that, in the end, the car is an electric-hybrid that has had it's gasoline engine replaced with a Hydrogen generator.
For cars that need to go on road-trips that might be a good idea. However, for an "everyday driver" I still believe an all-electric vehicle would be a better choice.
↓↑report16Chris M
12:45AM (7/16/2009)
You got it almost right, PopSmith. A 2nd phase of that steam reforming process takes that carbon monoxide and reacts it with more steam at higher temperatures to get more H2 and CO2. It is necessary to remove carbon monoxide from the H2 fuel, as it can damage some types of fuel cells.
Most H2 production is from steam reformed fossil fuels, and the "Hydrogen Hyway" plans call for most of the H2 to be produced that way, as that is the cheapest source. The few H2 fuel stations using electrolysis are demo units for promotional use.
↓↑report17murc
10:35PM (7/14/2009)
Its obvious now, with electric cars coming fast....the hydrogen makers are realizing that the time for hydrogen is now or never...and they dont want to concede that all of the millions they sunk into hydrogen research wasn't wasted......but the truth is, it was.
Reply
↓↑report18Nozferat
4:17AM (7/15/2009)
Not really. It would be a mistake for them to do that when the technology out there hasn't fully matured. Same goes for EVs. Anyone pitching a cheap EV today that will do what a petrol car can do is committing suicide.
This shouldn't be a race. It should be a union of technologies.
↓↑report19Patrick
4:54PM (7/15/2009)
Guess where the most advanced automotive electric motors, batteries and controllers can be found on the road today? In hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells and batteries all work together.
↓↑report20Serge
5:22PM (7/15/2009)
Patrick, I believe you are mistaken. Those items you've mentioned can be found in a Tesla Roadster. It does not have a fuel cell.
There are more comments, and as usual, the comments are frequently more informative than the original article. I find it interesting that the federal government put fuel cells on the back burner and the oil companies are pushing it ! Fuel cells have been a great technology for at least the past ten years, and have potential, but arent close to being ready for production. Perhaps if people believe that fuel cells are right around the corner they will wait on buying a hybrid, plug-in, or electric vehicle. T Boone Pickens is pushing natural gas vehicles and trucks, with power from wind farms.
Hybrid sales are taking off in Japan
Hybrid sales are taking off in Japan due to a perfect storm of newly available vehicles – namely the latest Toyota Prius and Honda Insight – and government-sponsored incentives. In Japan, gas is currently selling for about $4.50 a gallon, partly due to high fuel taxes in that country. In addition, the Japanese government has decreed that hybrid cars are exempt from taxes. Combine all of these factors and you end up with a seven-month waiting list for the new 2010 Toyota Prius.
In total, Toyota sold an impressive 22,292 Prius hybrids and Honda sold 8,782 Insights in Japan in the month of June, meaning that those two vehicles alone accounted for more sales than America's entire hybrid tally of 26,205 vehicles sold last month. Further breaking down the numbers reveals that one in every eight new cars sold in Japan is a hybrid, compared to one in three here in the United States.
Correction:
"US hybrid sales were up in June for the sixth consecutive month, exceeding 3 percent of the new car market. With the Japanese overall annual car market forecast at just below 5 million vehicles, this month’s tally of more than 30,000 hybrid sales means that approximately 8 percent of new car sales in Japan were hybrids in June."
For the "math challenged", this means 3 of every 100 cars sold in the U.S. is a hybrid; every 8 of 100 or 2 of 25 for Japan.
In total, Toyota sold an impressive 22,292 Prius hybrids and Honda sold 8,782 Insights in Japan in the month of June, meaning that those two vehicles alone accounted for more sales than America's entire hybrid tally of 26,205 vehicles sold last month. Further breaking down the numbers reveals that one in every eight new cars sold in Japan is a hybrid, compared to one in three here in the United States.
Correction:
"US hybrid sales were up in June for the sixth consecutive month, exceeding 3 percent of the new car market. With the Japanese overall annual car market forecast at just below 5 million vehicles, this month’s tally of more than 30,000 hybrid sales means that approximately 8 percent of new car sales in Japan were hybrids in June."
For the "math challenged", this means 3 of every 100 cars sold in the U.S. is a hybrid; every 8 of 100 or 2 of 25 for Japan.
REPORT: Toyota plans to manufacture up to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012
REPORT: Toyota plans to manufacture up to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012
by Michael Harley on Jul 5th 2009 at 1:05PM
Fanning competition against GM's upcoming 2011 Chevrolet Volt plug-in, the Nikkei business daily reports that Toyota Motor Corp. plans to manufacture 20,000 to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012. Toyota allegedly wants pricing comparable to Mitsubishi's all-electric car, which is set to debut this month to fleet customers in Japan (both vehicles are eligible for government subsidies).
Toyota's plug-in vehicles will be powered by lithium-ion batteries co-developed with Panasonic EV Energy Co. and are expected to offer a full-charge range between 20 to 30 km (12.4 to 18.6 miles) on battery power alone. According to the paper, Toyota would not comment on future product plans.
[Source: Automotive News, subs. req'd]
Tags: All-electric, Battery Power, BatteryPower, Electric, Hybrid, liion, liion batteries, LiionBatteries, Lithium ion, LithiumIon, Mitsubishi Electric, MitsubishiElectric, Panasonic battery, PanasonicBattery, Toyota
Toyota's hybrid Supra successor on track for 2011
28 days ago
Toyota denying supposed hybrid deal with GM?
55 days ago
Peugeot delaying launch of plug-in hybrid?
165 days ago
Related Articles From Autobloggreen.comToyota chafes at Ontario $10,000 EV rebate, calls it GM subsidy
3 days ago
Japan becomes world's largest market for hybrids in June
13 days ago
Toyota's push to build green cars may destroy 17th century Japanese rice pa...
28 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1why not the LS2LS7?
1:13PM (7/05/2009)
What's the max useful speed for these vehicles?
Although I'd love to see multiple companies enter the market with a hybrid with useful zero-emissions range, I don't really expect Toyota to develop one when they already have their excellent parallel hybrid drive and it's more efficient when running on gas than a series hybrid anyway.
Reply
↓↑report
2ShaunneyCakes
1:41PM (7/05/2009)
12.4 to 18.6 miles... wow ... way to half-a$$ it Toyota. I hate to say it... but if the price is as high as AutoBlogGreen is claiming... then this will be another PS3... an embarrassing Japanese failure.
I have a Prius, but Toyota is losing 6 billion of 18 billion in capital a quarter has sluggish market share rise with very little assets. They are another GM in the making.
Reply
↓↑report
3car industry expert
2:22PM (7/05/2009)
Does anyone care, Toyota is crap, Volkswagen group is incredible. The sooner VW Group overtake Toyota the better. If Ferdinand Piech stays at the top that is sure to happen.
Reply
↓↑report
4whofan
2:28PM (7/05/2009)
Agree,
At least the Germans buy cars from American companys too.
Volkswagon or any other European car is a better choice for an import.
↓↑report
5Raffi
5:27PM (7/05/2009)
Aren't most VWs sold in the US imported from Mexico?
↓↑report
6TigerMil
2:44PM (7/05/2009)
Isn't competition wonderful? Don't count T out.
Reply
↓↑report
7mesama
3:32PM (7/05/2009)
That 20-30 km range is deceiving in that it is not an all-electric range. If you reach high enough speed or accelerate fast enough, the gas motor will have to turn on. Their hybrid design is still a good design, especially for the next few years. But the distinction between it and an EV or extended-range EV should not be lost.
Reply
↓↑report
8xtasi
5:54PM (7/05/2009)
I have a 50mi commute each way, I can't get some EV love... unless I get a Tesla roadster. How about someone comes up with some electric panels on the roof that charges the battery (Prius has solar panels, but they only help run accessories when the car is in motion). I can park my car and get some charge out of the 10 hours i'm at work. I work in Los Angeles, we got plenty of sun year around. That will probably happen in 20 years.
9kcmurphy88
3:39PM (7/06/2009)
Solar charging? You're kidding, right? There is WAY not enough solar energy hitting a car roof, even if you got 100% of it which you can't, to charge a car battery in any meaningful way. One kilowatt per meter is all you have to work with. That's not anything like what a car needs.
↓↑report
10erik1080
6:21PM (7/05/2009)
I get so frustrated when I see car companies see electric vehicles as the "future". Electric vehicles have a short range, are unreliable, and take forever to charge. Hybrids are stupid too, with their minimal increase in mpg. Diesel is the way to go, people! Look at BMW's Efficient Dynamics and VW's TDI!!!
Reply
↓↑report
11PJ
7:39PM (7/05/2009)
Electric *is* the future because an electric car doesn't care where the juice on the grid comes from--coal, nuke, or wind/solar--and requires no adaptation as clean plants gradually replace dirty ones.
With diesel, the car will only ever be as efficient as its onboard engine, and today's combustion engines are about as squeaky-clean as a series of controlled explosions can get.
By contrast, we're nowhere near tapping out the efficiency of electric drive. Hybrids will be remembered as a relatively crude stepping-stone.
12Lad
8:17PM (7/05/2009)
Wow there is a lot of misinformation in the above comments: 1.) the current Prius is a small ICE with an electric battery boost when additional power is needed, i.e., when accelerating or pushing the wind at high speeds. its best mileage comes in city traffic and slow speed cruising. At fast highway speeds the car is no better than a high mileage ICE. 2.) The Volt uses its electric batteries for about 40 miles of light acceleration and speed limit cruising; then it uses the ICE to power the car. 3.) It appears that the next Prius will use the same mode of operation as the current model except it will have a larger battery pack and can accept some augmentation to its range from the grid.
If the first generation large format battery BEVs work as intended they will have about a 100 mile range when driven at legal highway speeds; but will be dependent on charging stations, either at home or at charging spots to recharge the batteries. They are range limited and will alway be dependent on access to charging stations unless there are provisions to change out the battery or quick charge the car. All the while the car companies will be bringing out new ICEs that will approach 40 mph.
Your choice of which car to buy will depend on you making a calculated decision based on the material facts of your driving needs and the cost factors. For example, if you commute long distances, some people drive over 100 miles a day, then perhaps a high mileage ICE would be your choice, provided the price of fuel is not too high over the life of the car.
Reply
↓↑report
13DasBoese
8:23PM (7/05/2009)
And I get frustrated when I see people like you spew opinions based on oudated conceptions and ignorance.
Saying electric vehicles have a short range is just plain wrong. Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles. The Tesla roadster has a range of 200miles a charge, their Model S will have up to 300miles. It can be quick charged in 45 minutes, or exchange its battery in 2 minutes. So much for "slow to recharge", which BTW isn't going to be an issue for 99% percent of the people since one of top selling points of EVs is that you can charge them at home instead of being at the whim of the oil companies.
Secondly, the notion that electric vehicles are less reliable clearly shows you know nothing at all. The opposite is the case, electric vehicles are far more durable than combustion-engined ones. Reasons? A modern 4-cylinder engine has at least a few hundred moving parts. An electric motor has exactly one. It also eliminates the need for a transmission, and regenerative braking massively reduces brake wear. Even battery wear isn't much of an issue any more, modern batteries like the Volt's wll easily last 10 years or longer without major performance impacts.
If you want proof how durable electric cars really are: Jay Leno owns a 1909 Baker Electric. It still runs on its original batteries, with nothing more than basic maintenance.
As for hybrids, the gain in fuel economy is mainly in urban driving. If you drive on the highway a lot, yeah, a diesel can be better, but in urban traffic the hybrid wins hands down, especially so if it's a plug-in. In any case it's not like hybrid and diesel are mutually exclusive technologies.
Reply
↓↑report
14Lad
11:09PM (7/05/2009)
There is nothing you have written that many of us who have been following the car industry don't already know. I am a believer in electric cars; however, from a practical stand point one must still face the facts; for example: TMC will initially build small format battery, 300-mile BEVs that are too expensive for most of us, perhaps even you. And because of their agreements with Daimler (Mercedes) a third generation low-cost sedan may never be produced. Some car companies, like Nissan/Renault are building cars to the "Better Place" specification in order to allow for robot replacement of the battery packs. The down side of "BP" is you will be chained to their rules and policies by renting their batteries. Whether that's good or bad depends on your costs and satisfied requirements. Woe to us all if "BP" is the only player in renting BEV batteries.
PHEVs and HEVs are lower-cost interim solutions until low-cost BEVs replace them. The down side of these cars is they still carry the weight and complexity of the ICE which deduces their efficiency.
My ideal car would be a BEV with the flexability to only carry the necessary battery size and weight needed for daily use; but, with the ability to add a rented trailered APU for long range travel, when required for long trips.
15keep the change
1:42AM (7/06/2009)
"Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles"
Not so fast. There are only two today that are not super expensive which get that range. Only the BMW MiniE and the Mitsubish iMiev have ranges barely reaching 100 miles. And they are small microcars not suitable for most people. And they are not cheap. In fact, the MiniE is not even for sale. It is an experimental car which BMW is leasing for a whopping $850/mth to few select individuals, like GM leased the EV. The iMiev is $30,000 in Japan after subsidies, so the the real cost of the car is not within the reach of the average car buyer. Not that the average car buyer would want to drive something that looks like an enlarged, canopy covered skateboard.
As it stands, there is no viable full-size affordable electric car available today that can get even a measly 100 miles before it conks out and needs a tow. The problem is not electric cars, but battery science.
16LesPaul1
7:05AM (7/06/2009)
... and the same toyota is crap, vw & ford is wonderful comments from awesome autobloggers.
Reply
↓↑report
17the4thheat
1:37PM (7/06/2009)
I think Toyota is actually right to go with a more stop-gap type approach until the charging infrastructure is available for pure electrics. Yes it might work great for people in suburban areas with their own garages, where each car gets it's own spot.
But for the millions and millions of people who live in big cities (which perhaps unsurprisingly includes much of the population of Japan) they literally have no place to charge the cars.
If/when there is the infrastructure then the cost/benefit would change enough that Toyota would probably launch and EV. It's not like they own the gasoline companies. And I'm pretty sure that they are indeed working on the EVs. Just not for 2012.
When people have figured out some way for all the EVs to use a standard charge port, and there are actually charge ports everywhere then it'll make more sense.
Anyways I wouldn't be so sure about the range on these, it's all rumors for now. But an 18 mile range would almost cover my daily commute, I think it'd end up being like 20 cents in gasoline a day.
Reply
↓↑report
18kcmurphy88
3:44PM (7/06/2009)
What is always missing from these articles are the facts that any hybrid owner looks for:
1. What is the top EV speed?
2. How fast is 0-30 on battery alone? Assuming it can.
Only then is the range on battery interesting. If I can go 50 miles, but the top speed is 25 MPH and acceleration to 25 takes a minute, it is no use at all.
OTOH, if the top EV speed is 50MPH and I can do 0-30 in 8 seconds, let's talk.
by Michael Harley on Jul 5th 2009 at 1:05PM
Fanning competition against GM's upcoming 2011 Chevrolet Volt plug-in, the Nikkei business daily reports that Toyota Motor Corp. plans to manufacture 20,000 to 30,000 plug-in hybrids in 2012. Toyota allegedly wants pricing comparable to Mitsubishi's all-electric car, which is set to debut this month to fleet customers in Japan (both vehicles are eligible for government subsidies).
Toyota's plug-in vehicles will be powered by lithium-ion batteries co-developed with Panasonic EV Energy Co. and are expected to offer a full-charge range between 20 to 30 km (12.4 to 18.6 miles) on battery power alone. According to the paper, Toyota would not comment on future product plans.
[Source: Automotive News, subs. req'd]
Tags: All-electric, Battery Power, BatteryPower, Electric, Hybrid, liion, liion batteries, LiionBatteries, Lithium ion, LithiumIon, Mitsubishi Electric, MitsubishiElectric, Panasonic battery, PanasonicBattery, Toyota
Toyota's hybrid Supra successor on track for 2011
28 days ago
Toyota denying supposed hybrid deal with GM?
55 days ago
Peugeot delaying launch of plug-in hybrid?
165 days ago
Related Articles From Autobloggreen.comToyota chafes at Ontario $10,000 EV rebate, calls it GM subsidy
3 days ago
Japan becomes world's largest market for hybrids in June
13 days ago
Toyota's push to build green cars may destroy 17th century Japanese rice pa...
28 days ago
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1why not the LS2LS7?
1:13PM (7/05/2009)
What's the max useful speed for these vehicles?
Although I'd love to see multiple companies enter the market with a hybrid with useful zero-emissions range, I don't really expect Toyota to develop one when they already have their excellent parallel hybrid drive and it's more efficient when running on gas than a series hybrid anyway.
Reply
↓↑report
2ShaunneyCakes
1:41PM (7/05/2009)
12.4 to 18.6 miles... wow ... way to half-a$$ it Toyota. I hate to say it... but if the price is as high as AutoBlogGreen is claiming... then this will be another PS3... an embarrassing Japanese failure.
I have a Prius, but Toyota is losing 6 billion of 18 billion in capital a quarter has sluggish market share rise with very little assets. They are another GM in the making.
Reply
↓↑report
3car industry expert
2:22PM (7/05/2009)
Does anyone care, Toyota is crap, Volkswagen group is incredible. The sooner VW Group overtake Toyota the better. If Ferdinand Piech stays at the top that is sure to happen.
Reply
↓↑report
4whofan
2:28PM (7/05/2009)
Agree,
At least the Germans buy cars from American companys too.
Volkswagon or any other European car is a better choice for an import.
↓↑report
5Raffi
5:27PM (7/05/2009)
Aren't most VWs sold in the US imported from Mexico?
↓↑report
6TigerMil
2:44PM (7/05/2009)
Isn't competition wonderful? Don't count T out.
Reply
↓↑report
7mesama
3:32PM (7/05/2009)
That 20-30 km range is deceiving in that it is not an all-electric range. If you reach high enough speed or accelerate fast enough, the gas motor will have to turn on. Their hybrid design is still a good design, especially for the next few years. But the distinction between it and an EV or extended-range EV should not be lost.
Reply
↓↑report
8xtasi
5:54PM (7/05/2009)
I have a 50mi commute each way, I can't get some EV love... unless I get a Tesla roadster. How about someone comes up with some electric panels on the roof that charges the battery (Prius has solar panels, but they only help run accessories when the car is in motion). I can park my car and get some charge out of the 10 hours i'm at work. I work in Los Angeles, we got plenty of sun year around. That will probably happen in 20 years.
9kcmurphy88
3:39PM (7/06/2009)
Solar charging? You're kidding, right? There is WAY not enough solar energy hitting a car roof, even if you got 100% of it which you can't, to charge a car battery in any meaningful way. One kilowatt per meter is all you have to work with. That's not anything like what a car needs.
↓↑report
10erik1080
6:21PM (7/05/2009)
I get so frustrated when I see car companies see electric vehicles as the "future". Electric vehicles have a short range, are unreliable, and take forever to charge. Hybrids are stupid too, with their minimal increase in mpg. Diesel is the way to go, people! Look at BMW's Efficient Dynamics and VW's TDI!!!
Reply
↓↑report
11PJ
7:39PM (7/05/2009)
Electric *is* the future because an electric car doesn't care where the juice on the grid comes from--coal, nuke, or wind/solar--and requires no adaptation as clean plants gradually replace dirty ones.
With diesel, the car will only ever be as efficient as its onboard engine, and today's combustion engines are about as squeaky-clean as a series of controlled explosions can get.
By contrast, we're nowhere near tapping out the efficiency of electric drive. Hybrids will be remembered as a relatively crude stepping-stone.
12Lad
8:17PM (7/05/2009)
Wow there is a lot of misinformation in the above comments: 1.) the current Prius is a small ICE with an electric battery boost when additional power is needed, i.e., when accelerating or pushing the wind at high speeds. its best mileage comes in city traffic and slow speed cruising. At fast highway speeds the car is no better than a high mileage ICE. 2.) The Volt uses its electric batteries for about 40 miles of light acceleration and speed limit cruising; then it uses the ICE to power the car. 3.) It appears that the next Prius will use the same mode of operation as the current model except it will have a larger battery pack and can accept some augmentation to its range from the grid.
If the first generation large format battery BEVs work as intended they will have about a 100 mile range when driven at legal highway speeds; but will be dependent on charging stations, either at home or at charging spots to recharge the batteries. They are range limited and will alway be dependent on access to charging stations unless there are provisions to change out the battery or quick charge the car. All the while the car companies will be bringing out new ICEs that will approach 40 mph.
Your choice of which car to buy will depend on you making a calculated decision based on the material facts of your driving needs and the cost factors. For example, if you commute long distances, some people drive over 100 miles a day, then perhaps a high mileage ICE would be your choice, provided the price of fuel is not too high over the life of the car.
Reply
↓↑report
13DasBoese
8:23PM (7/05/2009)
And I get frustrated when I see people like you spew opinions based on oudated conceptions and ignorance.
Saying electric vehicles have a short range is just plain wrong. Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles. The Tesla roadster has a range of 200miles a charge, their Model S will have up to 300miles. It can be quick charged in 45 minutes, or exchange its battery in 2 minutes. So much for "slow to recharge", which BTW isn't going to be an issue for 99% percent of the people since one of top selling points of EVs is that you can charge them at home instead of being at the whim of the oil companies.
Secondly, the notion that electric vehicles are less reliable clearly shows you know nothing at all. The opposite is the case, electric vehicles are far more durable than combustion-engined ones. Reasons? A modern 4-cylinder engine has at least a few hundred moving parts. An electric motor has exactly one. It also eliminates the need for a transmission, and regenerative braking massively reduces brake wear. Even battery wear isn't much of an issue any more, modern batteries like the Volt's wll easily last 10 years or longer without major performance impacts.
If you want proof how durable electric cars really are: Jay Leno owns a 1909 Baker Electric. It still runs on its original batteries, with nothing more than basic maintenance.
As for hybrids, the gain in fuel economy is mainly in urban driving. If you drive on the highway a lot, yeah, a diesel can be better, but in urban traffic the hybrid wins hands down, especially so if it's a plug-in. In any case it's not like hybrid and diesel are mutually exclusive technologies.
Reply
↓↑report
14Lad
11:09PM (7/05/2009)
There is nothing you have written that many of us who have been following the car industry don't already know. I am a believer in electric cars; however, from a practical stand point one must still face the facts; for example: TMC will initially build small format battery, 300-mile BEVs that are too expensive for most of us, perhaps even you. And because of their agreements with Daimler (Mercedes) a third generation low-cost sedan may never be produced. Some car companies, like Nissan/Renault are building cars to the "Better Place" specification in order to allow for robot replacement of the battery packs. The down side of "BP" is you will be chained to their rules and policies by renting their batteries. Whether that's good or bad depends on your costs and satisfied requirements. Woe to us all if "BP" is the only player in renting BEV batteries.
PHEVs and HEVs are lower-cost interim solutions until low-cost BEVs replace them. The down side of these cars is they still carry the weight and complexity of the ICE which deduces their efficiency.
My ideal car would be a BEV with the flexability to only carry the necessary battery size and weight needed for daily use; but, with the ability to add a rented trailered APU for long range travel, when required for long trips.
15keep the change
1:42AM (7/06/2009)
"Virtually all electric cars being sold or undergoing fleet testing today have a range of at least 100miles"
Not so fast. There are only two today that are not super expensive which get that range. Only the BMW MiniE and the Mitsubish iMiev have ranges barely reaching 100 miles. And they are small microcars not suitable for most people. And they are not cheap. In fact, the MiniE is not even for sale. It is an experimental car which BMW is leasing for a whopping $850/mth to few select individuals, like GM leased the EV. The iMiev is $30,000 in Japan after subsidies, so the the real cost of the car is not within the reach of the average car buyer. Not that the average car buyer would want to drive something that looks like an enlarged, canopy covered skateboard.
As it stands, there is no viable full-size affordable electric car available today that can get even a measly 100 miles before it conks out and needs a tow. The problem is not electric cars, but battery science.
16LesPaul1
7:05AM (7/06/2009)
... and the same toyota is crap, vw & ford is wonderful comments from awesome autobloggers.
Reply
↓↑report
17the4thheat
1:37PM (7/06/2009)
I think Toyota is actually right to go with a more stop-gap type approach until the charging infrastructure is available for pure electrics. Yes it might work great for people in suburban areas with their own garages, where each car gets it's own spot.
But for the millions and millions of people who live in big cities (which perhaps unsurprisingly includes much of the population of Japan) they literally have no place to charge the cars.
If/when there is the infrastructure then the cost/benefit would change enough that Toyota would probably launch and EV. It's not like they own the gasoline companies. And I'm pretty sure that they are indeed working on the EVs. Just not for 2012.
When people have figured out some way for all the EVs to use a standard charge port, and there are actually charge ports everywhere then it'll make more sense.
Anyways I wouldn't be so sure about the range on these, it's all rumors for now. But an 18 mile range would almost cover my daily commute, I think it'd end up being like 20 cents in gasoline a day.
Reply
↓↑report
18kcmurphy88
3:44PM (7/06/2009)
What is always missing from these articles are the facts that any hybrid owner looks for:
1. What is the top EV speed?
2. How fast is 0-30 on battery alone? Assuming it can.
Only then is the range on battery interesting. If I can go 50 miles, but the top speed is 25 MPH and acceleration to 25 takes a minute, it is no use at all.
OTOH, if the top EV speed is 50MPH and I can do 0-30 in 8 seconds, let's talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)