prius' are dumb. that is all. never in a million years will i buy a toyota :P but a honda, probably.

with taht said

its about marketing strategy, its all business, my friend, even though credit goes to the wrong company.

good points nick, i like it. i agree that the japanese have often taken what is already created and perfected it (they do a great job of that) but when it comes to ingenuity and creativity, we in the US of A rock it! Let's not talk about the most medical advances in the world? At least the world recognizes that =)

nice post nick! Good food for thought! The Prius is marvelously designed (and getting better), but it is certainly not the "solution" to the fuel consumption and environmental issues currently ... it is a step in the right direction though. If you do the series of posts, maybe some thoughts on: mass transit for the sparsely populated cities, intelligent highways, ... hey and we might as well talk about flying cars (mass transport is for a future discussion).

yeah Japanese are copycats. :)

But they make their stuff cuter.

all i have to say is "who cares?" they haven't built plug-ins yet, and ppl have created conversion kits to do so. obviously anything toyota does isn't going to be more advanced than the next guy, but at least they are trying to do something or create public awareness.

eventually enough companies and people will jump on the bandwagon and we'll have electric cars.

man it is freaking 6:30am!! and i have stayed up all night!!! now i need to find a place that cooks oatmeal since i have no desire to cook. :-/

Didn't GM sell the electric car to Texaco?

Better marketing beats better tech. Capitalism doesn't work because agents are not omniscient. Welcome to reality! We hope you enjoy your stay.

@randplaty - 

No, GM did not sell the EV-1 to anyone, which is ironically a huge point of contention. EV-1 was available only as a 3-year closed-end lease, which required the return of the vehicle to GM at the end of the lease with no option to purchase. The reasons GM gives for this are (1) that it was heavily subsidized and therefore not cost-effective and (2) fear of long-term liability and maintenance costs for proprietary technology. GM eventually canceled the EV-1 project, recalled all the cars, and recycled most of them--with a few of them ending up at museums or universities around the country.

@buyAmerican - 

What about this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6674/is_200010/ai_n26653826

I heard that Toyota cannot make plug-in hybrids with NiMH batteries because Texaco owns the patent for that and that's why they're trying to get Li-On batteries in their new Prius before they can do the plug-in route.

or check this out:

http://www.ev1.org/chevron.htm

@randplaty - 

Be careful not to trust everything you read online. If these "patent" allegations were true, I'm sure we would see more of it floating around the mainstream media. "Oil Companies Hold Car Companies Hostage with Patent Lawsuits" just seems too good to pass up. In fact, Chevron-Texaco does hold the patent to a particular type of large format NiMH battery system, but they are willing to sell it to automakers (evidenced by their use in the 2008+ Saturn Aura hybrid). They just want large-scale orders, to leverage economies of scale in manufacturing (seems reasonable to me). On top of that, oil companies are hardly battery/electronics experts. I see no reason why any in the U.S. would have reason to invest billions of dollars in R&D for batteries when until recently there was no real threat to their bottom line from anything battery powered, let alone cars. Furthermore, NiMH battery technology was discovered long before the patent saga. Finally, NiMH batteries are excellent for automotive use because of their reliability and relative immunity to "deep discharges" necessary for rapid acceleration. But they are hardly the best batteries for hybrids. Li battery technology would allow a broader charge range (30-80% charge instead of the current 40-60% state needed to prolong the life of NiMH batteries), eliminate the problem of "charge memory" that effects NiMH batteries, and reduce weight while increasing power. Automakers and electronics companies--both mainstream and independent, foreign and domestic--are experimenting with a number of different technologies. Thus, it makes little competitive sense for Chevron-Texaco to refuse sale of a technology that will soon be obsoleted by competition from Chrysler-GE-Sanyo, GM-Johnson Controls-A123 Systems, Ford-Delco, Toyota-Panasonic-Denso, and several others. In fact, Cobasys (jointly owned by Chevron-Texaco) is a major developer of LiION batteries for up-coming GM mild-hybrid cars. The problem is not Chevron-Texaco and their patent withholding, but with the state of battery technology and automotive technology as a whole. Rumors of conspiracy theories are usually propagated by those who are frustrated with the current state of automotive affairs and choose to blame some fantasy rather than the nature of market-driven forces. The fact of the matter is we were all short-sighted and now we're all paying for it. But things are changing (which suggests there wasn't someone there barring the door this whole time... except perhaps consumer demand for large trucks and SUVs).

@buyAmerican - 

Well I don't know what you would call mainstream media, but Sherry Boschert's book on plug in cars is the main source for the "rumor." While it may not be in mainstream print press or whatnot, there has been absolutely no arguments against it. If it were a blatantly false rumor then it would be easily proved false. The fact is that we're judging motives here and nobody can know the motives of these companies unless they have a tape recorder in boardroom meetings.

Well I don't know much about batteries, but a lot of people are arguing that LiON batteries are not good for rapid charge and discharge and that's why they are having such a tough time coming up with hybrids that run off of them. The current Prius uses NiMH but they cannot put a large format NiMH which is what is required for a plug in vehicle. You could be right, they could be right... i'm not an engineer so I don't know.

The fact remains that Chevron won a $30million dollar settlement from Toyota and forced them to shut down production of their large format Ni-MH which is what is used in the RAV4-EV. That's documented so I guess it is up to an interpretation of motives.

@randplaty - 

I refer you to my point above, that Chevron is perfectly within reason to ask another company not to infringe upon its copyrights and that it is not withholding the technology but simply requesting large orders (apparently in order to leverage economies of scale and actually make a profit on the battery; which seems reasonable to me). If this has the effect of shutting down small-scale projects like the RAV4-EV, too bad. My point is not to dispute Chevron protecting its patents, which they have every right to do, but that lack of consumer demand should be blamed for lack of hybrids and electric cars, not conspiracy.

Furthermore, I mentioned the fact that NiMH handle deep cycle discharge better than other battery types. But people who say that they are therefore the best possible battery type for hybrid or electric cars fail to consider weight and packaging. A Li-ION or Li-Polymer battery would drastically reduce weight, and Li-Polymer batteries can be molded to fit unique shapes. Furthermore, other technologies like rapid discharge capacitors can be used to augment Li-batteries if prolonging battery life is the main goal. Also, Li batteries have a larger usable charge range than NiMH batteries.

Finally, all of this battery discussion is kind of moot because (1) Chevron is selling its batteries to car companies (GM, for example); (2) other technologies are becoming competitive; and (3) hybrids and electric cars are an interim step toward a number of possible replacements for petroleum as automotive fuel (hydrogen, bio-fuels, etc.). I believe people are complaining because they wish things were different than they are and prefer to blame an "abstract" company like Chevron or GM for "killing" electric and hybrid advancement, rather than take responsibility for the fact that they and their neighbors have preferred cheaper gas-powered cars or large V-8 powered SUVs for the last 100 or so years.

@buyAmerican - 

Nick I agree with you that its within their rights to ask another company not to infringe on its copyright...

All I'm saying is that there are still things that don't make sense about your assumptions just like you are saying there are things that don't make sense about their assumptions.

If it was profitable (or worthwhile for other purposes) for Toyota to manufacture large format NiMH for itself and it was worthwhile for GM to allow Toyota to do so, why is it not worthwhile for Chevron to allow Toyota to do so?

Lack of consumer demand? This is speculation. Consumers do not demand specific types of batteries. Consumers demand the end application of such batteries. So again, it depends on how good the tech is and how well it would be implemented. You are claiming the tech is not good enough to produce high demand. Others claim that if Toyota were allowed to use that battery, they could put out a plug-in hybrid right now that would be cost effective and get close to 100 mpg. No consumer demand for that? These are just claims without evidence... but that doesn't mean we can dismiss the claim. It just means that we don't know for sure right now... but its still possible.

Conspiracy theory? Maybe... but it sounds more like common sense. It's common sense for Chevron not to allow development of plug-in hybrid technology. Even if it only delays the technology for 10-15 years, that's 10-15 years of profit. You are assuming that their motive is merely because they want to do "large scale" orders, but the articles I've read assume that they are defending their gasoline sale interests. Both are assumptions. Both cannot be corroborated by myself.

Other techs are becoming more competitive, but you cannot ignore the central claim of the book and the articles centered around that book. They are claiming that we could have a cost effective PHEV right now. The other techs won't produce the same until 2010 or later.

Again, I'm just saying that its an interesting assertion these people are making. I'm not saying its necessarily true. You may be right. But can you be sure that you are right and that this book is completely false? I don't think you can know either.

@randplaty - 

You know, I think we agree on the main points of contention here. I am just saying that there is no conspiracy. Let me try and offer some evidence for my claims. (You may feel free to respond, but I may have to leave this discussion at this point, though.)

I agree, we cannot know for sure what the motives of a particular company might or might not be. I think it is reasonable to say that an oil and gas company would defend both their profit margins today in oil and gas sales as well as their potential profits on battery sales (in fact, these two motives seem to come together on the issue of denial of small-scale orders to car companies). Again, I think those are reasonable motives that do not point to conspiracy.

You are quite correct that had technology been developed earlier on, 150-mpg plug-in hybrid might be viable today. In fact, GM's R&D director said as much in lamenting their failure to develop the technology behind the EV-1 in the mid-90's: "we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier" (Larry Burns). But new technologies cost money and if there is not an immediate market for it, then the automaker has to eat the cost to keep the purchase price down until demand picks-up. In the early 90's there wasn't much demand for high-mileage cars. So naturally, when demand for the EV-1 didn't pan out, GM canceled the program. The CEO at the time even lamented that GM was probably the only company that could throw away $1 billion on a project that didn't pan out and then get lambasted for canceling it. Even today, every automaker except Toyota looses money for every hybrid car they sell... only there is just enough demand and publicity now that there is hope everyone will eventually be able to make money on them... and if they don't do it, they seem environmentally irresponsible.

But even today, there is little demand for hybrids by comparison to other products. They get a lot of attention, but generate relatively few sales. Toyota has sold just over 1 million Prius since their introduction 7 years ago. By comparison, in Ford sold 939,000 F-150s in a single year (2005). Yes, demand is outstripping supply for the Prius today, but supply is also extremely low compared to other cars. Toyota expects to sell about 200,000 Priuses this year--a massive boom year for economy cars. But they also expect to sell more than double that many Camrys. The Prius does especially well sales-wise for hybrids, too. Honda only sold about 36,000 hybrids all last year; Ford only sold about 25,000. Most analysts predict that if hybrids remain "unique" cars, like the Prius, instead of becoming an invisible augment to "mainstream cars" then even after they get saturated in the market, they will account for no more than 15% of the overall car market. If GM's current forecasts are correct, then along the way toward a 0-emissions, petroleum-free transportation sector, we will see a range of different options: high efficiency gas engines; E85, diesel, and other bio-fuels; gas-electric hybrids; and hydrogen.

Finally, my original intention with this post was to point out that Toyota (and sometimes Honda) get a lot of credit for "pioneering" technologies when really they are merely "popularizing" them through clever marketing. And it appears to be happening again with this solar panel deal. I do not dispute that a convergence of events occurred a decade ago that has slowed the development of hybrids. I merely believe that the conclusions of those who say there is a conspiracy are rather baseless. And if they really think hybrids are so important and wish development would proceed faster, they should go out and buy one to demonstrate that there is market demand for them (which, btw, I think is just now starting to happen)--from an American automaker :). Thanks for the lively exchange.