Toyota unveils 'first all-electric SUV'

May 08, 2012
The car company unveiled Monday what it says is the first all-electric sports utility vehicle (SUV) on the market, a version of its popular RAV4 with a top range of 100 miles and minimum six-hour charge time.

Toyota unveiled Monday what it says is the first all-electric sports utility vehicle (SUV) on the market, a version of its popular RAV4 with a top range of 100 miles and minimum six-hour charge time.

The car will be sold initially only in California with a base price of $49,800, and the Japanese car company hopes to sell a relatively modest 2,600 units over the next three years.

Sales USA executive Bob Carter said the company believes the car will "attract sophisticated early technology adopters, much like the first-generation ," Toyota's pioneering hybrid car launched 15 years ago.

"It's all about blending the best of two worlds... The all-new RAV4 EV marries the efficiency of an EV with the versatility of a small SUV -- in fact, it is the only all-electric SUV on the market," he added.

The car, which costs more than twice as much as the gas version of the RAV4 and would have difficulties with out-of-town driving for any distance, may struggle to find a mass appeal.

"It's designed for consumers who prioritize the environment and appreciate performance," said Carter, adding that the new car will go on sale later this summer in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego.

"We look forward to seeing how the market responds," he added, unveiling the at the 26th annual Electric Vehicle Symposium in Los Angeles.

Explore further: Intel wireless charging in a bowl coming sooner than later

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Toyota unveils hybrid car push

Nov 18, 2010

The world's top automaker Toyota Motor plans to launch 11 new hybrid models by the end of 2012, the company said Thursday, as the race to build more environmentally friendly vehicles heats up.

Toyota unveils 'green' sports car

Oct 06, 2009

Toyota unveiled Tuesday a new lightweight, sporty concept car inspired by an iconic coupe from the 1980s, saying its vision of the future was both mean and green.

Toyota unveils high-tech concept car ahead of show

Nov 28, 2011

Toyota's president unveiled a futuristic concept car resembling a giant smartphone to demonstrate how Japan's top automaker is trying to take the lead in technology at the upcoming Tokyo auto show.

Toyota to launch six new hybrids by end of 2012

Sep 14, 2010

The world's top automaker Toyota Motor plans to launch six new hybrid models by the end of 2012, a spokesman for the company said Tuesday, as competition to build greener cars heats up.

Honda natural gas car wins LA green prize

Nov 17, 2011

The 2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas was named Green Car of the Year at the LA Auto Show on Thursday, beating finalists including European, US and other Asian carmakers. ...

Recommended for you

Team improves solar-cell efficiency

Sep 19, 2014

New light has been shed on solar power generation using devices made with polymers, thanks to a collaboration between scientists in the University of Chicago's chemistry department, the Institute for Molecular ...

Calif. teachers fund to boost clean energy bets

Sep 19, 2014

The California State Teachers' Retirement System says it plans to increase its investments in clean energy and technology to $3.7 billion, from $1.4 billion, over the next five years.

Idealistic Norwegian sun trappers

Sep 19, 2014

The typical Norwegian owner of a solar heating system is a resourceful man in his mid-fifties. He is technically skilled, interested in energy systems, and wants to save money and protect the environment.

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TrinityComplex
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
Shouldn't they be saying 'the second generation of the first all electric SUV'? The original RAV4 EV was in production from 1997-2003. Back then it had a range of 100-120 miles per charge, took five hours to charge, and cost $42,000. Nearly ten years later they haven't improved the range at all, it takes longer to charge, and the price has increased. I hope, at VERY least, they increased the 0-60 in 18 seconds acceleration.
Scottingham
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
Could it tow a gas generator?
krundoloss
2 / 5 (6) May 08, 2012
Trinity, you hit the nail on the head. With all the work that goes into this, why has it not improved? Its pathetic. If a car doesnt have a range of at least 250 miles per charge it is just about useless. Imagine having your own car, and your relative from out of town wants you to come visit. Your electric car is useless! Why would you pay so much money for a limited vehicle! What is even more rediculous, is if the electricity you charge it with comes from a Coal plant, then you are less environmentally friendly than a regular car. When it comes to electric vehicles, no one is going to want one until it is better than a gas powered car. Period.
Scottingham
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
"What is even more rediculous, is if the electricity you charge it with comes from a Coal plant, then you are less environmentally friendly than a regular car"

Not true, due to economies of scale the emissions per KW coming from coal are much much less than that from the gasoline in a conventional engine.

Also, while I wouldn't want an electric SUV...Id love a small electric to make my 4 mile commute to work. I'd keep my gasser for long trips, but if I didn't have to use it to commute that'd be 80% of my gas usage gone right there!
Eikka
2.7 / 5 (7) May 08, 2012
The original RAV4 EV was in production from 1997-2003. Back then it had a range of 100-120 miles per charge, took five hours to charge, and cost $42,000.


Mind, inflation from the 90's means that the original cost was about $63,000 in today's money, so the new car is actually about 22% cheaper in comparison.

And the five hours of charging were achieved "via a Magne Charge inductive charging paddle from a wall-mounted 6000-Watt charging unit".

The original RAV4 EV had 27 kWh NiMH, which makes a claim of 100 miles for range highly dubious. E.g. Nissan Leaf will go 73 mi per 24 kWh which is 328 Wh/mi (EPA) against the claimed 270 Wh/mi. Surely a SUV will not use less energy than a subcompact, with the weight of the NiMH, unless you cheat and use a different test standard, which is what they usually did/do with EVs.

The new RAV4 prototype has a 37 kWh battery.

Electric cars in the 90's weren't ready. You just got to see through the hype, propaganda and wishful thinking.
Eikka
1.6 / 5 (7) May 08, 2012
Not true, due to economies of scale the emissions per KW coming from coal are much much less than that from the gasoline in a conventional engine.


Not true. The economies of scale can't offset the fact that gasoline/diesel is a hydrocarbon while coal is just carbon, so the CO2 emissions from coal are much higher per kWh of energy produced.

Cars run on compressed natural gas would produce less than half the CO2 output of coal derived electricity, and you'd have a ready migration route to synthetically or biologically produced methane to make the system CO2 neutral.
Scottingham
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
Coal is just carbon? Seriously? I'd look that up if I were you, lest you come off as ignant.

Also, gas cars are about 20% efficient, whereas EVs are much higher in converting their stored energy into mechanical.

kaasinees
2.5 / 5 (8) May 08, 2012
coal contains mercury, sulphur, radioactive materials etc.
And they are all released into our atmosphere/oceans.

Eika is just another conservative troll.
dschlink
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
Much as I'd like to go electric, paying double the base price makes no sense.
Scottingham
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
Right on kaas. Don't get me wrong though, I hate coal power plants with a passion. If it were up to me, a nuclear-powered transport grid would be the way to go. With plenty of passive and photovoltaic solar panels to boot.
ccr5Delta32
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
From the article

The car, which costs more than twice as much as the gas version of the RAV4 and would have difficulties with out-of-town driving for any distance, may struggle to find a mass appeal.

"May struggle to find mass appeal " That's an understatement I hope ,at least I hope this is not Toyota's effort to introduce a new epoch in motoring .
Testing the water with your little toe , This is not even that ,it's like testing the water with someone else s little toe and that's generous .Where is the marketing muscle of Toyota ? .What an anemic promotion and why? are they selling us conscience now?. This thing could be easily manufactured at or even lower cost than a similar IC model so why(again)? the " More than twice price tag "
This thing is usable . at the right price there's a market ,upgrade batteries later

Skepticus
2 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
Only useful for pottering around the city and (hopefully) pickup the girls. Take it out into the wilderness for a few hundred miles trek is not an option. Useless.
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
Nuclear is good for space.
Only temporary here on earth until we can completely go renewable.
ccr5Delta32
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
Look on the bright side Skepticus ,with an electric SUV you wouldn't need to shout at the girls your trying to pick up ,and I don't know "going out a few hundred miles out in the wilderness with a girl you just met " Risky ! you may stand to loose more than your virginity
Eikka
2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
Coal is just carbon? Seriously? I'd look that up if I were you, lest you come off as ignant.


Coal is composed primarily of carbon. It produces roughly 1000 grams of CO2 per kWh of energy contained in it. Diesel fuel, or gasoline produce roughly 800 grams, and natural gas approximately 450 grams per kWh.
Also, gas cars are about 20% efficient, whereas EVs are much higher in converting their stored energy into mechanical.

Hybrid cars are more efficient. A Toyota Prius for example has an engine that is over 37% efficient over a wide range, and the hybrid drivetrain is 71% efficient in the worst case, giving you 26% total efficiency if all power is routed through the electrical system.

A typical electric powerplant running a steam turbine is constrained to around 37% due to technical limitations. An EV may be approximated to reach 90%. Given these figures, worst case for the hybrid, best for the EV, both will produce roughly 3000 g of CO2 per kWh.

Those are the facts
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) May 08, 2012
Of course it is a fact that not all of the electricity generated on the grid comes from coal, but that's besides the point. The idea that electric vehicles are a more ecological alternative if you run them on electricity from coal is just demonstratably false.

Stop using falsehoods to promote electric vehicles, and maybe people will start to take the message seriously.

ccr5Delta32
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
Eikka .

Toyota don't make power plants
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
Eikka .
Toyota don't make power plants


Indeed they don't. Your point?
ccr5Delta32
3 / 5 (2) May 08, 2012
I accept the validity of your argument " coal fired plant inefficiencies negate any ecologically benefits that may be gained by EV's over IC's "
But they are links in a chain so the choice is I suppose ,Build the entire chain in one go or facilitate niches for markets entrepreneurs to inhabit
This article is related to vehicles and not power generation :So you're a little off topic
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
Correction: http://en.wikiped...missions
The emission figures stated above are estimates for the energy produced, not for the energy contained in the fuel.

Nevertheless, the conclusion remains the same using the proper figures, because automotive gasoline produces 67.07 g/MJ and coal produces 88-98 g/MJ which is essentially the same difference.

http://en.wikiped...us_fuels
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (5) May 08, 2012
Not if we start building oil power plants that are more efficient tan car engines, a lot cleaner than burning coal.
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
This article is related to vehicles and not power generation :So you're a little off topic


I'm merely debunking a common false claim presented earlier in the discussion.
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2012
Not if we start building oil power plants that are more efficient tan car engines, a lot cleaner than burning coal.


You might want to sleep on that idea.
ElGuapo
5 / 5 (1) May 08, 2012
Due to efficiency of electric engines as compared to combustion engines, even when the electricity used to charge electric vehicles comes from a CO2-emitting source, such as a coal- or gas-fired powered plant, the net CO2 production from an electric car is typically one-half to one-third of that from a comparable combustion vehicle.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
the net CO2 production from an electric car is typically one-half to one-third of that from a comparable combustion vehicle.


That is simply not true.

http://www.raeng....cles.pdf

Page 17.

A car comparison website lists the CO2 emissions for all of the UK's major new cars. The average CO2 emissions rating is 173g/km (grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre driven), the lowest being 89g/km and the highest 500g/km.

(...)

Trials on a small fleet of four twoseat Smart Move vehicles have shown average CO2 emissions of 81.4g/km using electricity of the same carbon intensity.


The key word being comparable here. If you want to compare apples to apples, you can't compare a two-seater to a SUV. When you compare like to like, the electric car produces about as much CO2 on today's electricity infrastructure as the conventional car, and would produce much more CO2 if the infrastructure was based solely on coal.

Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2012
For example, here you can see a list of cars with CO2 emissions of no more than 100 g/km:

http://www.carpag...00-1.asp

Those are all perfectly ordinary small cars, and they all produce a comparable amount of CO2 per kilometer as the average electric vehicle in the UK would do given the average CO2 emissions of the UK electricity supply, which is around 544g/kWh as per the article I quoted above.

Knowing that electricity derived from coal would produce around 1000 g/kWh, it's easy to see that it's simply a lie to claim that electric vehicles would emit less CO2 under coal derived electricity. Compared to a similiar combustion powered car, the electric car would actually emit almost double the amount.

PPihkala
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
What is not discussed here are other benefits of power plants versus individual generation inside cars. First emission control is more economical because catalythic converters are not hauled along the vehicles, therefore they can be optimized for efficiency and price, not for weight. Another possibility is co-generation of electricity and heat. Heat generated in cars is mostly wasted and is hard to utilize with current tech. With EV one is not locked to only one source of electricity, any new generation type can be used as soon it is feeding the grid. Or even use `home made` coming from wind, solar or some other source.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (4) May 09, 2012
bout as much CO2 on today's electricity infrastructure

"on today's electricity infrastructure" being the operative words here. That is changing (at lesat in some countries) rapidly - so the comparable CO2 emission is bound to drop for EVs (potentialy to near zero).
For regular cars there's nothing (not even hypothetical future 'super tech') that can make their values drop anywhere near as much.

EVs are an investment in the future. We need to get away from finite energy sources. Gasoline powered cars will never allow that. They will inevitably lead to a crash (ecologically and economically) whn either the CO2 levels rise too high or the fuel becomes too scarce/expensive.
islatas
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2012
Near net zero CO2 levels with IC engines are fairly easy to attaine. B99 or B100 biodiesel refined using renewable energy sources. I run it right now. Sure there may not be enough to run a global fleet but it will play a key role. I don't think IC is going anywhere for awhile. Battery energy density and cost have a tremendous way to go. I certainly do not foresee fleets of electric semi's, boats, or planes for a very long time. Since they power commerce the IC is going nowhere.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
B99 or B100 biodiesel refined using renewable energy sources.

For individuals. Not for the mass market. There's just not enough farmland to go around to allow that amount of biodiesel production which would allow significant cuts in CO2 emissions using combustion motors.

At best it's one piece inthe entire puzzle. And (at least the way farmland and water resources are being used up for this in third world countries) it's a morally questionable route to go.
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (3) May 09, 2012
Well, part of the reason for the cost increase is the move from NiMH batteries to lithium-ion. It's a whole bunch of legal crap with Chevron owning battery patents that screams of conflict of interest (I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this story pissed me off).

Eikka, I appreciate the data you've linked. Over the past year I've heard of two studies that said EVs charged from even the dirtiest coal plants were more carbon efficient. They were on the radio and TV, and I wasn't able to investigate further, so I appreciate a place to start.

I still think the move toward EVs is a good one. If nothing else it shifts the focus of emissions to a few locations (dirty power plants) instead of millions of individual producers. It might put people on a moral high horse: 'I'm not polluting anymore, why should the power plant get away with it?', causing people to actually DO something about it.

Maybe even get real 'clean coal' implemented.
http://www.physor...717.html
Eikka
2 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
For regular cars there's nothing (not even hypothetical future 'super tech') that can make their values drop anywhere near as much.


Yes there is. Transitioning from gasoline and diesel to compressed natural gas would reduce IC CO2 emissions to half from current models. Halving the CO2 output of the grid is a far greater ordeal, and it doesn't guarantee that the EV actually gets the clean electricity. There's a thorough dissemination of this problem in the article I linked before.

Further reductions to 1/3 are possible if you were to employ fuel cells in a series hybrid configuration. Even more with a PHEV configuration, which could replace 80% of the fuel needed with electricity from the grid, once it is cleaned up. That would permit you to replace the rest with biogas.

I see no point to pure battery electric vehicles because of the foreseeable limitations of batteries, technical problems of infrastructure, and cost which all force you to compromise the utility of the car.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
Going to natural gas doesn't help. Natural gas isn't limitless. And it does nothing to alleviate the CO2 problem (only postpones it by a single digit number of years at best).

it doesn't guarantee that the EV actually gets the clean electricity.

The real point is to give us a chance to go SUSTAINABLE. And this means ecologically sustainable AND also resource sustainable (i.e. not limit ourselves to the use of finite resources)

Going for gas give us neither. We'll just go extinct a couple years later (either by going up in oil/gas wars or by hitting an ecological tipping point). That's not an acceptable solution.

I see no point to pure battery electric vehicles

There's a lot of research going on. But compared to research into combustion there has been very little (and look how far that has come). So don't discount batteries (or ionic liquids) just yet.

(Hydrogen) fuel cells need to become cheaper to play a role though I'm holding out hopes that they will).
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
The basic problem with the plain electric cars is, that all the methods of quickly charging the car are impractical, implausible or costly - and at the moment non-existent in the field.

And there is diminishing returns at play. If for a certain size of a battery you can do 80% of your driving, doubling it will give you 90%, and doubling it again will give you 95%, then 97%... but there's always that one time when it's not enough.

With today's electric cars, that time is roughly once a week for the average driver in the UK. With prices already twice as high as regular cars, nobody's going to want them. If you make them useful, they become much too expensive, and if you make them affordable they become virtually useless.

Unless something really dramatic happens, they will remain so for at least the next decade. Just toys for the rich, or for those who drive so little they don't actually need a car.

Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
Going to natural gas doesn't help. Natural gas isn't limitless. The real point is to give us a chance to go SUSTAINABLE. And this means ecologically sustainable AND also resource sustainable


It doesn't need to be. We can plausibly reduce the fuel consumption of a car by 40% with fuel cell technology because of greater efficiency; and by supplementing a fuel cell hybrid with renewable electricity, we can reduce the demand for gas down to around 10% from current levels without the problems of plain EVs.

At that point, you can replace natural gas with biogas and synthetic gas, or other similiar hydrocarbon that we can make like ethanol or butanol.

(Hydrogen) fuel cells need to become cheaper to play a role though I'm holding out hopes that they will).


I don't count on hydrogen. I count on SOFCs that burn methane and other hydrocarbons.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2012
we can reduce the demand for gas down to around 10% from current levels

Even if we could (and I'm thinking you are being massively, overly optimistic about the reductions possible here). There's parts of the world which are just no discovering mass mobility and industrial manufacturing.
The demand for oil/gas - if we're dumb enough to not move away from them - will only increase when they start going through their industrialization process.

Even now big agro-companies are bying up desperately needed farmland in Africa, Latin America and Asia to plant crops for bio-ethanol. That's not a sustainable solution (much less a morally tenable one).

I don't count on hydrogen.

I do. It's the only fuel that is completely harmless and can be created basically anywhere without any ecological impact whatsoever. Long term we need to move to methods that don't soil our own ecosystem.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
So don't discount batteries (or ionic liquids) just yet.


I don't.

Batteries have their place, but alone they are not sufficient, and concentrating efforts on plain electric cars is stalling the investment and adoption of other technologies that would actually help right now instead of 20 years into the future or possibly never.

The whole of Europe now runs on 5-10% ethanol mixed in with gasoline. That amount of biofuels is actually sufficient to run the majority of that fleet of cars as efficient series hybrids with the rest of the power coming from the grid.

Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
Even if we could (and I'm thinking you are being massively, overly optimistic about the reductions possible here). There's parts of the world which are just no discovering mass mobility and industrial manufacturing.


You're asking for a nirvana solution. The best is the worst enemy of the good. With that philosophy, you'll never get anything done.

I'm repeating myself here, but my estimate is simple and plausible: The efficiency of fuel cells is know to be in the 55-65% range. The efficiency of the series hybrid system can be assumed to be 85% or the same as electric cars in general.

The result 0.55x0.85 = 0.46

Compare and contrast that to a typical car, which we find is around 26% efficient. 26/46 = 0.56 which I round up to 60% for the fuel required to run the fuel cell hybrid car. Add a small battery, charged from the grid, that is sufficient for 80% of the average daily driving requirement and subtract that: 0.60 x 0.20 = 0.12 or 12% of the fuel remaining.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
The whole of Europe now runs on 5-10% ethanol mixed in

Not quite. The car I drive is a Smart. It's optimized for fuel efficiency. But exactly that optimization (high supercharge pressure) makes it incapable of using the bioethanol mix - so I actually have to pump the gas without additives.

And you're still ignoring the elephant in the room: Going gas is just as much killer on the environment as sticking with oil. It's not a solution to anythnig at all. It's just replacing yellow cars with red ones and claiming that this will make it all better somehow.

Batteries have their place, but alone they are not sufficient

If people looked at their own driving habits they would realize that the overwhelming majority could already switch to battery vehicles as they are now without any drop in quality of life whatsoever. Battery vehicles are market ready. Fuel cells aren't.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2012
that optimization makes it incapable of using the bioethanol mix


That's not the reason. Ethanol has a higher octane rating, and the ordinary 98 octane fuel does contain 5% ethanol anyways.

And you're still ignoring the elephant in the room: Going gas is just as much killer on the environment as sticking with oil.


How, when you're using ten times less of it and most of that would be made of waste?

If people looked at their own driving habits they would realize that the overwhelming majority could already switch to battery vehicles as they are now without any drop in quality of life whatsoever. Battery vehicles are market ready. Fuel cells aren't.


But they don't, because BEVs cost so much, and they still frequently need to go further. I again refer to the study I posted where that information is available.

They'd be better served by PHEVs which are cheaper and more capable and achieve a very significant reduction in fuel use even if they don't use fuel cells
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
I'll post it again: http://www.raeng....cles.pdf

Figure 14. page 25.

The basic mistake when interpreting these figures is that when it says 80% it should mean that 80% of the people would be satisfied with that level of performance. But it means the average person - or we should say the median person because most people have similiar habits - will find that with such and such battery they can do 80% of the trips they intend to travel, and the rest they either don't or get a different car.

It's easy to see, that when the BEV can do 90% and more - when it becomes actually feasible as a primary car of the house - your battery capacity must be much larger, and the cost of it is several times of that if you were content to drive 70% or 80% of your miles on electricity.

The solution? Stick a tiny petrol engine in it, and save 80% of your fuel, and you don't need another car for the weekends.
TrinityComplex
not rated yet May 10, 2012
The great idea behind hybrids is that they can, potentially, be a hybrid of just about any fuel source and batteries. Since they are really just glorified electrical generators it would be interesting to see if some kind of snap-in system could be created to swap out the required fuel in a vehicle as technologies improve. A person could start in a vehicle that used gasoline, then go to CNG, and eventually use a hydrogen fuel cell snap-in if/when the technology becomes more viable. What's better is that you wouldn't need to buy a vehicle based on what was available in your area, just customize it to suit the fuel requirement. Reducing the cost by trading in what you were using before could also be attractive, and the repair of the unit wouldn't even necessarily mean losing your vehicle entirely, just the extended range capability, as you could leave the system at the repair shop. You'd even be dragging less weight around temporarily, potentially increasing the range, heh.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2012
How, when you're using ten times less of it and most of that would be made of waste?

I have a friend who drives a gas powered car. And no: 'ten times less' is not the amount of CO2 he produces. Try 90 percent.

Hybrids do make sense at the moment as an intermediary solution. But when I buy my next car (which will be within the next 5 years or so) it will most definitely be an EV. Prices for fossil fuels are going to go up. Taxes on gasoline (bio, mix, or pure fossil) aren't going to come down (quite the contrary).
But prices for electricity aren't going to skyrocket.

As for long range: Rail will do nicely for those handful times per year that I need to travel more than 100 miles in one go.
And with the current generation of batteries being rechargeable in 20-30 minutes even that wouldn't be so bad for longer trips.
TrinityComplex
not rated yet May 10, 2012
Unless it's this car, and then it's six hours.
Toyota didn't have an answer when I emailed them, they just said they'd forward my concerns to the appropriate departments so they know how consumers feel.

That's actually why I currently like the idea of hybrids. I generally don't do much driving, but due to having to go to client sites at unpredictable times for unknown lengths of time, and taking trips to see family in areas not close to airports or rail, the longer potential range of a hybrid is attractive.
sizemick
5 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
Curse you Eikka! You made me sign up here, and come out of years of lurking, just to make a point that you might be missing.
When doing your calculations, comparing coal-powered electric cars to gasoline cars, and much of what you later went on to say, you missed one point (that I hopefully didn't gloss over in my race to register):
please consider the amount of electricity used to refine oil into gasoline, and consider the source of that power. It's actually mind-blowing when you consider the well-to-wheel inefficiency of a gasoline car, even when compared to a coal-powered electric car.
Of course, coal is about the worst thing we could possibly use to make electricity - much of which is used to refine oil into various compounds.
Go back to the drawing board and you will see, starting from scratch, that an EV running on locally generated renewable power is the most efficient form of transportation, and everything else goes below that.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
Welcome to the forums sizemick, i hope to see more of your posts, they make sense.

As for Eikka, he is a conservative troll.
Yelmurc
not rated yet May 13, 2012
I didn't see it discussed anywhere. So I just thought I'd mention that the electric power train for the RAV4 EV is designed and built by Tesla Motors.
stripeless_zebra
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2012
I didn't see it discussed anywhere. So I just thought I'd mention that the electric power train for the RAV4 EV is designed and built by Tesla Motors.


Whatever. It is just an expensive toy and nothing else.

To be called an electric car it has to go at least 300 miles per charge. Recharge in less than 10 minutes at easily available recharging stations, last 250,000 miles on a single battery and cost not much more than a gas car. It won't happen in our lifetime.

The next step in the car evolution will be a gas or diesel hybrid using the next generation acid or Li-Po batteries with an energy density a few times higher than currently used technology, overnight home charger and a range of 100 miles battery only, priced as gas cars.

wiyosaya
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
With gasoline and diesel, there is also the carbon emissions of transporting the fuel to markets. In any comparison, this cannot be ignored as it is significant.

Boiling the comparison down to gas and diesel emissions overlooks not only carbon emissions from transportation, it also over looks the emissions from the refining process in general, and is, IMHO, a simplistic viewpoint that "sounds good" but has little true depth.

The argument that it is more carbon friendly to power using gas and diesel sounds like the arguments of an uninformed industry shill making an outdated sales pitch to keep the fossil fuel industry alive.