Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Introduces Electric RAV4, Powered By Tesla Motor
thecarchik writes "As they say, everything old is new again. Fourteen years after it launched its very first RAV4 crossover at the Los Angeles Auto Show, Toyota returned to LA to launch an all-electric version of its latest RAV4. And this one is, as the logos in a teaser photo released earlier said, 'powered by Tesla.' The launch of the second version of the RAV4 EV is on a fast timeline, led by a working group made up of Toyota's Technical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a team from Tesla Motors. The partnership will build 35 'Phase Zero' test versions of the latest RAV4 EV next year, with production launch expected in 2012."
Toyota had a Rav4 EV back in the 2002-2005 timeframe (approximately). So this is merely a reintroduction of a discontinued model.
Back then ACEEE.org ranked the Rav4 EV as equal to a Prius or Civic Hybrid in cleanliness, but 8% dirtier than the Insight hybrid and Civic CNG cars.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The Diesel Jetta and Gulf and A3 have a score of 43, which is 8% below the Prius and Civic hybrids, and equal to the cleanest gasoline cars (like the Yaris or Fit).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think hybrid and electric vehicles should be all based on modifications to existing designs. Yes, you're hammering a square peg into a round hole, but I'd rather EV or hybrid technology be an option, not a car.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Hybrid is the way to go. The ones with 40mpg or better mileage (i.e. Prius, Civic, Insight) are ranked by greenercars.org to be just as clean (or cleaner) as the EVs
Hmm... but what if I like the idea of the Volt because I hate buying gas (and have a short enough commute) and not because I love the environment?
GM didn't get the law repealed. They were the ones in the best position to benefit from the law. GM caught a lot of flak for how it behaved after the law was repealed (destroying all EV1s), but they weren't the root cause despite what popular documentaries say.
In 1990, California passed a law mandating that by a certain year (2000 I think), all manufacturers who wished to sell gasoline-powered cars in California also had to offer at least one ZEV (zero emissions vehicle). The only technology which fit the bill was electric. Most automakers complained, but GM went out and actually built the thing.
As the deadline approached, the other auto manufacturers started to panic. They lobbied California asking for the deadline to be delayed. It was for a few years. Then they successfully lobbied California to drop the ZEV requirement, arguing that hybrid vehicles (powered by gas but with batteries to sustain them at idle and to enable regenerative braking) would provide sufficiently improved fuel efficiency at a low enough price point to be widely adopted. (Contrary to today, environmentalists originally hated hybrids - they derived all their energy from gasoline, none from the wall socket. So they weren't seen as really addressing the oil consumption problem.)
GM, which stood to make $billions licensing their technology from the EV1 to other auto manufacturers so they could comply with California law, basically had the rug pulled out from under them. They'd sunk $billions in R&D into the EV1 to comply with California's law, then they got screwed over when California basically said "never mind", and dropped the law without giving GM a chance to recoup their sunk costs. GM then essentially went on a temper tantrum, recalling and destroying all EV1s. Not altogether unjustified either - if California wants to encourage new technologies by drafting legal requirements, then pulls a double-cross by dropping the requirements before companies can recoup the money spent creating those new technologies, why should the companies be obligated to let California benefit from said technologies?
All the conspiracy theories about GM blocking the electric vehicle hinge on one assumption - that an electric vehicle is cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles right now. As Tesla Motors is finding out, they are not. They need the government incentives (or $5+ gas prices) to be cost-competitive. If the government requires the vehicles and promises those incentives, then changes its mind, lots of business decisions based on those requirements and promises get nullified and a whole bunch of people trying to do exactly what the government told them to do lose a whole lot of money. That is not the way to spur free-market innovation, and trying to blame it on the companies afterwards is a great way you seed mistrust of the government.
Then Toyota came in with the Prius - also viewed by Detroit as an impractical science experiment sure to be rejected by the American Consumer - and Toyota proceeded to make tons of money on it.
A) Power plants are much more efficient than ICE engines in automobiles. Even with losses due to transmission, charging, discharging, and inefficiencies in the motor, an electric vehicle still requires less energy to run.
B) As fuel prices change and legislation changes, it will be much easier to upgrade the electrical grid to 'green', renewable sources than it would be to upgrade the millions of cars on American streets.
C) Energy is largely fungible. It doesn't matter where the specific electricity you use comes from, because you using energy or not indirectly affects the price of energy all over the country (and to a lesser extent, the world). This would be even more true if our electrical grid were smarter, but even as it is today if you're pulling dozens of kilowatts of power from your local wind farm, you're hurting the environment at least as much as someone pulling a fewer kilowatts from a coal power plant. If the total demand were less, the renewables would be used in favor of the consumables, since the operating costs are proportionally smaller.
I see a lot of wasted surface area.