Toyota Prius a mistake?
Silly to have invested in NiMH hybrids?So, at a press release yesterday, a Detroit-located reporter suggested that Toyota made a huge mistake by developing NiMH hybrid vehicles because NiMH technology is obviously the wrong battery technology according to the reporter.
So, the Toyota Prius was a mistake? Swapping out NiMH in favor of lithium won't be a seamless task when its cost-efective?
This isn't the first time I've heard such a sentiment coming out of Detroit, and I'm sure it won't be the last; however, doesn't this attitude demonstrate exactly why the Big 3 have struggled so significantly in the last few decades?
As Mamma always used to say, don't put off until tomorrow what can be done today.
Likewise, according to Argonne, a huge advocate and major lithium-ion researcher, current lithium-ion batteries, just like NiMH, are probably only an interim battery technology as well. Perhaps automakers should avoid battery vehicles all together until they have the perfect technology for every consumer?
But back to Toyota, can millions of hybrid consumers and thousands of patents built around electric drivetrains really be so wrong?
Labels: Hybrid Vehicles, lithium battery, toyota prius
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:10 AM
13 Comments:
Reporters only care about today's story; yesterday didn't happen. The reporter may also also be trying to elicit a quotable reaction. Suggestive questions, such as this one, require an extended response.
so a question... do you think the average car buyer knows the difference between the different battery technologies ?
I think the _average_ person probably has no clue...
and all of this is "inside baseball".
no?
the average car buyer doesn't know or care anything about battery technology. ultimately, the average car buyer cares only about cost and perceived value of that cost.
however, the average buyer isn't buying these vehicles, yet. many of those in the market do have knowledge of the different batteries, however.
still, i mostly made the post about this story because it is a very common idea in and around the US auto industry.
gm's bob lutz, for instance, has been telling reporters this for several years. he still refers to the prius is a marketing gimmick. moreover, he suggests that GM has some superior knowledge on lithium-ion tech compared to Toyota. thus, even though GM has proven nothing on the road, nothing in terms of sales, GM is already ahead of Toyota - at least that's the perception that GM is trying to put into the market.
i wish that were true, but i don't think the facts support either lutz or this idea that permeates much of the Michigan auto culture.
this in-bred culture is not healthy for the US auto industry, in my opinion. guys like lutz are marketing gurus. its not the truth that matters for them, its creating perception that most matters.
many Volt fans, for instance, think the Volt makes the Prius irrelevant because lutz has assured them of this fact. i don't think anything could be further from the truth.
in the next decade, the Prius will sell far more units than will the Volt, far more.
that doesn't lessen the importance of the Volt, but the Volt is a more long term solution. if gm is so superior, has such superior battery technology, why not take the prius on directly? wouldn't such a move help GM scale down their battery costs, which would make the Volt cheaper and more profitable quicker?
ultimately, my guess would be that GM wants battery vehicles to emerge in the market as slowly as possible. the impression of change, today, is far more profitable than actual change.
If that is the quality of Auto journalism about hybrids, I am glad that I never read those rags.
Blogs from people who focus on hybrids are the only way to get a deep understanding of the issues.
And for that, thanks, Dahc.
PS. If the spin is coming from Detroit types like Lutz, all the more reason that you need real journalists who actually know BS when they are fed it.
okay - but isn't this what ya'll complain about:
" however, the average buyer isn't buying these vehicles"
I think people WILL BUY vehicles if they make sense to them.
no?
thanks, alcatholic. of course, look at the comments on this post. very intelligent. you guys regularly challenge me to think outside of my box, which only makes this blog better.
anyway, i have to give many kudos to GM because they provide me significant amounts of inside information, even though i am often very critical of GM.
i really want GM to succeed, but i feel i must hold them to a higher standard as the biggest and most important US automaker.
likewise, i respect lutz greatly. he's a fricken genius. but he seems a little too old school for today's automotive world.
still, ultimately, you can only blame lutz, GM and the US auto industry so much. mostly, they are just taking a conservative approach to the changing american market based upon the politics and consumers that drive it.
nonetheless, i'd love to see GM be more proactive.
lobby the government and the american people with a plan to seriously cut foreign oil dependence. be a truly american leader. gm has a great ability to resonate with many, many americans.
gm, i believe, could help sell america on a partnership between consumers, government and business to get serious about energy independence.
that's a lot to ask but big change requires big dreams.
The average consumer still thinks all hybrid batteries fail after only 1 or two years..
So even when lithium replaces NiMH, there still will be a perception problem to overcome with regard to hybrid batteries....
larry-
yes. which is why hybrids like the Prius appear extremely important.
by the end of this decade toyota envisions hybrids as a mainstream solution because they believe costs will have scaled down enough for average consumers. more important, they will scale down enough for a far larger group of consumers than will plug-in vehicles.
by next year alone toyota is going to double its hybrid production to 1 million hybrids per year. by 2015, according to congressional testimony last year, gm will still be building well under 100,000 volts per year.
america needs both technologies.
and, as battery technologies evolve, hybrids like the prius will be easily and cost-effectively converted into plug-ins. that's a pretty great legacy effect if you are concerned about energy independence or global warming - much better than waiting for the Volt to achieve cost-effectiveness for the masses as GM rolls out millions of guzzlers that only guzzle more gas over time.
that's not the legacy effect that america needs to set in motion this decade.
the average person takes a while to get familiar with new technologies.
I know that many folks to this day never stop to think how the cell phone network "knows" where you are so it can get the correct tower to ring your phone.
they just know that it "works" and they're none the wiser that they are actually using radio technology adapted to digital data packet technology.
good point, smurf. that's also the danger of unfounded perceptions, especially intentionally-manipulated, yet unfounded perceptions.
you're right, larry.
ultimately, battery technologies will be irrelevant, at least as far as the consumer is concerned.
inevitably, the consumer simply wants cost-effective choices that don't require too much of an extra upfront investment.
Amen Dahc.
Ultimately economics, not policy, will drive the timeline for the transition to hybrids and EV's.
If the government wants speed up that timeline, they will have to change the economics.
Post a Comment
<< Home