They will likely be electric, just not powered by archaic battery cells like they are using now. When some of the more advanced cell tech becomes affordable, we’ll see 1000+ mile range and performance that will outperform internal combustion engines.
What in the world kind of writing is this? There are words missing in some places and extra words in other places.
With a mind uncluttered by the facts or any relevant experience, I would predict that cars able to run on a variety of fuels might be part of the future design. Gas/diesel/propane/hydrogen competition might help keep costs down.
“The next Big Q: will Toyota’s reputation for quality will help sales and speed the adoption of the technology, after all the only emissions are water vapor (H2O).”
The next big answer: Common sense alone will drive the sales. I have for the longest time wondered why this has not been done lonnnnggggg ago. As far back as the Apollo program and maybe even to Gemini, all of our spacecraft have used it. Other than push back from the oil industry, there should have been no reason not to go down this path. Other than the price and availability of gasoline and diesel were enough to offset the economic need.
Purely electric cars are a waste of time because they have on board power generation capability of their own and batteries are too heavy, bulky and unsafe.
Hybrids are the obvious way to go - use the most efficient turbo diesel or fuel cell you can for power generation, store as much power in smaller, lighter weight battery pack (including electric utility power if practical, regenerate braking and slowing to recover otherwise lost energy into the battery make the thing as light as possible with advanced materials and you have defined the advanced tech car of the future
Battery operated cars are inefficient, expensive, lack range, cannot be easily charged away from home and use more fossil fuel than gasoline cars.
And what is the life expectancy of the battery? 5 years?
And how much does the battery cost? $20K.
Liberal feel good crap.
Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an energy storage medium. It takes energy to release hydrogen, e.g., hydrolysis or the Fischer-Tropsch process. Most hydrogen on Earth is locked up in hydrocarbons or water. This is not a viable motor fuel.
The author lost me when he referred to batteries as “fuel”.
IF you HAVE to have a hybrid:
http://cars.mclaren.com/home/models_link/McLAREN%20P1%e2%84%a2.html
Only 375 made, perhaps a few are still available...$1,150,000.
0-186 in 16 seconds. And, in most states, you can use the carpool lane!
If people want an electric car, by all means they should get one. Tesla produces a beautiful automobile, fast, comfortable and luxurious. I wish them well. They’re one of the few American marques that have export appeal.
Whether or not purely electric vehicles make economic sense in the broader scheme of things will be determined by the market, tempered by regulatory and governmental tinkering. This has always been the case.
Electric cars are not new, they were there at the dawn of automotive travel. As battery tech improves and broader adoption drives economies of scale, we’ll see just how practical they are. Fuel cells are just another form of battery to my understanding.
Even when you neglect the pollution from the waste caused by creating hydrogen, it is still not a viable fuel for automobiles. There is currently NO commercial method of storing hydrogen in a vehicle other than as a compressed gas. Even when compressed to 10,000 psi, and ignoring the volume of the storage tanks, hydrogen requires 7 times the volume to contain the same energy as in gasoline. Where can you put a 100 gallon fuel tank in a Prius?
I don’t understand why Toyota abandoned their small pick-ups, pre-1994. I was able to get 25mpg out of my ‘92 4x4 if I drove it right.
We will know that hydrogen fuel cells are nearing commercial viability when the Sierra Club comes out against water vapor.
It does appear that Toyota has figured out the obvious - that electric cars can be TOYS for people that have means to own extra vehicles. But they can never be primary vehicles due to their limited range, so, no doubt everyone that owns an electric car will also have a real car for going longer distances.
As to “emerging battery technology”...all sounds good, but for every 100 promising ideas, 99% lose out because they cannot handle the physical and economic environment that cars go through (which is torturous). The other 1% simply costs too much.
I’m not trying to denigrate electric cars, just pointing out the facts.
‘The next Big Q: will Toyota’s reputation for quality will help sales and speed the adoption of the technology, after all the only emissions are water vapor (H2O)’
I guess we can all look forward to the EPA declaring water vapor a greenhouse gas or some such bullhockey. If it works well the Feds will not allow it. Bear in mind they are intent on the destruction of the middle class and after they are done with us it will be the top 5%’s turn. Only the political true believers will be left unscathed to prosper, in this brave new world. IMHO.
Fuel cell vehicles ARE electric, just not battery electric.