Day Two: Hybrids vs. Electrics - why is the alternative to petrol petrol?
As promised, the fruits of my research on why the major manufacturers are jumping on the hybrid bandwagon and ignoring electric vehicles (EVs). I asked representatives of some of the big players producing hybrids, and received some fairly vague and not altogether useful answers. For example, the charming spokesmodel from Toyota, makers of the Prius, told me that EVs were too limited in their performance and so a petrol motor was needed for that extra bit of oomph. She hadn't heard of the EVs which are capable of over 200mph and can out-accelerate anything petrol driven (there are several in production and more in the design stages) but surmised that they may be too expensive. This is the truth, but not the whole truth.
Piecing together the varying answers I received from both the big players and the smaller EV companies, this is what I think is going on. The industry is convinced, probably rightly, that any new technology must not only be competitive in price terms, but must offer the same high standards of reliability and convenience which current models provide. Mass producing a car with a novel power source which conforms to these expectations is very, very expensive. Not prohibitively so, but there is an additional problem.
There are various alternative 'green' technologies offering varying advantages to the environment and to motorists. EVs tend to be battery powered, and the input you need is electricity to charge the batteries. Batteries store and release energy slowly, and batteries are heavy. Lithium Ion batteries are better, but more expensive.
Hybrids can have a petrol engine in parallel to a battery so that the car can switch between power sources, or an engine in series with a battery, so that the petrol or diesel motor is only a generator for charging the battery. This is more efficient, whilst the parallel version is more flexible and generally gives more power. Hybrids' use of petrol (or diesel) makes them convenient to refuel, but gives them limited scope in cutting emissions.
Fuel cell technology, using hydrogen, is cleaner than hybrids and can be refuelled much faster than a battery can be recharged. This was seen as the best 'green' fuel, but has the drawback of needing a convenient supply of highly flammable gas, which must be produced in an energy intensive manner (there are no natural hydrogen reserves) and kept under high pressure.
A large car company can afford to develop a vehicle with any of these technologies, and make sure it is competitive in price and quality. However, even the biggest wouldn't consider developing models using variants of all three technologies, and here is where the problem really lies. Who wants to spend many years and billions of dollars producing a truly mass-market Lithium Ion EV, only for the rest of the world to suddenly decide that fuel cells are the way to go?
Hybrids don't need radical changes to the fuel supply infrastructure or people's driving habits, but are only capable of reducing emissions to a limited degree, so whilst they are a lower risk, they offer lower benefits. For this reason they weren't seen as the leading contender, until recently. Nevertheless, in 1995 Toyota started work on what became the Prius, on the assumption that even though it would probably lose them money, it would be a useful learning experience. To nearly everyone's surprise, the Prius has been a commercial success, and this is why hybrids are now flavour of the month - new technologies are risky and this one has already been tried and tested.
Ford, meanwhile, had tried out an EV, the 'Th!nk', and were one of the leading researchers in fuel cell technology, but suddenly found that the least promising of the 'green' technologies, hybrids, were all anyone was interested in. From having been far ahead of the competition in this area, they were reduced to buying hybrid technology from Toyota.
Of course, the problem with hybrids - that they still burn fossil fuels - is a massive advantage from the point of view of the oil companies, and there is an alternative theory that the whole thing is another Big Oil conspiracy. Looked at more positively, they are half a step in the right direction, but it would be a disaster if R&D funding for EVs or fuel cells was diverted into hybrids due to Toyota's success, and this is almost certainly what's happening.
Tomorrow, the start of my seventeen part rant on SUVs. Don't miss it.



Comments
your claims that SUVs use 300% more fuel are fairly poorly reaserched, also only 7% of vechicles on UK roads are 4*4s and the total amount of contibution of greehouse gas emisions for the entire transport sector is about 2% you people have no grasp on reality and have made a hate campaign out of petty jelousy and ignorance, i dont much care for sandal wearing soap dodging layabouts who drive 1960s camper vans which pollute more than any SUV sterotype? yes, dont like it much do you? why not campaign at companies who pollute far more than the entire motor industry and do something useful you bunch of halfwits.
Posted by: john | July 24, 2006 5:49 PM
The comment above is sad. Transport sector is responsible for 30% at least of all GHG emissions. SUV sales is on constant growth in Europe, reaching 14% of sold cars in London, 12% in Switzerland.
It is true that 300% more fuel is only in the case of extreme SUVs versus small cars. Small cars emit between 100 and 150 gCO2/km (directly proportional with fuel consumption). Average cars emit 200 gCO2/km, average SUV 300 (50% increase from average). Extreme road monsters emit up to 500 or 600 gCO2/km, which is totally insane.
Posted by: Vincent | July 25, 2006 7:29 PM
Dear Greenpeace
Due to a back problem I find it dificult to get into an average car so I purchased a land rover freelander the small one of all. I can get into and out without two many problems and my wife feels secure because she is high up. the freelander is a 4X4 but the same size as a normal car just higher up. I went to purchase a car for my wife today and she likes the jeep wrangelar so I went to the dealership for Jeep and was put back as follows:
it is quit small but 4ltr engine at 20 miles to the gallon, well what I have heard about 4x4s and Ken L going to charge I have changed my mind and will go for something more suitable, if thats how you spell it.
Sorry about my freelander it realy isnt that bad I only do 5000 miles per year.
Posted by: Phil Penn | October 29, 2006 5:25 PM
Dear Phil,
Thanks for the comment. All we really ask is for people to try to drive the most efficient car they can for the purposes they need it for. If you really need a 4x4, then getting the smallest or most efficient available is the best you can do. Thanks for thinking about these issues when buying a new one.
Cheers,
Posted by: graham | October 30, 2006 11:11 AM
Are farmers and other people who genuinely need 4x4s allowed to have them, or will they be bullied out of them as well by the environmental Nazis? its good to know we still live in a democracy where all sides can be heard without being persecuted by the smug do-gooders. Thanks for forcing yourself upon my moral conscience Greenpeace, shall i give up my seat on the outdated, gas guzzling bus for you?
Posted by: teddy | January 20, 2007 8:11 PM
graham is a total cunt, i hope you get run over by a 4x4 you fucking facist
Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2007 4:14 PM
Mum, how many times have I asked you not to email me at work? And fascist has two s's.
Posted by: graham | January 22, 2007 9:54 AM