Toyota appears to be conceding the introduction of the PHEV to GM. Will this damage their reputation or profits in any way? IBM waited nearly five years to introduce a microcomputer, then took 50% market share. That won't happen against GM - but I suspect that Toyota would rather err conservatively and give the first place prize to Chevrolet. PHEVs will eventually become their largest profit center and Toyota is in for the long run.

Nice to see the global auto industry cooperating on this chapter. It's getting better.

Roger, North American natural gas production has peaked.  Biomethane cannot make up for the decline.  There is no point in converting any vehicles to methane in N. America except in cases like stranded supplies or special requirements (e.g. indoor); it just increases the competition for a shrinking resource.

Toyota is correct about the carbon impact of PHEVs if the electricity is supplied by conventional coal-fired plants.  But that's not the whole story.

• The ability to substitute domestic coal for imported oil increases US energy security.
• The ability to add wind, solar, and nuclear power to the grid reduces the per-mile carbon impact of all electric vehicles, no matter how old they are.
• PHEVs have the potential to add to stability of the electrical grid without any additional cost.

Toyota seems to be embarked on a planned campaign to support sales of their existing Hybrids while they are quietly working on the development of their next generation i.e. PHEVs

Toyota may have to buy safe high performance lithium battery packs for their first generation PHEVs if their own are not up to it. Otherwise, GM may beat Toyota to the market with a PHEV-40 in 2010.

If this happens, how long will Toyota take to catch up?

Eng-Poet,
It's so scary, now we are gonna freeze in the winter due to lack of methane?

I've just read here in GCC that coal can easily be converted to methane in few simple steps, just as easily as making electricity from coal, except coal to methane involves gasification of the coal and hence does not pollute the atmosphere, and easier than CTL by pyrolysis or F-T.

High-temp solid oxide cells can produce methane directly from H2O and CO2 using solar and wind electricity. Solar heat can supply the high-temp needed for the solid oxide cells, or heat from a gas turbine power plant can be used along with the CO2 in the exhaust of the power plant, hence CO2 recycling to reduce CO2 released into the atmosphere.

You say we don't have that infrastructure in place yet? Yes, too bad! But neither do we have any BEV nor PHEV roaming the street, either, except for a rare number from enthusiasts. AND, we don't have much electricity coming from solar or wind electricity anyway.

It's time to start investing in renewable energy and synthetic fuels infrastructure, America! Bring the troops home and let them work in factories and construction sites for renewable energy infrastructure! Money spent on war can build a lot of long-lasting stuffs, and yes, Haliburton and KBR et al can still get all the contracts! :)

It's so scary, now we are gonna freeze in the winter due to lack of methane?

I've just read here in GCC that coal can easily be converted to methane in few simple steps

This still begs the questions:

• Can the SNG plants be built fast enough?
• If so, could we mine enough coal to feed them?
• Is there enough transport capacity to get the coal and plants together?
• Is there sufficient water to run the process at that scale?
• If all those answers are "yes", is this the best investment we could make?

High-temp solid oxide cells can produce methane directly from H2O and CO2 using solar and wind electricity. Solar heat can supply the high-temp needed for the solid oxide cells, or heat from a gas turbine power plant can be used along with the CO2 in the exhaust of the power plant, hence CO2 recycling to reduce CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Absent all the required energy and material supplies, talk of making methane to replace natural gas for our legacy systems is eerily reminiscent of the Ghost Dance of the plains indians as they tried to bring back the buffalo herds and save their lifestyle.

Eng-Poet,

All four points above will work, no doubt, but they surely won't happen overnite.

Energy conservation is the central key to a successful renewable synthetic fuels program, otherwise, the investment cost will be too high.

I don't quite have the time to research the exact energy efficiency of HTSOEC for methane, but for H2, it's around 45-50% thermal efficiency overall, accounting for the actual thermal input and thermal energy required to produce the electricity going into the electrolytic process. This is comparable to or even better than the efficiency of electrical generation, depending on which method. The best of PV panel is 42% from solar to electricity, but the average is ~20%. Solar thermal to electricity is 30% maximum. H2 to methane is~80% efficient, as far as I can recall, so it's still within the ball park.

Again, conservation is the central key, and I wish we are having a national Manhattan project going into these things instead of wasting money you know where!

Over consumption of (past and current cheap and often dirty) energy may be at the root of our energy and pollution problems. We (Americans & Canadians) consume 2 to 3 times the energy per capita than other industrialized nations. This is not justified. There are 1001 well known ways to change that.

Asuming that both countries would actively promote a 10 to 20 years all-azimuth energy conservation program, the resultant 50% reduction in energy consumption could progressively negate future Oil Wars, most if not Oil Imports into USA and liberate enough Canadian Oil for International Export.

Positive secondary effects would be:

- major reduction (50 + %) in CO2 and GHG levels.

- Major reduction in unjustified deaths from oil wars and pollution.

- Major reduction in health care cost.

- Major reduction (50 + %) in personnal cost of energy thru equivalent consumption reduction.

Of course, somebody would have to finance this (all azmuth) program. The $$$ billions used for the Irak + Afganistan wars would be a good source. A progressive carbon tax such as (2 cents/gallon/month) on gas and diesel could do the rest.

The 200,000 + soldiers fighting those hopeless wars could become a huge home brigade to construct and install wind mills, solar farms etc.

Arms manufacturers could be recycled to produce solar panels, wind mills parts, high capacity batteries, geothermal systems, nuclear plants, electrical distribution systems, etc.

The Wind potential in USA/Canada in enough to supply 40 + % of the reduced energy required with expanded east-west and north-south power grids.

A combination of PHEVs and BEVs is the logical approach to progressively replace the current 200 + millions vehicles on USA and Canadian roads by 2030.

Eng-Poet,
Solar thermal to electricity is ~30% efficient. Nuclear thermal to electricity is ~35%.
Thermal efficiency of HT-SOEC is ~45-50% from heat to hydrogen, either from solar heat or high-temp nuclear heat. Which process has the highest thermal efficiency?

BEV is more efficient from grid-to-wheel calculation in comparison to ICE-HEV from tank to wheel, so the two evens out, and are quite comparable source-to-wheel wise.

High-temp SOEC electricity to H2 is 140% efficient, or twice the efficiency of room-temp electricity to H2 of ~70%. The greater than unity efficiency (140%) is due to the contribution of the energy of high-temp heat to the process.

Let's not confuse the issue. Overall efficiency from source to wheel, be it solar heat or nuclear heat, via BEV or H2-V is quite comparable. A small penalty for CH3 (methane) route, but infrastructure for methane already exists, plus CNG has higher volumetric energy density than Compressed H2. The CO2 for the synthesis of methane is already present in the exhaust of a power plant, free of charge.

A simple ICE-car has no place in the post-petroleum era when expensive synthetic fuels in limited amounts are all we are gonna get. It will take the best ICE-HEV, like the next-gen Prius, or the FCV-hybrid, like the Honda FCX, or GM Sequel, or Ford Edge, etc...

Likewise, future BEV will need high-durability and powerful nanotech batteries to make it commercially viable. Current battery tech just won't cut it for a mass-market BEV.

Reality Czech = sockpuppet