Hybrids Here To Stay - Interview With Toyota's Takehisa Yaegashi

EDIT

Q: Why was Toyota first to bring mass-produced hybrids to market?
A: It all started about the time there was talk of much stricter emissions regulations in California back in the early 1990s. But the G21 project was about much more than that. It was about developing an all new vehicle package -- a midsize compact for many markets globally, not just the U.S. Of course, the stricter environmental regulations in the U.S. were a big incentive to go ahead with the project.

We didn't think about hybrids at first because the initial goal was a 50% improvement , but once our top executives made it clear they wanted much more than that, it became apparent that only a hybrid could achieve that type of target. At the time, the majority of our efforts and those of Detroit had been focused on electric vehicles. But we had hit a wall with electric vehicles . Hybrids began where EVs ended.

Q: Back then, how confident were you of success producing a mass-market hybrid?
A: All of the senior engineers had doubts about the program, including myself. We didn't think there was zero chance of success in meeting the goals outlined for us, but the feeling was that it was somewhere less than a 5% probability of succeeding. We didn't have any blueprints to follow. Feasibility studies and a lot of fundamental research were clearly needed, but instead we were told to jump right into mass production of a vehicle for consumers. There were no existing studies, and yet we were given a two-year deadline for completing a car. Is it any wonder we doubted?

Q: What was the hardest part involved in bringing a hybrid to life?
A: The chief challenge involved cracking a lot of tough system-integration riddles. And the size and shape of a car is fairly limited so new ways had to be found to cram a lot of equipment into a small package. Then there were safety issues involving the addition of an all-new energy source to the engine compartment in the form of the high-voltage battery. Managing the energy flow was a major issue. How to do that safely -- and in a shape that wouldn't freak out customers -- required an advanced computer control system. We did a lot of that in the course of developing the Prius with computer simulations. "

EDIT

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938028.htm

the jump from a gasoline fueled engine-electric hybrid to a diesel fueled engine-electric hybrid results in even better mileage.

Ford is working on a diesel fueled engine-electric hybrid combat vehicle for the military.

and DaimlerChrysler is working on a passenger diesle hybrid.

With modern microprocessor combustion and injection controls a diesel can burn as clean as a gasoline engine. And, one mode of hybrid operation is to run the internal combustion as its "sweet spot" for minimum emission and maximum mileage. (around 1700rpm)

It's typical of the US: Make things for war, not for people.

Personally I like diesel engines. It's worth noting that the motor fuel of which I am most fond, dimethyl ether, is well suited for use in diesel engines. A prevalence of diesel engine powered hybrids would easily be converted to the use of this very clean burning fuel. Of course, manufacture of this fuel still requires a primary energy source, much like hydrogen, but it is much safer and far more convenient and, under many circumstances, more economically viable than hydrogen.

I could never figure out how they screwed up diesel passenger cars so badly - given their experience with "big" diesels.

Unless it was deliberate - to mess up the market for diesel passenger cars.

...sadly. I heard that the US EPA is sponsoring a lower-emissions diesel. I believe it has a lower compression ratio so the atmospheric nitrogen does not bond with oxygen.

I don't know the "gear head" details - but it was in Spectrum a few months ago.

In theory, since it can be made by the direct hydrogenation of Carbon dioxide, it can be greenhouse neutral.

If the hydrogen is made by greenhouse neutral means (solar or nuclear) there is no net effect. This is true of pure hydrogen itself of course, but the fact that hydrogen cannot be liquified makes it unsafe and uneconomical when compared with DME.

There is some distance between here and there though.

DME is a very clean burning fuel. However, were it readily available, probably the best use of it would not involve a diesel engine (although existing engines already in the infrastructure could be converted) so much as an inline hydrogen reformer for fuel cells. Under these circumstances the only products would be CO2 and water; no NOx whatsoever would be obtained.

Since DME has no carbon-carbon bonds, it produces zero particulates when it burns, in contrast to other diesel fuels like petroleum diesel and biodiesel. It is roughly comparable to methane in this respect. However methane has the drawback that its atmospheric lifetime is on the order of decades. It is a very powerful greenhouse gas, much more powerful than carbon dioxide.

(Biodiesel has fewer and less noxious particulates than petroleum diesel; however under some circumstances, biodiesel can aggravate NOx, because of certain physical properties it has. Biodiesel is generally thought of as being carbon neutral.)

DME right now is made from natural gas, and therefore is NOT greenhouse gas neutral, except to the extent that it removes methane.

DME should also be expected to be a greenhouse gas itself; however it's half life is a few days. It is readily decomposed to give formaldehyde. Therefore its effects are minimized because the concentration will never rise particularly high. DME is now discharged routinely into the atmosphere. It is the propellant gas in hair spray cans. It replaced CFC's that were formerly used.

Diesels are pricier to build - higher compression ratios mean stronger engine blocks, etc. Plus you need high pressure fuel systems, etc. I like the idea though.