The lifecycle of plastics is amazing when you consider the ability to design for it. I was involved in a regrind operation 27 years ago extruding fence posts out of industrial waste. No post-consumer source at the time. Folks though it was nuts. Why do that with all the landfill available??? - HA!

The rising price of fuels in the US is a good thing all said. The US is finally getting it's due lessons. To effect my lifestyle, $6/gallon is where I turn my beloved SUV to the recycle shop. IMHO, that won't happen for 4-5 years.

Back to the start....A $40k EV vehicle is still not for the masses. Count the number of $40k vehicles on the road today and divide by half. That's the EV market at that price point.
Posted by: Frank E

Another way of looking at it is big oil will reap profits from selling the rights to use the technology they've purchased. You think the execs got this figured already??
Posted by: Joel Jenks

Posted by: Keith Tomilson

Here are some:

'the EV version looks like any other 1998-2003 RAV4 of the period'

Incorrect. Looks like any 1997-2000 RAV4. That's the body of our EVs. They changed the Body in 2001. Just do a simple google image check.

'Used initially by power company meter readers, the RAV4 EV saw hard, daily service in California with several models wracking up more than 100,000 miles.'

Wracking? Destroying? Ah, you mean Racking....

'Also, the industry has moved beyond that chemistry to a simpler, more powerful technology.'

That's a big lie. Other than Tesla Motors which is not a major auto manufacturer there are no batteries other than NiMH chemistry in any 2008/2009 Hybrid models in showrooms today. 100% Nickel Metal Hydride. Why? It works and it does not explode....

'Palm Pilot software would "negate the battery equalization circuit". Toyota engineers found a way to solve this issue.'

Another lie. No such case ever. All RAVs always equalized OK with or without RAV4 Info.

'mainly because the batteries in them aren't made anymore'

Now Bill Moore should really ask: Why? If these batteries are so great and last so long, why aren't they being made in huge volumes to serve mankind? Well - AFAIK an oil company owns the patents for large format NiMH and it is just sitting on it, doing nothing. Go research what happened with the wonderful PEVE EV-95.

'the RAV4EV stickered at the time for around $43,500' NOT TRUE: $42,500. Minus $13K of state and federal incentives brought the car down to $29,500. Also ask Toyota how many perfectly great cars (Selling at ebay today for almost $70K used) they crushed....The math is simple, about 600...
Posted by: Raquel Alencar

I hope other RAV4EV drivers will share their experiences, good and back, about this remarkable vehicle.

With my apologies to William Shakespeare, "I have come to praise the RAV4 EV, not to bury it."

Posted by: Bill Moore

Sorry folks, if I can't get an EV for around $25-30k (USD), it willl never see my driveway.

For that $50-70K EV replacement, I'll be very content to drive my 17 mpg SUV FOREVER!
Posted by: Frank E

Toyota probably had little or no choice in the matter. The Prius is one thing: all the energy it uses ultimately comes from oil. A car that does NOT use oil is another thing entirely...
Posted by: Ben C

The answer, apparently, was that Toyota made the car last too long.

And in all the answers given by Smith, the huge missing part was the input from the actual every-day drivers/owners. What Toyota COULD have learned was huge. Our experience and information were marginalized at best, and used against us at worst. The whole battery equalization process is a good example. We have more real-world data on that situation (about the battery ECU sometimes getting confused in reporting SOC) than Toyota does, and instead of working with us to figure out what is really happening, the drivers are blamed for harming our own cars. We're told that it is a cut and dried case of what process creates the issue. While we have tons of evidence showing that terminating the charge early does NOT correlate with SOC surprises, Toyota's official stance is just the opposite.

I LOVE this car, and we use it every day. It is our primary vehicle. My frustration is with how Toyota has treated their early-adopting customers. Instead of calling us a "cult" how about calling us "amazingly loyal customers?"
Posted by: Darell Darell

And ALL of the Toyota officer / directors. SHAME on you for mearly following GM:

1) Suing CARB (as did GM), so you that you didn't have to build EV's anymore. Just think how far of a lead you'd have, if you hadn't simply followed GM's processes.

2) Not even researching you own owner's experiences so you'd learn more about your own EV product (just like GM). Poor Gary Smith has to give inaccurate interviews, on your behalf, because of this silliy policy. It's as though you're ASHAMED of your own great product, simply because GM never wanted to build the EV1.

3) Letting ownership of the best deap cycle battery in these EV's (Panasonic E95) be snapped up by GM, so that (patents) they'd ultimately end up being sold to / owned by Chevron, who'd rather SUE Toyota if they try to make more E95's for the RAV4-EV, rather than let them compete with their oil product(s). Chevron's action, rather than being branded as a criminals, just sits on the patent, doing NOTHING with it ... even as their oil products become more and more scarse.

4) Had it not been for GM claiming they were trying to perfect hybrids over 10 years ago, Toyota likely wouldn't have bothered to enter the game, and managing somehow (dispite Toyota's 'follow GM, what ever they do' mentality) to end up being the world-dominant leader of the hybrid product.

So COME ON Toyota, you're getting a 'free-pass' due to hybrids, but if the oil crisis hadn't begun yet, you'd still be mimicing GM. Don't waste the free pass! BRING BACK EV's before GM wakes out of its stupid mode.
Posted by: Gary Hill

The price of Nickel is higher, but Nickel RECYCLES for high price, too. Most Ni is used in stainless steel, monel and other common metals, so there's a LOT of it.

Toyota stopped making the EV-95 battery after Chevron acquired control of the worldwide patent rights (from GM) on Oct. 10-16, 2000, and sued Toyota, extracting $30 million in penalties and forcing Toyota to stop making the RAV4-EV and the EV-95 batteries. The last 328 RAV4-EV were sold to the public, ENDING in Nov., 2002, so ALL RAV4-EV are more than 5 years old!

To say that they stopped making it because the battery is too expensive is just a blatant lie! Lithium is MUCH more expensive than the EV-95; and Toyota, if it were honest, would sell more of these batteries, because after perhaps 200,000 miles the RAV4-EV will be needing a replacement pack.

Thus, the RAV4-EV battery lasts longer than the life of the vehicle, even a Toyota vehicle.

Why so many lies? Toyota just lies, like GM?
Posted by: Doug Korthof

Toyota now blandly estimates the battery pack as '$30,000'. But that's not the truth, either:

From the CARB 2000 Battery Tech Assessment Workshop

'...NiMH batteries for the EV types now deployed in California...would cost EV manufacturers between $9,500 and $13,000 in the approximate quantities (10k-20k packs per year) required to implement the year 2003 ZEV regulation, and approximately $7,000 to $9,000 at the 100,000 packs per year level...'

The price of Ni metal has doubled since this estimate, but even twice $13,500 is not anywhere near "$30,000". But Nickel metal, unlike Lithium, has a recycle value, mitigating the cost issue. Even at $30,000, we would gladly buy the NiMH EV-95 batteries, since they last so long and are so reliable. But the true cost estimates are much lower than Toyota now claims.

CARB continues:

'...These projections exceed the automobile manufacturers’ cost goals by about $7,000 to $9,000 in the nearer term and by approximately $5,000 at automotive mass production levels...'

And that's the point. No matter what the cost, the Auto and Oil companies claim it's 'too much'.
Posted by: Doug Korthof

I think it's borderline arrogant to think that folks will flock to EV's costing $40-70k. There is no market for that. IMHO, the US population WILL go to smaller cars, carpooling and mass transportation long before ever considering the bloated costs of such EV's. The Toyota RAV4 EV was a nice product without a market. Until any new technology can compete in price, it's going to be tough going. When (not if) gasoline goes to $5-6 per gallon, many will adapt- and not likely run off to buy technology with a 20 year payback.
Posted by: Frank E

‘…that claim that we can stop making Iran, Hezbollah, Chavez & co. rich, I say that is an arrogant statement. We only consume 25% of the world's oil, decreasing every day... if we got off of foreign oil completely, I guarantee you India and China would step in and pick up the slack.…’

Also you underestimate the leadership role U.S. has in the world. Say the U.S. changed it’s transportation system sufficiently to get off of imported Oil (at least Oil imported outside of North America – remember Canada is the U.S. #1 Oil Exporter, and Mexico is #3 ), by using electric vehicles, NG to Methanol / DME fueled extreme efficiency engines, and improved rail, public transport and telecommuting. It is virtually a given that Canada & Mexico will immediately change their transportation system similarly due to a heavy reliance on U.S. imports and the Free Trade / Auto Pact agreements. And Europe and Japan would feel pretty stupid if they sat back, guzzling imported fuel, while the U.S. made an enormous stride in cutting toxic Smog and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Once the alternative transportation technology is in mass production, all countries in the world can be expected to quickly change over as well. As a matter of fact, with the about $30 of the current Oil Price due to positive speculation, the U.S. government could single handedly and almost immediately push the Oil price down to $70 per barrel, by simply announcing a believable plan to eliminate Oil Imports from unreliable (mostly Middle East suppliers) within say 5 years – entirely achievable. Germany, during WWII, South Africa and Brazil have all done much more than that, when pressed.

‘…e suppression of EV-95 batteries was suspicious, not because of the usual conspiracy theories.…’

‘…One question I have, though, will someone PLEASE answer though: If the oil companies were truly evil and only cared about money, then we might not like them but at least we understand why they suppressed this technology back in '99 when there was an oil glut and gas was $1/gallon.... but why suppress it now? According to my calculations, Chevron would make more money leasing EV-95 batteries, since the customer would be comparing the monthly lease versus the gasoline @ $4/gal instead of $1/gal.…’

The 1953 Iran coup d'état – Democracy in Iran ended with the hated Shah, an Oil Company Crony

Oil Interests could care less about the pittance they can make on batteries ( a real product with real competition – not a pump it out of the ground for $4 a barrel and sell it for $140 a barrel type product ). EV technology, they know damn well will keep the Oil Price from exploding to continually increasing levels, which is decidedly NOT in their interest. The Oil Price is highly volatile, and very sensitive to any indications of reduced demand due to new technology. Also, the Oil Interests game plan is to push us towards the Hydrogen Fueled Economy, not the Electric Powered Transportation sector. Chevron has already stated its plan to become a Hydrogen company:

Oil Companies prepare to ride the H2 Gravy Train

WWF describes the Oil Company’s Hydrogen Economy Scam

Posted by: Warren Heath

‘‘…Europe and the better part of the world have been living with gasoline prices 2-4x the cost in the US for years …’’

‘‘…it's borderline arrogant to think that folks will flock to EV's costing $40-70k. There is no market for that. …’’

‘‘…population WILL go to smaller cars, carpooling and mass transportation long before ever considering the bloated costs of such EV's. The Toyota. …’’

‘‘…When (not if) gasoline goes to $5-6 per gallon, many will adapt- and not likely run off to buy technology with a 20 year paybac …’’

Regarding the price of NiMH batteries, the prices for standard AA NiMH batteries have declined from $1250 per kwh, 1600 mah cells, in 2001, to $308 per kwh, 2500 mah cells, now. Both retail prices. This in spite of the ~400% rise in nickel prices since then. Volume -> High Capital -> High R&D funds -> gradual and consistent chipping away at costs (a very effective tweaking process) or technological breakthroughs and of course economies of scale. Judging from the fact that large format Lead-Acid storage batteries are ~10% of the cost of small format, and taking into account volume, it is easy to see that NiMH shouldn’t cost more than $220 per kwh in large format. The rise in nickel prices is, of course, significant but at <12% nickel @ $23 per lb, that works out to $76 per kwh for the 95 AH EV-95 batteries. So a fourfold increase in nickel price would add $50 per kwh to the battery pack price and that doesn’t include the fact that the nickel is almost 100% recyclable. And the used automotive battery packs are of great value for utilities (who are already negotiating with GM about using Volt expired battery packs), for peak shaving, a very light duty application for batteries. Miles Automotive is selling a 30 kwh Li-Ion battery pack street legal vehicle, fully safety tested & approved, 85 mph, 150 mile range in the U.S. within 1 year @ $29,000. Even with those extremely low volumes, their Li-Ion batteries can’t be more than $500 per kwh.

It’s amazing how Big Auto spokespersons, like to bemoan the high cost of batteries, like that won’t improve with innovation and volume. Whereas, for their Oil buddies’ Hydrogen Economy special, GM is claiming they expect to produce fuel cells in volume for $50 kw, while the current price is $12,000 per kw for basic PEM fuel cell stacks. Going by those numbers, we should expect battery prices to be <$5 per kwh in volume, or $150 for a Rav4 BEV battery pack, hey, I’m just going by GM’s firmly stated expectations for price improvement for volume and technological innovation.

Posted by: Warren Heath

This is called a series-hybrid and is what really killed the electric car. At the 1998 Detroit Auto Show, GM showed a 40-mile plug-in version of the EV1 with on-board generator for extended range and that sent the Oil Companies ballistic. Why, because if everyone could drive 40-miles each day without any gas it would reduce average per capita gasoline consumption by 70% (actually more like 85% since series hybrids are more efficent gasoline cars too). This was a huge threat and was addressed very agressively.

The Chevy Volt claims to be doing the same thing, this time with Lithium batteries, so will the Oil Companies sit back and let it happen, or are they already involved in this plan. Tune into our next episode to find out.
Posted by: Mark Haines

I agree with Doug and others that you missed a point about the NiMH batteries. Unlike Lithium Ions, via the RAV4, NiMH batteries have a proven history of lasting 10+ years in real world circumstances. As the folks at Calcars often say, NiMH batteries are "good enough" technology, especially for PHEVs. Even if/when lithium ions mature enough to be usable, they will most likely get tied up in patents, just like the NiMH technology was. What is to keep Exxon-Mobil from buying A123, when the time comes?

As others have pointed out, Toyota was burned pretty badly on the large format battery issue. This is evident even to this day, as Toyota, despite its leadership position in hybrid technology, is still surprisingly tentative with PHEV technology. Although HEVs also use NiMH cells, these are smaller cells built to handle larger currents; the cells used by the RAV4 EV and needed for PHEVs are slightly different (more storage, less current draw).
Posted by: Jim Beyer

"Perhaps most telling, Stanford Ovshinsky, the developer of the NiMH battery whose Ovonics company was consumed by ECD and then by Cobasys, said in a June 2006 [Economist] article that he had designed a radical improvement to the batteries that would be perfect for plug-in cars if only the company would let him proceed."

Here is an excerpt from: http://electrifyingtimes.com/hurryupandwait.html

The room was filled with prominent researchers and PhD electrochemists. At the end of one session, one of the Researchers turned to the back of the room and point blank, read a summary of the low cost materials used in the amorphous NiMH cells manufactured by Stanford's company, Ovonics. He then asked Stanford why his batteries were still prohibitively priced. Stanford didn't answer, but had his Ovonics company spokesman speak up. He said it was to recoup their investment and R&D. The room rustled, because everyone knew that they still were making a killing compared to the materials costs.

To learn more about Chevron/Cobasys' NiMH lawsuits and sequestration of large format NiMH technology read:

http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=51&blogid=104
Posted by: Mark Seidler

John Westlund explains how the Government had to pay Detroit to build 60-80 mpg HEVs in the 90’s, which they easily did, and pocketed most of the cash, without offering the vehicles for sale.

The 43% efficient, extremely low emissions, Methanol engine, with a extraordinarily wide island of high efficiency.

The 45% efficient, ultra-lightweight, FreePistonPower engine/generator – MegaBucks Detroit couldn’t come up with this?

The 50% efficient, low emissions, Liquid Piston HEHC engine, with engines like these – who needs Fool Cells?

The next logical version would be a true Range Extended BEV – not like the Volt, which is actually a PHEV. This would be a BEV with a Rav4 BEV sized 30 kwh battery pack and a small 10 kw, continuous rated engine/generator – not like the Volt’s or Prius’ large > 50 kw engines. Again, sensibly, they would use one of the extreme efficiency engines, which would supply sufficient power to propel a BEV @ 60 mph continuous average highway speed, and would recharge the battery in 3 hrs if parked somewhere. Excellent to eliminate ‘’ Range Anxiety ‘’ which some would have with BEV’s. Of course, > 90% of the mileage would be on Utility Energy The generator would be so small, it could even be made easily removable, by the owner.. This version makes more sense to me than the PHEV.

A quote from GM-Ovonics from 1998:

‘’… GM's series hybrid (using an electric motor to drive the front wheels) uses a compact micro gas turbine generator system to charge the GM Ovonic NiMH HEV battery pack while driving, which provides an effective fuel economy of nearly 100 miles per gallon (MPG) of reformulated gasoline! This is based on GM's anticipation that the series hybrid owner will plug the vehicle in overnight while parked in the garage (grid charging), leaving in the morning with the HEV batteries fully charged. Operating as an HEV only (no grid charging), the hybrid obtains 60 MPG highway and provides a 350 mile driving range. When the generator is running, tailpipe emissions are one half of California's stringent ultra low emission levels (ULEV). The very high power to energy ratio GM Ovonic NiMH battery provides ample power for acceleration (zero to 60 MPH in nine seconds) and offers a zero emission, EV only, driving range of 40 miles, significantly more than other HEV battery types can provide. …’’

I believe PRICE/COST is a prime motivator for the greater population. If gasoline was $1/gallon, EV's would be minor news at best.

Let's not get off on the terrorist funding topic. How about not buying ANYTHING made, sustained or produced using foreign oil. Where did the synthetics in your clothes come from or the plastic in your TV, shoes or keyboard? Oh, I get it,,,, just a little bit of foreign oil is AOK as long as we don't use it to drive. There's plenty of room for being hypocritical.

As far as mileage.... I drive MUCH less that 33 miles per day. As eluded to earlier, Europeans drive less. Some of us (lucky) folks don't need to spend an hour on the road each way. That means my ol'(paid for) SUV is a good deal when factoring in the cost (I did say $40k) of a new EV.

Gasoline is not going to $6 anyday soon. It WILL someday. Electricity will also increase. That throws quite a few calculations off. Even NBC did a report showing an 11.4 year payback comparing the Toyota Highlander hybrid cost to it's full ICE counterpart. That was at $4/gallon and 25k miles per year. Drive less and that takes longer. You can bake and saute' the statistics anyway you want. Mine ain't yours as they say... That mostly said for now, I am hopeful in the EV future of things. I wrote an extensive term paper over 28 years ago predicting the resurgance of electric cars. As we all know the right technology has been long in coming and will be here to stay..
Posted by: Frank E

‘…Let's not get off on the terrorist funding topic. How about not buying ANYTHING made, sustained or produced using foreign oil. Where did the synthetics in your clothes come from or the plastic in your TV, shoes or keyboard? Oh, I get it,,,, just a little bit of foreign oil is AOK as long as we don't use it to drive. There's plenty of room for being hypocritical. …’

So how do you deal with this problem. Yeah, you can bomb the bejesus out of them, as Israel has threatened to, likely effect, oil exports out of the Persian Golf, virtually shut down, wacky Iranian government becomes popular with it’s people, dangerous tension with Iran’s friend’s of convenience Venezuela, Russia & China. Oil prices skyrocket, fuel rationing begins in the West, Military Conscription in the U.S., Civil War in Iraq, Economic Chaos, Terrorist attacks around the World using sophisticated Iranian weapons, Iran stands to get even more Oil Revenue, and uses it to buy even more radical, suicide bomber type friends.

So the method of choice is economic sanctions. Problem is with >$130 plus Oil, Iran can always buy it’s way around sanctions. Only effective route really requires an Embargo of Iranian Oil exports. Problem with that, we are so addicted to foreign source Oil that the West can’t do without Iranian Oil. The ICEV is where almost all of that Oil goes to. Of course China & Russia and some others may not sign on to an embargo, but don’t worry, if they get the chance they will screw Iran so bad, they’ll be cursing the infidel Chinese & Russians. With no other market to sell to, the Russians and Chinese may agree to import Iranian crude for $20 per barrel. Smaller countries can be leveraged to not accept Iranian crude, by offering discount crude as a trade – guess what – that means having more crude to offer – crude we don’t have to offer – Why – because we’re burning way too much in our archaic, fuel guzzling automobiles and trucks. There is no technological difficulty for Western nations to reduce their crude imports by 80%. It is only a political difficulty – that is – politicians don’t want to step on the toes of the OIL INTERESTS – who stuff so much cash into the politicians pockets.

So to summarize, the problem isn’t that we use a lot of Oil, the problem is we are using WAY TOO MUCH OIL, Oil that we need to import from unsavory governments – our enemies – at skyrocketing prices. Therefore, in more ways than one, we are paying for our own destruction.

Posted by: Warren Heath

‘…I believe PRICE/COST is a prime motivator for the greater population. If gasoline was $1/gallon, EV's would be minor news at best …’

How about an SUV series HEV with 4 powerful wheel motors. Triple the acceleration of any SUV on the market, Zero Turning Radius, Triple the Fuel Economy, Triple the Range, Silent Operation Mode, superb High Efficiency Generator with Battery Pack – better than anything on the market right now (people are spending > $20,000 on Home Generation systems, after the Katrina disaster), much better cornering by powered all 4 wheels on a turn, true All Wheel Drive, Quadruple Drive Redundancy, much more resistant to Rollover – due to the entire drivetrain weight being in or under the Chassis and also the Gyroscopic effect of the Wheel Motors, much lower Maintenance Costs, much longer Vehicle Life, much greater Reliability, drivable inside Buildings – where it can supply emergency power, safer to drive without that Humungous Gas Engine to smash its way onto your lap, without a drive shaft, the wheels can have free vertical movement of a foot or more (say use air shocks) so as to maintain traction on all wheels even on rugged ground (where normal SUV’s typically get hung up) and in an accident, blow the air out of the shocks so as to create an extremely low center of gravity, thus preventing rollover. I would say that would have a lot of popularity, at any fuel price, rather than your run-of-the-mill SUV clone. See:

The Crusher Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle with Wheel Motors video

The Crusher Series Hybrid Electric Vehicle with Wheel Motors description

Posted by: Warren Heath

I will show you who is right by my own words...(hugs)
Posted by: Frank E

please don't let hysteria and blind enthusiasum take over for wisdom.
Posted by: Frank E

As far as Israel bombing Iran;don't be glib about it, this is serious business. No doubt the "weapons of mass destruction" misinformation was from intentionally given us by Israel as well.
Posted by: Lewis Pinch

Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts

Just think – those who claim EV’s take way to long too charge, and plugging in a vehicle at night is way too inconvenient – will be waiting in a long lineup’ for fuel for a couple of hours, just to get their gasoline ration.

Posted by: Warren Heath

If we really wanted off oil completely we'd be making plastics from soybeans or other renewable materials.

I want an EV today. No longer want to fund big oil or their terrorist friends.

I drive a modest 2.0L four cylinder car that gets 34 mpg/350 mile range/125 mph top speed and don't need those capabilities. It has not been out of the county for months nor has it been past 70 mph for months either.

Its 10 miles to work and ten miles home again. Doesn't take much of an EV to do that.

What frustrates me is the lack of openess by the big companies who beg for our tax dollars when times are hard and then try to con us our of our income with shoddy/wasteful products when times are good.
Posted by: Fritz Jackson