Hacker News Reader

Comment by djanogo | Hacker News Reader

Instead of everybody jumping on bandwagon and siding with every legislature to be PC, individuals and companies have right to challenge those laws or on how practical they are. These challenges will naturally yield better laws considering the huge wave already behind the electric vehicles.

"Toyota’s Indian subsidiary publicly criticized India’s target for 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030, saying it was not practical.", the keyword being not practical, country which struggles with electricity during summer and rations farmers electricity is legislating 100% electric?

View on HN

You're right that challenging legislature can improve it, but it would be naive to assume that Toyota has the goal of improving it for anyone/anything other than their bottom line. They are solely driven by their profit motive, and so it is safe to assume they are never participating in the legislative process in good faith, i.e. for the betterment of the public and the world. Instead they are only participating in the legislative process with the expectation that they can gain additional power and profit.

Once we take that into consideration, it's hard to see their pushback against electric vehicles in a good light.

Whole lot of assumptions of what Toyota is, we can replace "Toyota" in your comment with most of the companies in SPY and it would sound very similar, lot of people have similar or more assumptions about Tesla, current opinion set to current submarine location.

> we can replace "Toyota" in your comment with most of the companies in SPY and it would sound very similar

Yes. Does this make the previous comment any less true? I'd say it's likely neutral or might even make it more true.

At this point it is not Tesla vs the rest of the industry. The other two of the 3 biggest manufacturers, GM and VW, are both intensely invested in battery electric vehicles. Among the big players it is only Toyota playing this FUD game now (even Mazda who were panning BEVs for a long time seems to have decided to do some EV stuff, even if it looks a bit mediocre).

Elon was smart to see the potential early on. But GM also started around the same time with the original Volt (which is still an awesome vehicle.)

I would argue it wasn't just that Elon was smart to see that potential, he created it. He showed that it was possible to have a fully electric call that is usable and attractive looking.

Before Tesla, existing car manufacturers made cars with low range that were fugly looking, probably trying to show regulating bodies that no one would be interested in electric cars.

Because the statement could apply, doesn't mean it is or needs to. The argument was directed at Toyota specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Toyota is the largest car manufacturer in the world. They should not be partaking in these behaviors.

And how practical is unmitigated climate change? These things aren't occurring in a vacuum, or just to "be PC". This is way beyond urgent and extreme action is necessary.

I'm all in for EV's, but just some random arithmetics:

Passenger cars produce 15% of total GHG.

Currently only only 15% of electricity is renewable (varies greatly by country and going to get way better in future).

That said EV's are about 2-6x more efficient in converting that energy to motion tho. Let's assume it's 3x better.

(0.15*0.85)/3 = still 4.25% of total GHG but will get much better in future. Overall ~10% GHG reduction.

The goal to stabilise climate is 60% reduction by 2050...

PC is a poor descriptor, and yes urgent and extreme action is necessary. But why does that action have to include going 100% electric on an impractical timeline? Surely there are debateble aspects to this approach, and probably other sources of carbon emission that can be more easily reduced, thereby allowing for at least some gas cars.

Do you really believe the entire country of India will be selling no gas powered cars by 2030? Surely this is just an overly-aggressive starting point by governments that they can further bargain on?

Because the “practical” timeline was one started 30 years ago. But proposals were met then with the exact same “now let’s not be hasty” counterarguments. The more time that elapses, the more drastic actions are required, no matter how painful.

>no matter how painful.

Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make that 10% look like small peanuts in comparison?

The answer is no one is gonna actually do this and this specific 100% number is just Govt and Businesses cynically trying to bargain.

I notice you are not listing any of these much easier to accomplish objectives. To be honest, I'm not very interested in your theory of public bargaining. Could you specify a few of the big ideas that you think will make a bigger difference over the next decade?

There are obviously hundreds of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, across many countries.

It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making.

Why not 99% for example?

Because 100% is not enough. We need to be carbon NEGATIVE to get back to the good place. (And, yes, we'll never be 100% non-emitting. We need to be NET negative.)

We're talking about 100% of cars being fully electric, not a % reduction in emissions.

Yes, but I don't have time to sort through hundreds of them. I'm asking which ones you think are the low hanging fruit. Just 3 or 4 examples would do.

How about converting electrical generation away from coal and natural gas?

Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas.

Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not 99? What about 98? Have you done any actual analysis here or are you just reflexively making the largest demands possible?

100% of new cars is critical because of how long cars last. People can keep a car running for 50 years after it’s sold, getting rid of ICE cars requires making them unappealing. As gas stations start to close owning an ICE car will become extremely inconvenient.

A hypothetical 10% of new cars being ICE eventually means only ~10% of gas stations survive, that’s just not enough. It’s vastly more efficient to do that in lockstep so people aren’t stuck with relatively new cars their unable to fuel which then get scrapped.

Hmm so then what about 99%? Is that also "not enough". How could you possibly know?

If 10% of new cars being ICE isn’t enough to keep most gas stations in business then any number less than 10% would also cause most gas stations to fail. In the early days people where willing to be inconvenienced because ICE where such a step up. But, if the alternative is drive 20 minutes each way to a gas station or charge up an your parking space it’s just not going to be worth it to drive ICE.

>it’s just not going to be worth it to drive ICE.

You seem to be mixing market forces with government mandate here a bit. Why not still allow 1% ICE and see how the market reacts? Maybe you're right and it would result in near-0 but why enforce 0 ICE?

It’s just a question of efficiency. The first day sales of new ICE are outlawed there are going to be a large number of ICE cars already on the road which keeps most gas stations in business the next day. In effect the difference between 0% ICE or 10% ice is only visible several years in the future.

It’s simply bad policy to create a situation where a lot of 5-15 year old cars get scrapped because nobody can find a gas station. The country is much better off when people scrapping cars because they can’t get gas are doing that to 20+ year old cars.

Well, there's abundant effort already going on to shift away from fossil fuels, as you are surely aware.

I haven't advocated for 100% of cars being electric; you appear to have me confused with someone else. You keep repeating this in every comment (to me and others) and try to hang responsibility for it on other people. It's sufficient to say you don't agree with the policy goal of the Indian government, rather than projecting it onto everyone you interact with.

You asked me what would "make a bigger difference" after I said that surely other initiatives could allow for ay least some gas powered cars.

It seems you already agree with this so why argue?

100% of new vehicles being EV in 9 years isn’t that fast. Assuming the average vehicle lasts ~25 years that’s a ~30+ year transition that simply looks scary to start with.

Also, EV’s don’t actually require that much energy 450w 24/7 powers a 4kW/mile EV for ~15,000 miles per year. People adding AC in India are a much larger load on the electric grid than EV’s.

> 100% of new vehicles being EV in 9 years isn’t that fast. Assuming the average vehicle lasts ~25 years that’s a ~30+ year transition that simply looks scary to start with.

I feel this distinction needs to be made every time there's talk about banning ICE.

I have yet to see any proposed laws that completely ban ICE. It's always a ban on selling new ICE. You'll still be able to buy used ICE, and they will eventually fade away through attrition.

I think current estimate is far sadder of only 50% new sales by 2033 or so - it's estimated by battery mineral mining schedules.

Which in a way means PHEV's with 10th of a battery of normal EV would be way better way to accelerate reduction of emissions.

Mineral extraction is very hard to predict 1 year from now let alone 12. I would be very cautious of an estimate that precise on those timescales.

Takes 4-12 years to setup one

From scratch yes, but increasing rates of extraction takes less time.

Edit: 4 mile per kWh.

Its a very much pie in the sky thought but EV theoretically could actually help the electrical infrastructure.

Part of the issue is that supply & demand have to match, but demand for electrical systems is not static. You could theoretically use the EV batteries as reservoirs to store surplus energy during low demands periods, and supply energy during high demand periods. While I doubt it would flatten the duck curve, it could help to smooth it out some.

This is already possible with some EVs:

https://eepower.com/news/nissan-to-leaf-could-power-your-hom...

https://youtu.be/kl9_cWF7fXo

So interesting Japan is so anti EV's and yet each of their EV or even hydrogen cars MUST legally have a vehicle 2 grid capability.

It's already helping the grid https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/own/californi...

The Ford F-150 Lightning can power your house (if paired with a Ford charger connected to your home)

The upcoming (this fall-ish) Hyundai Ioniq 5 has a vehicle-to-load capacity of 3.7 kW, enough to keep your fridge and freezer running during blackouts.

The number of cities crossing 50C during the summer is getting larger and larger. Is that practical?

India had basically no cars at all in the recent past. The country would survive going back to that state. It would not survive months of lethal heat every year.

> "companies have right to challenge those laws or on how practical they are."

Is it not practical for Toyota to only offer electric cars for sale in India by 2030? Is it not practical for Toyota to sell fewer vehicles in India in 2030? To pull out of selling in India entirely? I know the criticism is "it's not practical for India to switch to electric vehicles (and keep everything else the same)" but (a) why is that Toyota's "right to challenge" and (b) why assume everything else has to stay the same? Assume the Indian government democratically chose economic slowdown from reduced vehicle sales but still wants those vehicles which are sold to only be electric, citizens should have the right to challenge that but why should international companies have such a right?

Sounds like they’ll be able to leverage that legislation to encourage grid improvements.

Just like Google Stadia made ISPs stop having data caps?

Myabe they can hire Enron to build them more gas power plants to not use.

Those laws won't be better if all this amounts to is special pleading to not obsolete Toyota's R&D and capex in gas engines. India also "struggles" with petroleum infrastructure, safe handling, pollution, etc.

These challenges will naturally yield better laws

Questionable.

that comment is spot on. India is a country that struggles with distributing electrical energy. EVs there are nothing but a pipe dream or a plaything for the rich.

In the average western country where almost everyone has their electrical energy needs met, EVs do not have a technological limitation to adoption.

Investing in EV will improve the grid, obviously (and charging during off peak hours will stabilize it, too).

Betting on hydrogen (99% made from natural gas) does nothing to improve electricity generation and distribution in India.

Not really sure, we have our needs met for now, but most people having EVS would be a huge constraint drain on the power. I honestly feel what will happen instead is just that cars become too expensive to drive period, with only a relatively few owning private vehicles. A lot of people are surviving on 20 year old cars mostly.

Not in the us. Most charging can take place at night, using unused capacity. The only real impediment to almost universal EV use in the us is lack of easy charging for those who park on the street.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com