Toyota has stepped up lobbying to preserve its investments in hybrids, hydrogen
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
That may be wrong, but the ars article didn't have any counter arguments.
As a Volt and Mitsu Outlander PHEV owner I obviously have nothing against the PHEV concept. But just comparing the two I can say that the Volt is more of a BEV with high quality range extension, while our Outlander is just a soft hybrid that can only sometimes use the battery exclusively. Pretty much all the PHEVs (including the Prime) are like that, and they gave the whole concept of PHEV a bad name.
EDIT: the Outlander has other attributes that make it innovative and good for us, though, such as its AWD system which uses dual electric motors, negating the need for a longitudinal shaft and differential etc.
Other things in the car are the issue. Stupid things like the infamous "shift to park" issue (crappy $2 switch in the shifter mechanism so it doesn't recognize that you're in park even when you're mechanically in park and complains when you turn it off). Or just generally typically mediocre Chevy interior, etc.
Still love driving mine, I'd have a hard time giving it up. It somehow feels very sporty. I find Toyota's very boring to drive.
It's too bad. We have a Volt and I would have loved the same drivetrain in a car with more ground clearance and a bit more cargo space.
They bet on electric, very early in the game and more than one kind too!
The Prime has a 25 mile battery range, which is well over the average driven commute distance in the US (its about the average daily driven distance for drivers.)
The Prius prime is still in it's initial design iteration. Major updates occur typically every 7 years for auto manufacturers, so one would expect a new, improved range Prius prime somewhere in the 2023 range.
But the performance feels much sportier in EV mode and it has no trouble pulling up to 80mph without any ICE
It’s literally better than their hydrogen vehicles. Even if you had to synthesize the small amount of gasoline they might use.
Longer range plug in hybrids plus electrically synthesized liquids beat pure hydrogen vehicles in cost, refueling ease, and overall emissions.
The Volt is tiny car with limited utility. The RAV4 EV has vastly more cargo and passenger space.
For a single person going from point A to point B it might not matter, but the technical challenge of battery range plus utility isn't the same as battery range disregarding utility.
It has 10.6 ft³ of cargo space. A Yaris (a subcompact) hatchback has 15.4 ft³, Prius Prime has 19.8 ft³, Honda Civic Hatchback has 24.5 ft³, RAV4 Prime has 33.6 ft³ (for models with folding seats, those are all without seats folded.) The Volt doesn't have “lots” of cargo space, it has miserably small cargo space whether compared against other compact cars or other PHEVs.
Theoretically (if it works well) it’s an EV for short trips combined with an ICE for longer trips in a single car. That should overcome the range and charge time objections to BEVs.
Or perhaps we are past that point already - I have no idea how that upgrade math checks out...
1. What happens to all the giant lithium batteries on these vehicles after they reach end of life?
2. How will people be able to evacuate a city or state in an emergency situation when charging/electric supply is not present (which is always likely to happen)?
3. Coal burning infrastructure is still inextricably involved in generating the power to charge these vehicles, that must be considered in terms of overall value of EVs in reducing environmental impacts of fossil fuel elimination.
We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.
Secondly coal isn’t nearly as bad as you might thing relative to gasoline. Simply producing gasoline releases significant CO2. Refineries alone release approximately 2.5 lb of CO2 for each gallon of gas, add in exploration, extraction, and transportation means gasoline is doing a lot of damage before reaching your car. Next gasoline > car engines > transmissions is vastly less efficient than EV’s coal > power plants > electric grid > batteries > EV transmission.
Net result while some of the energy comes from hydrogen in gasoline it’s still actually worse for the environment than coal, much worse than natural gas, and vastly worse than everything else.
https://www.avere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/englisch_St...
This is straight up false. These same points are addressed again and again and again and again by EV supporters but I guess (if I took your claim seriously) no one actually pays attention? (See the sibling comments for folks responding to them.)
I mean, you might still disagree with what they have to say, but you CANNOT claim they don’t address those extremely common points. Is it okay to just repeat a lie like that for rhetorical purposes?
I never understood this scenario. Any situation where there is no electricity supply also means you wouldn't be able to pump gas. You do realize gas stations run on electricity right?
If you are concerned about emergency readiness, keeping a reserve fuel level in a typical gas (incl. hybrid) cars tank that provides more range than even the overly generous EPA-listed range of any pure electric short of a Tesla Model S Long Range Plus is eminently practical. So, if there is a recharging/fueling outage and need to evacuate, gas wins.
2. Never heard this one, what kind of apocalypse are you foreseeing ?
3. Centralised generation is easier to mitigate, and later replace with clean generation.
Though, couldn't you charge your car with a gas generator in an emergency if you really needed to?
2. Mass evacuations by car are inherently inefficient, we should use public transport.
2. or... petrol supply requires transportation whereas electrical supply does not, the former does not seem inherently better than the latter.
2. or... it's as impractical for everyone to fill up their cars in an emergency as it is for everyone to charge their cars.
Honestly, I don't think petrol is any better here – we've just got more cases of this mostly working with petrol cars, and no examples either way yet for electric cars.
3. Oil refinement for an amount of petrol takes roughly as much energy as an electric car takes to go that distance, so we aren't just shifting oil -> electricity, we're actually doing (oil + electricity) -> electricity. This gives us an immediate and significant win on overall fossil fuel emissions even if electricity is entirely generated with fossil fuels.
3. Coal burning infrastructure is not in any way inextricably linked to the power to charge electric vehicles. Coal burning happens to be how much of the US/China gets its electricity for powering electric cars but the fact that solar power can be fed into the grid with no changes to anything else shows that the "inextricably" is false.
3. Coal burning happens to be used in some countries but in others, green energy production is far more available and there electric cars are much better for the environment.
> We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.
Companies are driven by profit, yes, however there are vast, immediate, benefits to the use of electric cars, as well as significant future benefits that can be realised as we transition off fossil fuels. Saying that EVs cannot be motivated by environmental benefits is disingenuous.
EVs get cleaner as the grid does, there is no need to wait. EVs are already at least on par with the cleanest ICE cars on every mix of energy generation in the US and only getting better as coal plants shut down and the grid shifts to renewable. Waiting is letting perfect be the enemy of good. No one is suggesting switching to EVs is a solution to climate change. Cleaning up the grid and electrifying everything is a solution, of which EVs are a part.
Used EV batteries command a serious premium for all sorts of re-use. Recycling of the raw materials will be economically valuable once batteries are no longer useful for even stationary grid storage
As others have pointed out, when the power is off gas pumps don't work either. If you're concerned about evac practice good charging hygiene the same way you would store potable water and food. Plug in each day and the battery will always have tons of range.
only in countries which haven't yet decarbonised (decarboned?) their energy infrastructure. In france for example, 90% of electricity is non carbon, and that rises to 100% for several smaller countries
There would have to be some kind of argument that the bigger battery leaves capacity on the table during its life somehow, which would mean the battery is still expected to be useful when the car is retired?
It is much lower energy density than typical BEV batteries. It is also rated at 20x the cycles and can be charged and discharged very quickly with minimal issues.
The technology has come a long way from the NiMH cells that die after a decade.
I would think that it would be primarily a function of how much of the battery is treated as a 'reserve'. If you have 10-20% set aside that is not "useable", regardless of total capacity, then you could get similar cycles.
There's also the possibility for using super-caps taking some of the brunt for high discharge (2-4s) events which could help with longevity. How expensive are they for these type of use case?
If each cell in a 15kw battery discharges at 1c to move a car, each cell in a 45kw battery discharges at .33c.
Same goes for charging.
Might be diminishing returns, but discharge rates over 1c harm longevity.
https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...
This is the key point. Modern highly efficient turbocharged 4 cylinder ICE vehicles can be equally or more efficient than a hybrid in the right circumstances as well. But the vast majority of driving is city streets <45mph, where ICE can't even come close to BEV.
BEVs are fantastic, have SOME level of infrastructure literally everywhere with electricity (you literally can charge from a 120V outlet just fine), and we’ll need basically all vehicles to be battery electric to get to where we need to be.
It also is trivial to add EV charging infrastructure, which is another under appreciated aspect. It’s easier than installing a streetlight.
Plug-in hybrids may make sense, but I would imagine that including both a full power ICE and electric motor together and having them work together makes a more complex vehicle with more potential points of faliure. You also have the added weight of the duplicate components. The Chevy Volt, for example, weighs more than a base Model 3 and only slightly less than the long range configuration of the Model 3.
A quick search says "Car engines can weigh up to 1,000 pounds" and "Tesla S has a massive battery weighing 1,200 lbs" - so, are your really saving that much weight with PHEVs?
If we're questioning "focus on range of 400km or more" then we're already looking at the high-end EVs. Sure there are ligther engines around, but so are lighter batteries, no? Heavy powerful ICEs sell because they're desirable, not because they're the most practical. Long-range EVs sell because they're desirable, not because they're the best match for the average person. I have no doubt that as soon as reasonable city infrastructure exists for EV charging, there'll be a lot of BEVs with small batteries for driving around the city.
Don't get me wrong I like EVs, but the current crop's design is not such a straight forward winner in terms of ecological footprint over PHEV as many EV fanboys believe.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096942_2016-chevrolet-...
I guess if you were only connected at higher speeds, that would also greatly simplify the transmission story, since you probably no longer need 1-3.
Worst of all Toyota has been the leader against all kinds of environment laws all over the world.
They have a single compliance BEV that they are shipping in China only. It's a hard requirement to be active in that market. They make them in comparatively low volume of just slightly over 10K cars, which is of course next to nothing in the Chinese market. Also, that's only slightly less than the total number of hydrogen cars they have ever produced. Which of course they still insist is the future. Except they don't seem to be in any particular hurry building that future. A cynical person might say that they actually don't believe in that enough to put their money where their mouth is. Though they certainly seem to waste no opportunity to invest in marketing to convince people otherwise.
They are not actually arguing against BEVs because they believe BEVs are impossible. Obviously they are and essentially all their competitors are proving that by shipping electric buses, trucks, vans, cars, sports cars, etc. in increasingly large volumes. Toyota is merely trying to stem the loss of market share for ICE and hybrid vehicles here while they come up with an alternative. They do that by bad mouthing the whole concept of BEVs, by using misleading marketing like self charging hybrids, arguing that instead we should look at hydrogen, and generally just lobbying and arguing that BEVs are a bad thing.
However, at this point it looks more like they are dragging their feet simply because they are late with getting battery supply secured. They couldn't ship anything worth shipping in volumes that matter even if they wanted to and had the factories, designs, etc. ready to go. You need batteries for that and battery producers are fully booked building batteries for their competitors at this point.
To fix that they might prefer addressing this with their own solid state batteries. Which is something they've been investing in quite a lot. The only problem: they're not ready yet. However, they are apparently quite close to announcing a proper EV this year which might actually be using this. It will be interesting to see how quick they can go from a concept car to volume production. It will take a lot of investment and time probably.
So, one cynical interpretation is that they are just trying to buy some time until they are actually ready to start competing on their own terms. Which clearly they just aren't right now. They have no hydrogen car worth talking about (beyond the few concept cars they shipped). No infrastructure to fuel it. And the one EV they ship in China is clearly nothing more than a compliance car. So self charging hybrids it is for now. If they deliver a BEV with solid state batteries and awesome range (both of which might happen soon), my guess is hydrogen stops being the future at Toyota and self charging hybrids will be phased out as well. But even then, it might be years before they catch up.
Because of how media works these days writing about that is worth money. There's a lot of rage clicks and eyeball hours to be gleaned by pointing out to these people that yes, Toyota, a brand you people have been putting on a pedestal for a decade will sociopathically act in its own interest including influencing legislators, just like every other bigCo.
Just can't win...
I give Toyota big props for the Prius, which was the original Green Vehicle 15-20 years ago, and still is a HUGE player in the efficiency space. IIRC, The number one vehicle trade-in for TSLA has been Priuses. Was there even a car before the Prius that used regenerative braking? In many ways, Prius "primed" the market for greener vehicles.
And yet, Toyota had no great BEV follow-up. In a high-tech educated country like Japan, an island nation with extremely large amounts of coastline, I'd assume Toyota and Honda would wise up to climate change earlier.
All quite a sorry state for one of the largest car companies out there.
At this point, they’re doing more harm then good and I’d call them a dirty company and would avoid buying any of their products. They are wasting all their good will that they gained due to them pushing hybrids.
It's unfair to blame all Japanese car makers, but it is definitely fair to blame all American brands of Japanese car makers (as the weird, highly profitable step-children that they are).
It's not like there's a good source of hydrogen that doesn't come from electricity generation anyway. It's "just" a different take on the battery, one that appears to be mostly worse other than charge times.
> And yet, Toyota had no great BEV follow-up
Prius sales trends since debut in 1997 reflect this sentiment in that they were first, executed well, and thus had most of the market. Current Prius sales are dropping off very steadily by year, though.
But to your point on the trade ins, current Tesla Model 3 sales are getting close to Prius' best all time sales of +200K units/year.
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/total-toyota-prius-sales-figur...
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/tesla-model-3-sales-figures-us...
Those arguments are true in some part but meaningless or misinformation in some part. I agree that LCA CO2 regulation is win for EU/China and lose for Japan car industry, and now EU car manufacturer become able to make BEV in clean energy so EU pushes the regulation, but decarbonization is now obviously justice so blaming it is nonsense. We're stuck in small land/grid and against nuclear for now.
They also hype about hydrogen cars. Hydrogen seems to good to investigate for truck or other industry vehicle, or dedicated storage, but they overly hype about car with fuel cell or even ICE burning hydrogen. Maybe because who read such article loves ICE.
I think Toyota and Honda did well for decarbonization until the solution become making BEV that needs massive amount of Li-ion (material and power intensive battery).
The tech works, refuels 10x faster than any battery based car, but so far no adoption outside of europe and asian countries.
That's a phenomenal achievement. They chose wrong maybe, but they chose, and chose a path they though most viable.
To claim they aren't in the game is beyond unfair.
https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/04/hybri...
The primary advantage is faster refueling. The price is no in-home refueling -- a big win for BEVs, as most trips will not require refueling on the road. There are also real safety concerns about storing and transporting H2 at very high pressure.
Complete nonsense. Most Hydrogen is produced with natural gas. And the conversion makes and end to end efficiency makes it actually far worse both economically and environmentally.
Maybe in some imaginary future that will not actually happen it is as green.
> refuels 10x faster than any battery based car
Waste overestimation and in reality even if that was true, you are gone spend 100x more times refueling then in an EV. Because EV you simply charge at home and 99% you not gone use any fuel-station.
And Hydrogen charging station still have many problems if you actually attempted to have a high volume of cars using them.
> They chose wrong maybe, but they chose, and chose a path they though most viable.
The path that would give them the most government subsidies and allow them to delay EVs as long as possible.
> To claim they aren't in the game is beyond unfair.
Go look at how many actually FCV have been sold.
https://www.hyundai.news/eu/articles/press-releases/hyundai-...
Further, given this capacity, the numbers work out such that we are, on the macro level, DRASTICALLY more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly by putting more hybrids and Plug-in Hybrids (which have fewer batteries) on the road than we are by reserving said batteries for fewer pure EVs.
2.5 Priuses are better than 1 EV.
When battery technology and production capacity are NOT the constraint, then pure EV will make sense.
All cars should be mandated hybrid soon (or all manufactures must meet a minimum hybridization level across their line ... sort of like fuel efficiency standards are measured today). All cars should be mandated Plugin Hybrid at some point after that. Maybe someday, we can mandate Pure EV.
I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.
The fact that an idea can be both good and unpopular is -- IMO -- the linchpin of almost every other problem we face.
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...
communism is a good idea, but it's unpopular, for a reason i say.
The reason for the idea of taxing externalities being unpopular isn't really proven yet - after all, it hasn't been instated, but just spoken about, and the silent majority don't have an opinion!
Is that a troll? See my comment below.
So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. We need to run a solid pilot, get the as many kinks out as possible, and then assess.
Similar with taxing damages to Earth.
You are being too charitable. There is no shortage of data on communism after the last century. The results are so unequivocally bad across the board, you have to be ignorant of history or just ignorant in general to still think it's a good idea. As soon as someone tells me communism is a good thing, I realize I'm taking to someone who is not very intelligent and look for a way out of the conversation.
Edit: You can downvote, but you can't change history. There are levels of being wrong, but thinking communism is a good idea is just an extremely wrong opinion completely contradicted by history in over 40 countries (I counted) over a period of 100 years - with not a single example in favor.
On top of that, the evils perpetuated by communist countries upon their own citizens were not surpassed by any regime of the 20th century, not even the genocidal ones like Rwanda, or Nazi Germany. And yet some clueless class of people, largely located in academic institutions still somehow thinks it's a good idea. They are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be stupid, and while I don't condone ad-hominen attacks generally, I feel it fits accurately here.
>with not a single example in favor.
Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. Likewise there was nothing inherent to communism and more the lack of a strong republic.
I seen a comment by a "intelligent dude" like you, in his intelligence he compared North and South Korea, ignored that sanctions for the North and the tons of money US dropped on south and he got the conclusion he wanted.
The truth is that there is not enough good data, I would like to see some examples of countries that were not under sanctions or under a cold war or had some insane dictator leading them.
Public perception may be one reason. If a carbon emissions tax directly leads to big increases in fuel costs, it can cause problems for drivers / vehicle users for whom fuel cost is a significant concern. The 2018 Gilet Jaune protests [0] in France were partly due to public dissatisfaction with fuel price rises. Regulatory instruments (such as fuel efficiency standards) are more opaque and may obfuscate the connection between between political decisions and the inevitable price rises.
Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.
Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change.
(Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)
We already know that wealthy people generate the most carbon. If that activity was taxed and then the money was given to poorer people who can't afford to transition to clean energy, it would still be a net win, because it will reduce emissions while making sure it doesn't unfairly affect the poor.
The great thing about statistics is you can maneuver them to support your conclusion. Here's some that support mine: in real numbers, "The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined."
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
That's a lot of money to fight pirates.
We have a Tesla Model 3 now with about 50,000 miles on it, we've only seen about a 2-3% decrease in range so far, if even that. The only maintenance so far has been refilling the washer fluid and we've replaced the tires once. I see no reason why it won't easily go to 150,000+ miles. The difference with the hybrids we have had is night and day, it's not even close. Toyota does not have a winning hand to play here and they know it. They bet on the wrong tech and they are tied down by a dealer network that is dependent on maintenance costs to support them.
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...
40-50 miles EV range meant that most people would have an EV most of the time, and use gas only on one off trips.
And while people 10 years behind on ICE advancements would immediately start yelling about dragging around a dead weight ICE all day, modern ICEs are incredibly light, efficient, and reliable in the type of application the Volt had them in, where they only need to run run at their optimal power band.
It didn't even look bad, and it had the same sensor suite AP1 did (of course GM used Mobileye's sensors as designed, so you weren't tempted to take your hands off to play mobile games, and they didn't end up in the back of firetrucks)
The issue isn't so much weight as volume and packaging. Having 2 powertrains really eats a lot of interior space. Pure BEVs can have some impressive packaging with a truly impressive amount of leg room and spaces to shove tons of stuff. My parents love their Volt, but there is no denying it's a very tight squeeze and even with the hatch there is not a lot of space in there not taken up by batteries and engine.
That's because the EQA is built on the same platform that GLA uses, which was designed for ICE vehicles.[1] The newer crop of electric vehicles that are built on dedicated platforms designed for EVs end up providing much more space than ICEs, mostly due to the ability to have the battery in a flat skateboard layout that is not possible with an ICE platform.[2]
PHEVs end up making the same compromises by shoving a larger battery into an ICE platform, which is why, for instance, the RAV4 Prime ends up having less cargo space than the regular RAV4 hybrid.
[1] https://insideevs.com/news/467187/mercedes-benz-eqa-repeats-...
[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877554/electric-veh...
Using skateboard batteries for PHEV would help mitigate the packaging issues for PHEVs, but then you're still stuck hauling around a combustion engine and all the design compromises that entails like long, tall hoods filled with components.
Skateboard batteries mean deep, expensive changes to platforms, the kind automakers only do every decode or so. With the cost of batteries plummeting and emissions rules like EU7 coming, most companies have chosen to focus their development dollars on pure EVs and cheaply retrofit their PHEVs on to existing ICE platforms.
Tesla happens to be one of the most efficient EV drivetrains out there, but the hyundai/kia twins are right there with them, so it isn't out of reach.
EQA isn't a dedicated EV platform, so of course packaging isn't optimized to take advantage of the space savings available in a BEV.
That is demonstrably false. The size of the Tesla is the about same as a Volvo V60. The V60 has >500 l of storage volume compared to the 385l of the Tesla. Similarly the Seat Octavia has also more than 500l storage volume (even in the sedan version). So yes there are plenty of ICE cars of that size which have the same storage space, in fact most ICEs of that size have more storage space.
Also the model 3 according to the ADAC [1] in the standard version has an efficiency of 19.5 kWh/100km and around 300 km range, in comparison the Hyundai Ioniq has 14.7 kWh/100km so the Tesla is not even close. The VW ID3 has 19.3 kWh/100km so very similar to the Tesla, it is quite a bit smaller and it's storage is also smaller at 315l (however much easier to get to). So it does not seem like the Model 3 is one of the most efficient.
Of course a model 3 doesn't have as much space inside as an estate/wagon. It makes more sense to compare a model y there. I could only find rear seats folded where it's 1920 L for model y and 1440 L for v60 (That might include the Y's frunk as well; the sources are not clear).
The 3/Y also crush the volvo for aerodynamics at 0.29 vs 0.23
In real world driving at 110-120 km/hr I get well under 150 kWh/100 km in my SR+. I wasn't able to find the ADAC testing, but they either did it at 130 km/hr+ or it was quite cold out.
Imagine a 2L coke bottle. It's contents would overflow if you could pour it into the engine.
The Voltec system wasn't anywhere near larger than an equivalently practical BEV drivetrain.
Just like BEVs are coming out without frunks, the Volt simply didn't prioritize interior space at the time.
It was still a plenty practical vehicle, and if it had sold well it was going to get the CUV treatment
BMW managed to hide their rex engine really well in i3 since it isn't connected to the wheels. That comes with it's own downsides as well, since you can slowly lose battery charge with the engine running while climbing steep hills in a rex i3.
Don't get me wrong, I think volt is one of the best cars ever made and at the time it came out it was the most cost effective way to cut your transportation carbon footprint while retaining a private car.
PHEVs are the best and worst of both worlds at the same time. The worst now outweighs (in this case literally as well as figuratively) the best. The downsides of pure EV are now at a point where they only truly impact edge case needs (apart from cost that needs to come way down, but PHEVs are very expensive too).
This entire paragraph is like saying an electric motor needs batteries and those batteries need cooling systems and those cooling systems need pumps and those pumps need power and...
No one claimed the entire drivetrain is 1.5L, but 1.5L gives you an idea of how relatively small the engine is. All the components you listed scale down in turn. Smaller engine running at a better point in its power band needs less cooling, less oil capacity, fewer oil changes, etc.
> The worst now outweighs (in this case literally as well as figuratively) the best.
I don't believe in this view point if we're being realistic about a low emission future.
We have an extensive gas infrastructure just sitting there today, meanwhile we have grids that can barely handle our current demands.
PHEVs are a chance for innovative solutions to that. Imagine power companies being able to direct people to use gas during (what will be increasingly frequent) extreme weather events then switch back.
And consider that PHEVs don't need to be Voltec-style all-in drivetrains. Conventional car designs can be converted to PHEVs like the old 3 series ActiveHybrid was.
And while people immediately recoil at the less than optimal results of not designing from the ground up around batteries and EV requirements, there's no changing the fact that designing new cars is expensive.
Affordable PHEVs based on current designs could open up EVs to more segments of the market than currently possible.
But don't go away altogether, which is my point. There is a space cost to be paid in any PHEV that is significant, both in absolute volume terms as well as prime placement. The engine occupies extremely valuable real estate. In a pure EV that's space you can move the cab forward for more legroom or cargo space (or just make the car's overall footprint smaller).
> Affordable PHEVs based on current designs
What affordable PHEVs are there? They still command a price premium over the ICE version. Here in Canada Kia Niro hybrid is $27K, PHEV is 34.5K and BEV is $45K.
PHEVs also vary wildly in carbon reduction based on owner action. If the owner plugs in each day consistently they are great. Unfortunately, in the EU PHEVs have turned into tax shelters and studies have shown most drivers never plug them in, resulting in more emissions than if they had just bought the regular hybrid.
5 years ago PHEVs were a great solution while batteries were very expensive, but their window of value is rapidly closing and will be gone once batteries hit $100/kWh in likely mid 2023. I certainly wouldn't spend money on a new one now knowing that inflection point is coming so soon. Used Gen2 Volt is one of the great deals to be had in cars at the moment, but new PHEVs just don't make sense to me.
You literally still can't get past the fundamental point half of what you listed as needed for an ICE is already needed for a BEV. Even the Model 3 has an oil pump and filter!
The packaging challenges faced are not somehow forcing you to stick the engine in some magical super important place where batteries would never have to be either, like I have no idea why you're acting like a frunk is some sacred place you're robbed of if there's an engine there when several BEVs have come out without them.
Like do you not realize a Model S has a radiator? Or that there are ICE cars with engines everywhere from the front to the back of the car?
-
And theres are no cheap EVs besides econoboxes priced above their bracket. Phev or not.
That's why as far as I'm concerned we're not on a realistic path to reducing our emissions.
Everyone is throwing out deadlines for ICE production and patting themselves on the back until those deadlines approach and are kicked down the line.
An entire classes of EVs hasn't appered yet, and for now we can blame the cost of batteries or something, but eventually we'll run out of excuses.
The true reason is because companies that have been incrementally updating the same platforms for a decade won't go and redesign their cars as EVs and keep them affordable. That's why the Model 3, which really is the EV equivalent of a Camry, costs 10-15k extra.
Meanwhile the Rav 4 Prime is equipped similarly to a Rav 4 Limited but only costs 3k more (also comes with 100 more HP...)
PHEVs are poised to fill the gap when reality comes home to roost. When our power grids are failing to cope with basic cooling, no one is going to force people to look at other options.
Your analysis basically assumes that people perfectly optimize their consumption, but actual usage data shows that they don't.
Also these cars driving experience simply can't compare to actual EV. Because of the high cost you simple and up with a cheap EV motor and a cheap gas motor.
There is a reason why GM didn't want to sell a million of them.
Hybrids need to start distancing themselves from the Prius and promote the insane 0-60 times that EVs are capable of now.
The Volt was able to use the ICE to improve peak output directly, with fewer drivetrain losses.
e-power is a cost saving measure, not an advancement
Voltec was using clutches to let you run like either the e-Power example or the Prius example on the fly, or even somewhere in between with the 2nd generation depending on power demands: https://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/02/secrets-of-the-2016-che...
CS3 is what you're describing when talking about the most efficient ICE operation
https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...
80 p + 250 (1 - p) < 180
170 p > 70
p > 7/17 ≈ 41%
So 1 EV and 1.5 ICE are roughly equal to 2.5 hybrids. And anything more is an improvement.
A typical Tesla vehicle has 8 cameras thus providing a 360 degree vision to help assist the car/driver in a few applications. Security, safety and convenience.
A close second in terms of safety systems is Subaru with their eyesight features.
My personal experience and testing of my Toyota Sienna van’s PCS, otherwise known as a pre-collision system to assist in applying the brakes and or warn the driver that an object is detected in close proximity to the vehicle during moving speed, is almost absent. The system is too slow, delayed or late. Sense of safety from the pcs is non-existent.
These along with others things pushes me to have a greater interest in cars like Tesla despite it’s premium price.
At this point, we should point out that now there are such thing as smart cars (Tesla) vs dumb cars (toyota) and others and that safety should not be a second class feature but should be prioritized through the use of current camera technologies. Other than focusing on just the safety of a vehicle during a collision, although important, systems to prevent collisions should be prioritized as well.
But your comment which asserts that only Tesla does proper drive assist says everything. Somehow Tesla managed to convince everyone that they are the only innovators and everyone else is just old. While I appreciate Teslas contribution of pushing EVs to the mainstream, I do not believe that they are the most technologically advanced of the car manufacturers.
Very nearly every luxury car on the market has that stuff and has had it for years.
Mercedes has had speed-adjusting cruise control since 1999, complete with auto-stopping since 2005, for example. Before Tesla ever even made a vehicle at all. Most other auto makers are just vastly more responsible in how they brand their self-driving capabilities than Tesla, but they pretty much all have them.
Tesla's "industry leading" innovations are really scoped to a few key things - the electric powertrain, massive in-car displays that replace switchgear (debatable if this is actually an innovation or just a cost-cutting measure, though), and OTAs.
L2 autonomy features like Tesla's autopilot are extremely common and Tesla isn't even the best. GM's Supercruise is currently the best L2 system out there.
edit: also most Toyotas are not in the price bracket of 8-camera vehicles but all the safety equipment is standard, so I might argue Toyota is doing more for public safety by making these systems affordable, whereas tesla is making the public less safe by beta testing self driving software on city streets.
This feels like a feature to me. I believe making drivers feel safer causes them to drive more dangerously.
Accidents happen frequently from driver fatigue and distraction
If they bet wrong, they will lose, unless the State bails them out.
Same thing happened the other day when a gloss by The Verge was trending on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27961606 I get that some folks may not want to pay to subscribe to The New York Times, but it's unfortunate that HN is sending so much traffic to sites that are just rewriting others' original reporting (and slapping their own advertising on it).
Perhaps another dynamic is that as these sites post their rewrites, HN posters can submit fresh URLs for the same topic over multiple days, rather than just the "canonical" NYT URL?
--
Solid hydrogen fuels will be the next wave. Specifically non-gaseous, before anyone has a spaz attack. We know! Storage, transportation, distribution of H2 is not practical.
Plasma Kinetics' has a light activated fuel cell. https://plasmakinetics.com There are many other nanomaterial research efforts. Like consumable silicas and reusable graphenes. Am less than noob, so can't guess which notions have most potential.
Pay attention to the technology maturation lifecycle. Solid hydrogen today is maybe comparable to Li-ion in 2005.
Imagine we hit "peak" Li-ion around 2030, producing 75 tWh annually. (Amazing, right?)
That'd buy us some time to develop solid hydrogen, which will hopefully be shipping in actual products by then. And hopefully address use cases and applications poorly served by Li-ion. Like trucking, rail, maritime, whatever.
Remove any remaining excuses for the die-hard fossil fuel hold outs.
--
Toyota just got the timing wrong. And maybe they were too optimistic about H2.
Trying to hold back EV is a dick move. Pisses me off.
Not having a portfolio of technology platforms, something to span the gap from hybrids to hydrogen, was just incompetent.
Many of Tesla's teething pains are self-inflicted at the design stage rather than being solely a manufacturing problem.
I now feel that Tesla is more Toyota than Toyota (continuous improvement). And becoming more Apple than Apple (monopsony). Plus a dash of Samsung (vertical integration).
[h/t Sandy Munro's teardowns, The Limiting Factor, both on youtube.]
--
Tesla somehow champions Wright's Law better than any one else. (Coupled with financial acumen bordering on fraud.) They're maniacal about efficiency, ramping up production, above all else. They eschew model years and just roll out improvements as fast as possible.
I've never worked at place that both scaled up and focused cost reduction; it was always either-or. Even with the human cost, it's kind of exciting. (I worked in hypergrowth orgs in my 20s, at great personal cost. If I was 20 again, I'd be at Tesla (or SpaceX).)
--
Tesla has also embraced Apple's monopsony strategy.
For iPod, Apple bought out all mini HDDs. For unibody laptops, Apple bought every milling machine. You couldn't compete even if you wanted to. Why did Apple pursue thinness, past the point of reason? Because they could and no one else could copy them.
In the same way, Tesla has embraced casting giant parts, by using the giant gigapresses. Acknowledging the obvious benefits like reduced part counts, improved quality... The deeper genius is any one who wants to copy them has to wait years to even buy their own gigapress.
I'm sure there are other steps in their production pipeline which competitors cannot easily copy. Because the tools, materials, skills simply are not available at any cost.
--
Tesla will be mining their own lithium. That's insane! Who else in the world will own the entire lifecycle of their products?
And because Tesla is so vertically integrated, they'll be able to optimize globally. They'll have manufacturing steps done on site at the mines. Reducing shipping and handling costs.
And since Tesla makes their own solar panels, they'll provide their own power.
Such audacity!
--
Plus some kind of crazy. Their misadventures with automation and robots should have killed the company. And yet they pivoted, compressing 40 years of manufacturing experience into 5 years.
How the hell did Tesla pull it off? They've had so many near death experiences. And at every critical juncture, they double down.
I feel like there's a lesson here, but I have no clue what it might be.
Arguably Tesla already bought that in spirit if not fact by acquiring the NUMMI plant from Toyota. (The NUMMI plant was the co-venture Toyota built in Fremont, CA in the 80s with General Motors that built Geo brand vehicles and taught 90s GM some of Toyota's agility in manufacturing. Tesla likely didn't get as much direct experience from Toyota in buying the several years shut-down plant at that point, but symbolically it feels related.)
>Toyota should pull an Intel, and become the TSMC of automobiles. I've waggishly said I'd buy a Tesla made by Toyota. Surely there are other EV efforts that would benefit from Toyota's manufacturing prowess and capacity.
We already have that. Magna Steyr builds custom runs for many auto companies big and small.
They are not actually that exceptional anymore. At best they are marginally better.
Tesla new architecture of structural cells in a pack connected to massive castings is far better then Toyota EV have.
> Solid hydrogen fuels will be the next wave.
I really don't think that will be the cast.
> Imagine we hit "peak" Li-ion around 2030, producing 75 tWh annually. (Amazing, right?)
> From their website: Storage is 30% lighter, 7% smaller, and 17% less expensive than Lithium-ion battery per kWh.
By the time this technology is even remotely feasible. Li-Air, Li-Sulfer batteries and a whole bunch of other potential chemistries could be ready. All these more advanced chemistries can beat these advantages without issue.
Li-Sulfer battery could be 2-4x as dense ad current LiIon far smaller and far cheaper.
Even current High Nickel Cathode-Silicon Anode that will roll into the market will beat the numbers advertised by the company.
Why would anybody go refuel with solid hydrogen when you can have better range then Tesla Model S with a battery small battery pack you can put in your trunk and a tiny powerful EV motor?
A car based on the technology is simply worst along every single dimension.
I forget the rationale for why Toyota (and by extension Japan) bet on hydrogen. Probably something to do with access to resources. Constraints that apply to many economies.
We simply have to get off fossil fuels. Zero carbon will involve hydrogen. Maybe not personal transportation. But definitely agriculture. And maybe manufacturing, heavy transportation.
At some point we'll have excess electricity. Using that to produce methane (carbon capture) and ammonia (replace fossil fuels) has to happen. Then we'll have abundant cheap hydrogen.
Maybe not solid hydrogen fuel cells. Maybe ammonia is practical enough. Optimistic me knows someone(s) will do something useful.
Furthermore, by the time you're talking about metal-air batteries you are basically build a fuel cell but with metals. Which is to say you're just building fuel cells that are fundamentally inferior than something that already exist.
We have basically created an inverted worldview. In reality, the li-ion battery is fundamentally inferior to hydrogen fuel cells, and any attempt to advance EV technology will inevitably produce a hydrogen fuel cell powered car.
But show me the tech because:
> From their website: Storage is 30% lighter, 7% smaller, and 17% less expensive than Lithium-ion battery per kWh.
This is nonsense that wont happen.
(More and more, the ocean seems like a huge resource we're not tapping: the most lithium reserves on earth, pulling carbon out of it (for sequestration), and potential hydrogen source just off the top.)
That entire roundabout process results in a pretty low efficiency for hydrogen. Why not skip all those steps and put the electricity right into a battery with little efficiency loss.
https://insideevs.com/news/406676/battery-electric-hydrogen-...
This likely to be true for more types of vehicles as hydrogen gets cheaper.
Even the term “fossil fuels” is an inappropriate framing of the chemicals involved since it restricts their use to burning. Consider the processes involved in their formations: organic material grew for eons millions of years ago. It then had to be buried in just the right conditions and later embedded into even further beneficial conditions. It took millions of years, high temperatures, and high pressures to go from plant material to these complex molecular forms. Then we dig them up or seep them out with fracking and further refine them. Then we burn them. Huge losses of energy all along the way. Using oil as fossil fuel is a huge waste of the energy it took to create those molecules.
If you have solar power, the comparison between storing it in hydrogen using electrolysis or a battery is pretty direct and useful and has fuck all to do with hydrocarbons.
Most people don’t drive more than 50 miles per day. Pushing for hybrids with 50-75 mile range might do more for emissions than pushing everyone to EV convert.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/are-chevy-...
The big barrier of ebikes is their cost. If you want one that isn't aliexpress tier with questionable batteries that might explode, you are going to drop money that could buy you a pretty decent used honda that is way more practical, probably $1500-2000. Plus there is the issue of theft and insuring these from theft or accidents. I'm not sure if theft would be covered by renters insurance or if you'd need a separate policy, it might even depend where the bike was stolen.
If the government is willing to give new EV car buyers $7000, they should give that same stipend to ebike buyers who would be able to get any top of the line model for free with money left over with that amount of subsidy. Not only do you get most of the benefits of electric commuting like with an EV, but you don't have to deal with the congestion that a car sized vehicle like an EV carrying one person at a time brings.
Fuel Economy: 205 mpg
Electric Consumption: 31 kW-hr/100 miles
Electric Miles: 341
Gas Miles: 81
Total Miles: 422 mi
Percentage on Electric: 81%
Am I the only one who thinks it is 100% wrong that companies can give politicians hundreds of millions of dollars?
Politicians are supposed to represent people. Real breathing people.
Sampling a handful of other countries, like Canada, Germany, Japan, etc. I found that they all pretty much banned (or drastically curtailed) donations form companies, unions, and trade associations. Most of them had some combination of publically funded campaigns and incentives and limits for personal donations. In a couple of the countries I looked at there were limits on how long campaigns lasted.
The corporate lobbying that goes on in the U.S. would be illegal in many other countries and counted against them in corruption indexes.
We need an amendment to reverse the supreme court on this. Once we get rid of corporate money from politics we might have a shot at fixing a lot of other problems.
Banning giving money to politicians is fixing a symptom rather than the root cause.
Better is ban government from directing market competition. Why is the gov telling people and companies what to make when? People should do that by their choices. Tesla is a good example of something good is happening by the market. It motivated other companies to innovate in the space.
We supposedly live in a democracy, where the people are supposed to be in charge, not abstract constructs like companies, unions, or trade associations. People vote, not companies. People should be funding political campaigns, not companies.
Why should a CEO or small group of people get to decide how to deploy enormous resources to influence politician's so that they do things that run counter to the public good, just so they can make more money? This is what corporations are legally obligated to do, right? Make more money.
> Better is ban government from directing market competition. Why is the gov telling people and companies what to make when? People should do that by their choices. Tesla is a good example of something good is happening by the market. It motivated other companies to innovate in the space.
Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers.
It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government.
In an ideal world, everyone is looking for each other. But this is not an ideal world. CEOs, politicians, employees, and even the people who vote are all looking for themselves: they all have demands that benefit themselves. Everyone wants more money. I want free education, free transportation, etc. Why think that my wants, are somehow, on a higher ground, that the wants of the CEO? Why think that my wants, if they are the wants of more people, are somehow better the society at large than the wants of a CEO? I feel that might be making many assumptions that are not very obvious, or that I am misreading you.
> Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
I apologies if I am understood that way. That is certainly not my intention. I mean that banning the transfer of money from a company to a politician will not solve the problem, because there will always be a loophole.
> Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers.
Given that the US is not a democracy, people only have a say on who they elect. Politicians decided it is ok to break the market and control it, and they decided it is ok to lobby. Politicians also don't necessarily represent the people of their district/state in the strictest (by the simple fact that many did not vote for them). If it was up for the people, it is hard to say that it will be a better government, because people, like politicians, are looking for themselves and not necessarily for the overall society over time.
>It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government.
Can't agree anymore. It is a system that gave birth to some great things and some terrible things.
It seems that we enshrined political contributions as free speech in this country, and I'm not sure that right, allowing pac and dark money to buy mass media advertising to manipulate voters at scale. That just seems a way to subvert one person equals one vote. This seems to get worse and worse every decade. We're just starting to see what international companies larger than most governments in the world can do with petabytes of personal data and algorithms designed to take advantage of all that.
I may still misunderstand, but you used Toyota as an example, the political lobbying the company does on behalf of its customers and workers. When I read this I think that they are lobbying on behalf of shareholder profit, often to detriment of their workers (anti-union, for example), customers (less mandated safety), and the public at large (less pollution regulations). it seems more and more that the deck is stacked in favor of large corporations and the rich.
I know that our conversation has drifted around a little bit. I appreciate being able to refine my thoughts on this.
Do you think that some method of publicly funding campaigns would better than what we have now, more in the spirit of one person equals one vote? Also limits to how long campaigns last and how they are conducted? There are other countries that do this. In fact the U.S. seems to be an outlier in how we allow money to influence politics.
I grant that this would need to be done despite the establishment not wanting to change. I also grant, like you said, it may be near impossible to eliminate the effect of money on politics. But it scares me to think what will happen if we continue on our current course.
I recall them a couple of years ago being boastful about how they were not interested in playing in the EV space, it just seemed very personal.
“A decade more” seems way too pessimistic given current EV prices and battery capacities. The 2022 Bolt will have a starting price of $32k with a 65kWh battery, for example.
That's still a totally different class of car buyers. A "starting price" of $32k means no one is walking out the door with one under $40k total upfront cost. When I can walk into a dealership and finance something like that at $25k total loan amount, that changes everything.
Chevy is doing an $8k consumer cash program right now to clear the lots because they literally cannot sell the things >$30k.
2016 VW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-eoEKrjAtM
2016 4runner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcm1nz_Zwn8
The VW looks similar to my FCA uConnect system. The 4runner looks like an Alpine head unit I put in my 2002 4 runner in the 2008/9 timeframe. Pretty sure Toyota killed the CD player in the last 3-4 years.
That's the supposed FUD? What about that was wrong? Are we just supposed to ignore the challenges ahead of us? I had to read through most of that article to even get there and that was the big controversy. This article is trash.
I see two things that can stall EV growth:
(1) Grid capacity. The US has been taking down nuclear power plants and replacing them with renewables has caused problems in both availability, cost and carbon impact. Ideally we would be able to build clean nuclear power as our grid demands growth from EVs, but it's questionable whether we can. Playing this forward, if the nation starts to have brown-outs or the cost of electricity goes up for this reason, people will not buy EVs obviously.
(2) There's a risk factor that we need to think about as a country. We rely on our vehicles for a lot of really important things - eg emergency services, commuting, business, etc. We have developed fairly robust gasoline supply infrastructure, and it's pretty good to know that even if my house/town loses electricity, I can still get fuel for my car, get around, travel elsewhere, etc. If we get into a place where our transportation is tightly dependent on our power grid, just as our grid is aging/overloading/etc, that could be a risk on the personal and national level.
These are solvable problems but we need to be solving them. Otherwise, EVs will plateau as more people start to recognize these factors.
Generally, the grid will need to grow a little bit in capacity long term but actually not that much. We're talking 1.x not 2 x or more. And more like 1.2 x than 1.8x. The biggest issues are with the last mile rather than the amount of power. All solvable; just means a lot of work that people will pay for to get done. E.g. solar panels and EVs are a popular combo you see a lot in many suburbs. It makes economic sense to do it. Those EVs are not a burden on the grid and those households are probably net electricity suppliers even.
Having a few tens of GWH of driving batteries on the road could actually help soak up a lot of excess renewable power off peak. In many places this is already something that grid suppliers incentivize and a great easy way to balance the grid. In some cases there are even negative tariffs (i.e. you earn money by charging your car). A virtual power plant based on millions of EVs would dwarf any nuclear plant in terms of instantly available GW and would actually be able to provide power to the grid in case of spikes. One of Tesla's little side businesses that might actually work out. E.g. 1 KW times a million cars would be a about a GW of power. Realistically, you'd probably provide power at the same rate you charge. So something like 5 to 10 KW at home. Millions of cars plugged in when they are not driving (i.e. most of the time) would actually be a pretty awesome virtual power plant. The only snag might be that demand for that power might not be there most of the time because as argued capacity won't need to grow that much. Mostly it's just about stabilizing the grid.
Regarding your second point, recent hurricanes and other natural disasters have quite convincingly shown that gasoline infrastructure is actually not that robust and typically starts failing when these events happen. The added demand for things like generators typically does not help. Basically fuel stations need electricity and when the power goes, they also stop working even when they haven't run out yet. And that's aside from supply issues which typically also become a thing.
EVs are pretty easy to charge. You don't even need the grid for that. E.g. Solar panels on people's houses work fine when the grid fails for example. Many charging stations have solar panels or wind nearby (and batteries). Other EVs can be used for charging as well if the need arises. In emergencies you can even put up mobile charging points powered using batteries or fuel cells. And you can run your house off them as well during a power outage. As EVs become more popular, petrol infrastructure will go in decline and become less reliable. Some petrol stations will close, the remaining ones will sell less fuel. Etc. Especially, remote areas will likely to have more supply issues as that happens.
There is no way most governments will be able to provide suitable infrastructure in the near future.
building a car is about more than just the engine. It’s about the supply chain, it’s about parts, it’s about service. Toyota and Honda have a lot more experience in this area than a new-ish car manufacturer. They also build reliable, great cars that I like owning and driving.
I like how everyone is up in arms about Toyota doing something [that serves their interest; in a legal way] to influence the government but people pretend Tesla is such a success story, ignoring all the money the govn has pumped into it.
As for Tesla’s government money, ev credits are available to all manufacturers, it’s not Tesla’s fault others can’t make compelling electric vehicles. All other government loans have been paid back in full.
Maybe you should read more than just headlines
were do you draw the line between legal and illegal. right or wrong?
I think it’s absolutely expected for Toyota to attempt to protect their financial interests.
Attempting to slow down the de-carbonization of our transit because your company bet wrong is just evil, no way around it.
Who has the mora authority to declare that Toyota should roll over and die to attain some goal that may or may not be achievable?
False dilemma. Toyota could start making EVs instead. If they decide to (stupidly) refuse to do that, then their death would be the result of their own stubbornness, not a declared death sentence from someone else.
And as far as who has the moral authority? Anyone who stands to face the harms of global warming and not profit off it.
you have the authority to decide only to the point of electing politicians that push what you consider to be the right thing. This takes time.
How would you feel if you would personally be targeted in an effort to reduce global warming? While at the same time other actors (that basically do the same thing and/or are protected by regulations do way worse? https://thedigitalmomentum.com/the-top-five-co2-emitting-ind...)
That EV you dream of as stopping global warming may overall be responsible for more CO2 emission that my “normal” car depending on how the power you use has been generated.
Funny, a few posts ago you were talking about moral authority. Oh how the goal posts move!
Also, as a society we’ve already decided to use our legal authority to incentivize EVs, that’s what Toyota is whining about! They have lost both the political and the social (“hearts and minds”) argument, and are trying to use bribes to get their way again.
> How would you feel if you would personally be targeted in an effort to reduce global warming?
Drawing a parallel between a person being “targeted” (loaded word) and a corporation making the wrong decisions is extremely weird.
Toyota was not targeted, they failed to take advantage of the incentives available to them. Ford, Hyundai, VW, Porsche, and Tesla all took advantage of the programs available to them, Toyota did not. That’s less “targeted” and more “made a mistake”.
> That EV you dream of as stopping global warming may overall be responsible for more CO2 emission that my “normal” car depending on how the power you use has been generated.
This is actually oil industry propaganda, good to see that it still has legs.
EPA estimates show that an EV is marginally cleaner than a gasoline car for a pure coal powered grid for total emissions. Of course you have to live in West Virginia before “100% coal power” is anywhere close to an accurate approximation of what your power grid looks like.
Also, it’s not a stretch to say that Toyota’s fuel cells are powered by oil. The primary source of commercial Hydrogen is from natural gas.
I just bought a RAV4 Prime, it's a plugin hybrid. It looks like they are rolling out HV to their most popular models over the next few years. That gives them everything they need to make EV, HV, or gas vehicles for the forseeable future.
The Korean car conglomerate is definitely doing well with EVs, but if you are expecting someone to crush Toyota and/or Honda in Asian car sales especially, I'd keep an eye on Chinese EV companies. Some of them are doing wild work, and have got EV car costs down below nearly anyone else in the world with their economies of scale already. If some of those Chinese EV companies come to the American market I'm even curious if it would look just like the Honda/Toyota strategy of the 70s/80s with good value for the money cars that will surprise a lot of Americans that did not know they were looking for that sort of cheap/reliable.
Last time I was driving a Hyundai, the engine lost power in the middle of evening rush hour traffic at 65mph on I-85, and the car had half the mileage of my Corolla.
Toyota is going nowhere.
Sadly the Ioniq 5 won’t be on sale in my state. I’m considering a model Y because the range is desirable for the semi-regular camping we do.
For some reason I read that as "all I want from that area is radar guided cruise control missiles".
Not sure how well HDA 2 (their term for cruise control ) does but the older version doesn't handle sharper turns well and loses the lines briefly. New tech also steers the car out of harm's way like Tesla does so they've come a very long way.
I don't see how you can say $25k and $40k are basically the same price.
Hybrids are super easily coopted to just reinforce the status quo fossil fuel centric energy system. They’re somewhat more efficient, sure, but it’s an almost insultingly small improvement compared to BEVs and what we need to actually achieve. It would keep the same dynamic we have today where politicians are hesitant to include a carbon tax or increase fuel taxes.
So how about a compromise: every new vehicle sold must have a plug, be capable of traveling at highway speeds in pure electric, and a 40-50 mile electric range. Including hydrogen cars (which, after all, already are hybrid electric vehicles incorporating a significant lithium ion battery to provide peak power).
This would provide a natural consumer pull for electric vehicle charging infrastructure to be standard in places like apartments and houses and on street parking without hurting anyone’s current use case. It’s enough electric range so that vast majority of people could do it good 80% of the driving on pure electric. Even if you think everyone will have hydrogen cars, this reduces the number of hydrogen fueling stations needed by about a factor of 10. Major car manufacturers have been able to produce decent plug-in hybrids like this for a decade now. And it’s enough range that you could run the car purely electric if you had some reason that you had to do so, like in tunnels or city centers (although some mechanism to enforce this would be needed).
It also reduces the total amount of lithium batteries needed by a good factor of five compared to all-battery, which is important in the near term as we ramp up. And the extra 10-15kWh or so of battery is fairly trivial if you already have an electric powertrain (which HEVs and Hydrogen fuel cell cars do). At automotive volumes, that’s only an extra $1000-2000 or so of lithium ion cells and a vast reduction (>$10,000-20,000) in operating costs over the entire vehicle’s lifespan. (And actually, fuel cells have a limited lifespan, worse than large battery EVs, so making them plug in hybrids would stretch that significantly.)
I just don’t trust Toyota on this. Non-plug in hybrids and hydrogen cars just aren’t sufficient or low cost enough to operate.
Articles like this one look back with the benefit of hindsight and are written from the perspective, "Company X missed obvious trend Y and now they're in trouble". In reality, a bunch of companies made guesses about what could work in an unknown and uncertain future and some turned out to be right and others turned out to be wrong.
Edit: And to prove that I thought it was obvious a decade ago, here's my opinion from a decade ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3070004
For example EVs don't have an answer to long distance transportation yet (it should be trains, that are easily automated, but I'm not god emperor). You could imagine a future where greening that industry necessitates a storable, pumpable fuel and suddenly hydrogen infrastructure is a thing that personal vehicles could be built against.
The efficiency argument might end up being the same argument made against ray-tracing in the 3D rendering world. In that instance, the upside of have correct lighting with a simple algorithm eliminated whatever upside you could get out of a faster but more complex rasterization system. Hydrogen could easily be the way to have a single simple technology that works in all transportation cases.
Politically the powers were pushing hydrogen not long ago and nobody should be surprised if they do again.
Such things have happened, though it is rare.
The system that's supposedly smarter than the actors are under attack by those same actors because they didn't win.
Also there was very little bad about the original iPhone. It obviously lacked features compred to modern phones, but it was a fantastic device.
Developing products that are uncompetitive in the market.
As they don't enforce a complete structural upheaval in a short period, but rather promise they will support old eco systems until we are really sure what works best in the post gasoline world.
The issue that Toyota has is with government forcing them to build cars they don’t want to.
They already build hybrids but for whatever reason hybrids don’t qualify under congress.
https://www.ft.com/content/771498b8-9457-462f-aee0-e32db14ee...
Unless battery reuse is made viable there is no path forward for any future mass market in EV's. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-World-Will-Ru...
Given that gasoline continues to easily provide the most bang for the buck/weight/volume IMO hybrids are the logical way forward until grids are recreated to cater to Small Nuclear Reactors and rewired to handle volume electrical delivery.
Hybrids are the worst of both electric and combustion powertrains, their time has passed. Small nuclear reactors aren't ever going to happen (can't compete economically with solar/wind backed by batteries).