Yes. The affordability issues do not seem to affect Chinese car manufacturers, who are producing EV cars that are quite economical without subsidies.

EV's may introduce new challenges for the grid, but when a country is unable or unwilling to fix that then all those batteries could also present an opportunity to balance that same grid using software.

The problem that they do not mention is that they have huge investments in engine manufacturing that are useless for EV's. EV's are much simpler technology, the only hard parts are batteries and software.

Switching too fast will make their existing manufacturing capabilities worthless, and this is what is really threatening them. That is also making EV's "expensive" to build for them (but not for Tesla, or anyone building new factories).

I think that anyone in a developed country buying an ICE car now is already throwing money out the window: a few years from now nobody will want it anymore, depreciation will be very high.

Their points are not insurmountable and apply even more strongly to HFC. However, Toyota is still lobbying and advertising heavily on HFC, so it is hard not to question the good faith behind their arguments

Toyota's points from the article: “If we are to make dramatic progress in electrification, it will require overcoming tremendous challenges, including refueling infrastructure, battery availability, consumer acceptance, and affordability”

None of these argue against EV cars. Instead, these issues will control the adoption rate.

If you say there aren’t enough charging stations, people will say there is not enough demand. Then you argue against increasing demand because there are not enough charging stations? That’s idiocy.

It’s a common form of idiocy - “we can’t build this thing because it’s not built yet” is a fallacy that deserves its own name.

Anyway, the magic of capitalism is that other people will build it and Toyota can retire if that’s what they want to do.