Hacker News Reader

> This huge battery, of which maybe 1/4 or 1/3 is used throughout a day, is a huge inefficiency to manufacture and adds significantly to the CO2 footprint of BEVs.

No, it doesn't. This myth has been repeated over and over for twenty-plus years, as long as the Prius has been around. The CO2 footprint of the battery is dwarfed by the footprint of the car as a whole, and the in the case of a gasoline vehicle, its manufacturing footprint is dwarfed by its CO2 emissions: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l...

A BEV is better for the environment after barely a year of usage:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifeti...

There are other reasons for having a larger battery. For one, the larger the pack, the less wear on the pack; a smaller pack would be cycled more, and degrade sooner.

Charge/discharge rates are a function of battery capacity. The higher the rate relative to the pack's capacity, the higher the wear on the battery.

In that IEA page picture the battery emissions for the BEV are 2.6 tons and the rest of the manufacturing is 5.4 tons. Electricity over the lifetime is counted as 11.7 more tons. I'd count the 2.6 tons as adding significantly to the footprint.

>people with PHEVs ignore the plug-in functionality and drive it on gas the whole time.

even in that case PHEV gets much better mileage than pure ICE and thus is a significant improvement.

I think the problem with Toyota is that Japan seems to be targeting hydrogen (in particular there were plans for large wind farms on Kuril islands with production of hydrogen and transporting it to Japan), and Toyota probably has bought into that strategy, and thus considers PHEV/BEV as temporary solution, and thus even not investing much in BEV. Hydrogen in a bunch of aspects is better than BEV, and its main issue - infrastructure - is what Japan is perfectly capable of doing. Other countries are very different from Japan, and this is i think where Toyota's miscalculation comes in - the other countries are transitioning to BEV much faster and doing it as as main approach and without any plans for hydrogen totally disregarding that supposedly, under some conditions, better approach. Hydrogen is the Betamax so to speak.

Also consider that the car battery is essentially a storage device for rooftop solar, and can potentially replace grid usage at night time.

It is unfortunate to be hauling around a heavy battery that isn't required for short commutes, but the utility doesn't end with transportation alone.

There's no such thing as range anxiety, there's only range inconvenience

But that's the whole problem, people aren't going to change their convenient lifestyles unless forced to.

That's why everything should be taxed the amount it costs to clean up the pollution it causes.

Sorry I have owned PHEVs and EVs. For someone who has access to a charging point (either at home or nearby) EVs are just all around better. PHEVs were great 15-20 years ago. But time has moved on, and EVs are considerably better on maintenance, acceleration/deceleration (ie, more fun) as well as environment as the emit zero local CO2 and with solar, zero completely.

I saw a lot of EVs being rented on my recent vacation.

You can complain about the myth that batteries are somehow more polluting that the entire supply chain of petroleum (extraction->refining->transport->storage->burning in your car) but the tens of thousands of superfund sites that are gas stations are evidence that's not the case.

What PHEV you owned 15-20 years ago? I thought it's a fairly recent innovation, started around the Prius Plugin in 2012.

> I think I share support for this argument and might have even posted it on HN previously.

It’s hard to tell. Your account was created only 20 hours ago. Maybe you posted it with a different handle?

I guess I have similar idea. Yep, for sure electrify would simply lots of things, but is it really necessary to carry a such gigantic battery? Carrying a much lighter ICE and fuels might be more economical, or even better fuel cells. If we can get hydrogen fuel cells working, it would be even better.

Unfortunately, it's not uncommon that inferior but cheaper solutions won the competitions. Let's wait and see.

The economicals of a running car are not difficult: how many $ are I spending to travel 100 km? Turns out that EV is currently the cheapest one. Also PHEV are not that efficient, at around 50 MPG. Compare that with more than 100-110 MPG equivalent for a Tesla or a Nissan Leaf. Or compare that with an efficient ICE like the Mazda 2, 35 MPG.

Guys from Toyota PR could talk about how expensive are the batteries or the cars themselves. But in terms of moving "giantic" batteries they seem pretty OK in terms of efficiency.

The anti-BEV folks seem to be stuck on old arguments that either weren't true in the first place or were true a few years ago but not anymore due to rapid change. The batteries are a small part of the CO2 footprint of a car as a whole, even a large battery. And they take much less energy to produce today than 10 years ago, this is reflected in the plummeting cost of battery production.

Your argument is like criticizing the increase in compute power 20 years ago, asking why do people need such fast, power heavy CPUs to do email and spreadsheets, but that led to far more efficient computers today that also enable us to do really cool things. With everyone having huge batteries, you can do things like virtual power plants where the power direction is reversed and consumers can send power back to the grid when necessary instead of a power plant having to dispatch its on-demand carbon heavy production. I think this is already being tested out on a small scale.

Prius isn't light either (1500 kg) vs Tesla 3 (1800). Funny how for the last 10 years the main problem for EV was low range, and now the problem is... too much range?

Toyota is free to make PHEVs, people is free to buy PHEVs or EVs. We'll see who ends up being the Beta (claimed superior by fans but zero sells) and the VHS.