Toyota Touts Solid State EVs with 932-Mile Range, 10-Minute Charging by 2027
pcmag.com
pcmag.com
What are you saying? That they aren't doing research? That they are straight-out lying?
I don't see this as in conflict with their claims that EVs, as is, aren't the future.
It isn't possible to leapfrog everyone in EVs when you've been trying hard to milk your existing factories and products instead of getting any experience actually building and selling them.
I owned a Prius when they were new and I fully expected Toyota to become the world leader in EVs. Had they done that, I would also believe this battery story. But not today.
If the article didn't specifically mention that their plans involved some new formulation of Lithium Iron Phosphate I'd have expected "solid state EVs" to just be fresh marketing hype of Hydrogen fuel cells, because of Toyota's recent history.
Toyota has been correct that hybrids have been the best setup for the past 10 and next 10 years. Charging infra is catching up but a major bottleneck. Range too.
You get way more zero emission VMT using batteries in the HEV and PHEV role. A lot of BEVs are second or third cars for wealthy people who keep some sort of ICE as well. Those cars don't generate lots of VMT so their batteries are effectively being wasted.
In terms of 6 PHEV to 1 EV. This math comes with a lot of issues. First, it only works if people actually plug in their PHEV constantly and evince shows that they don't. And if you don't a PHEV is just a ICE vehicle with a shitty engine.
Plus the issue with PHEV is that they are expensive and complex to produce. Most car companies don't really like them because its hard to make any money on them and unlike with BEV there isn't a path to making money on them in the future. Specially as the ICE supply chain increasingly goes away.
Also even if Toyota thinks PHEV are good, there clearly is a large demand for BEV and Toyota is large enough that they could have done both just fine. Had they just invested in BEV instead of Hydrogen maybe they could be a leading player in HEV, PHEV and BEV.
The Gorilla in the Room for fossil fuel emissions is Russia and OPEC. Are Russia and OPEC going to walk away from trillions of dollars of oil wealth?
Are the developing nations, like India, going to walk away from cheap ICE technologies, for more expensive and complex green technologies?
If not, all the aggressive switching by the OECD nations is for naught.
Toyota believes the developing world will still want ICEs for a long time, and the oil nations will still want to sell it.
Petroleum fuels are easy to store and transport in low infrastructure environments. Many areas don't have strong electric grids, they don't have 24hr electricity, and even if they do it's not reliable. They rely on inexpensive two and three wheeled vehicles extensively, much more than developed nations.
Mobility is needed for them to feed themselves and progress. It isn't a "nice-to-have", it's a necessity for life. This isn't going to change anytime soon.
Globally yes, but in many places where there is lots of BEV takeup, this isn't the case.
Additionally you are ignoring that a vehicle with a 25 year lifetime will have improving carbon efficency.
You are also ignoring the single most important thing, pollution of case and coal plants are not produced right in cities where lots of people breath.
> Russia ... India
I'm not sure why you are expanding the discussion to these topics.
> If not, all the aggressive switching by the OECD nations is for naught.
This is a bad attitude. You can't just lose all hope and never do anything because India exists.
Proving green technology on large scale and driving down cost will have an impact on India and other nations too. EV cars are constitutionally simpler then ICE vehicles and have the potential to be cheaper eventually.
The emissions in city alone make switching worth it. The cars are also just straight better in terms of driving.
> Toyota believes the developing world will still want ICEs for a long time, and the oil nations will still want to sell it.
That's a straw man argument. I never said they should stop developing ICE or stop selling ICE in the developed world or even stop selling them in the West.
I said Toyota should stop bullshitting, pretending the EV isn't already a gigantic market and that lots costumers want EVs. Toyota basically claims EV currently are trash and nobody wants them (that is true for their own EVs).
Toyota clearly wanted to be innovative and focused on Hydrogen and it went nowhere (except for the government money going to their pocket). Toyota while claiming they are pro environment is pushing against all emissions regulation, wonder why that is.
Shame on all who continue to push hydrogen tech for selfish reasons.
https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7a...
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/63-paul-marti...
>FCEVs are also EVs
This is a meaningless statement within the context of the FCEV vs BEV discussion. You keep saying it, so presumably you think it makes you sound clever? It doesn't. It has the opposite effect.
BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy. When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.
In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.
Also, it does not take that much energy to compress gas. Advancements in technology will reduce this to a tiny amount: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...
Sure it can get better, so can BEVs. I don’t see hydrogen winning though, electricity is just so pervasive while the infrastructure for hydrogen would have to be built out, and people might not want to go back to the gas station model after they are used to just charging at home.
They might work out for truck transport given the weight savings, and easier deployment of hydrogen infrastructure at truck stops.
Most of the arguments against hydrogen cars are just attempts to defend BEVs, not serious arguments against them. BEV advocates can't even acknowledge that millions of people live in apartments or condos, and will probably never have convenient access to charging systems. They pretty much require an alternative.
Millions of people live in condos and apartments without access to even parking, they park on the street I guess in countries that allow that (many countries require that you show proof of parking spot before they’ll sell you a vehicle). Norway is already at 50%, it’s not going to be even a contest in most countries that don’t have America’s flaky parking arrangements.
These are just excuses that exist to defend BEVs. They are not serious arguments. It is ironically just a repeat of anti-BEVs arguments, just by BEV fans against the next big idea this time. I guess just like Reddit turning into the next Digg, history sometimes repeats like this.
Hydrogen fuel cells are economically non-starters for all but a few niche applications. Toyota is just so sunk cost on it and behind on BEVs that they are desperate to make hydrogen happen even when it clear isn’t.
Going with a lower pressure tank saves money at the cost of reduced range. The problem is booting a hydrogen station network big enough to support a low range FCV (< 200 miles).
But even building expensive carbon fiber high pressure tanks is going to eventually be much cheaper than huge batteries filled with semi-rare minerals that will increase in price as battery market demand increases. We should talk about what peak <Battery Mineral> will mean alongside Peak Oil.
Funny how despite it being so simply all car companies still struggle to actually produce a fuel cell car at sane costs.
> A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs.
This is just factually wrong.
And in the cases its true its because the company selling them is actually losing absurd amounts of money per car. While on the other hand Tesla has a 20% margin on their BEVs.
Lets compare in the real world. I just checked, I can get a Long Range Tesla Model 3 for the same price as a Toyota Mirai and Tesla has far, far cheaper fuel costs and many extras not included in the Toyota.
Tesla live cycle cost are far lower, this isn't up for debate, its a simple fact.
> BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy.
Funny how there are many millions of BEV sold and Toyota can barley sell a few 1000s highly subsidies FCEVs.
And how every industry prediction is suggesting 50% growth over the next couple years for BEV and barley and growth for FCEV.
> When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.
You are a hilarious joker. Pretty much every car company in the world not in Japan is fully committed to transitioning to BEV and are investing 1000s of billion.
FCEV isn't even a rounding error. Tesla produces more Model Y per week then Toyota FCEV sales per year.
> In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.
Everybody knows that FCEVs are EV but FCEV are so irrelevant in the real world that nobody even considers talking about them. Its like saying Birds are dinosaurs, ok I guess that's strictly speaking true but its simply a irrelevant fact for 99.99999999% of the population.
FCEV for cars is dead. You sound like time traveler from early 2000s who has been left behind.
The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make. Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars. Making it a far better economic choice.
Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion. It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s. Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.
FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea: A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery. That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.
I'm sorry but evaluating production cost when only a few 1000 are produced is pointless.
No independent company has done a public costing of these cars.
The sales price is not reflective of production cost on such low volumes.
> The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make.
You are just straight up disagreeing with every automotive engineer that I have seen talking about this topic.
It literally has every interface a BEV has plus a lot of very, very complex stuff on top of that.
> Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars.
Assertions without evidence.
> Making it a far better economic choice.
The fuel cost alone will make sure its never the economic choice.
> Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion.
The lithium ion battery is the innovation and that has been commercialized in 1991. Fuel cells have been commercialized for far, far, far longer.
> It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s.
Except you know, like totally different batteries, far more advanced electronics and so on.
Its just an utterly silly comparison. The range was the issue with BEV in 1900 and now we have better batteries. And as a bonus far better electronics.
> Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.
Exact that the fundamental weakness was that batteries back then were heavy, short range and slow charge. And now batteries are comparatively far lighter, have a range that is more then sufficent and charge rates have gone up by a gigantic amount.
So quite literally ever issue has been addressed.
And reality reflects this, as today millions of EV are sold every year.
> FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea
Yeah a revolution from 1960 rather then 1920. How advanced.
> A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery.
FCEV do need a battery. Jesus have you actually at how a FCEV works in the real world?
> how loudly you boast about the BEV
> That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.
I'm not 'boast', I'm just point out basic facts.
The real world and the real world has already decided. The technology race is over, you are like somebody advocating for Betamax in the late 1990s.
We are not even talking about a 10x difference, not 100x difference more like a 1000x difference in total sales. Pretty much ever car maker except those in Japan have made up their mind. Research in FHEV has essentially collapsed.
You are literally living in a delusional fantasy land you have constructed in your had that is just utterly devoid of reality.
The hope remains alive in the heavy duty truck market but even there is not looking good and just like in cars they will get their ass kicked.
So my advice for the pro hydrogen crowed, is start claiming hydrogen is great for trucks for a few years and once that gig stops being credibly move on to ships.
Clearly they would have preferred to make some of that profit instead.
“Why bother making a competitive EV in 2023 when we know Superman is coming to earth and bringing Kryptonite batteries with him in 2027?”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/car-market-analysis-1.68737...
Toyota can't even produce gas minivans for the market without a similar wait. It is not a credible source of anything right now.
(it would be nice if both things happened, but I view them as ~equally likely)
Could this battery tech be used elsewhere too? For example, in mobile phones.
And now the commercialization of these batteries is still as far away as they were back then.
And Toyota also talk about them first being used in PHEV suggesting that they expect pretty low volume at first.
Even if (and that a very big if) Toyota can have some products, with this in 2027 it will take years and years to get to a serious volume that matters in the EV market.
The problem is Toyota is not credible, they have been talking for decades but have never had any independent verification of anything. If they were a startup they would be laughed out of the room.
Car batteries and EV batteries are quite different and have different specifications. However in general yes, if Toyota really had figured out solid state technology, it might also improve phones. But they are different, it would be a lot of work both for the battery and to build a manufacturing plant for smaller batteries. In general if you have something that can break into the gigantic BEV market you don't bother with phones, its just distraction, scaling 1 cell to maximum volume is the major focus.
There are already other innovations that help improve battery tech in phones, like silicon anodes (Sila for example) that is already going into consumer electronics.
Both for consumer electronics and for cars its questionable if Solid state will ever be the correct answer and if so then when it will be dominate.