Toyota to spend 1.5T yen on EV battery development(asahi.com)
asahi.com
Toyota to spend 1.5T yen on EV battery development
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14436029
246 comments
I own a Corolla Hybrid which gives 57 MPG combined and am pretty happy with it considering I got it under $25K. Now Toyota knew that their Hybrid electric systems are working great as they are a leader in it and selling millions of such vehicles over the years and still they have not trusted the electric batteries enough and went on Hydrogen fuel cell side. Very perplexing to me!
My, possibly mistaken, understanding has been that the deep dive into hydrogen was a broader National level push in Japan.
If I’m not mistaken, the idea I believe was that if they settled on and developed hydrogen infrastructure, that would power not just cars, but also heavy machinery, etc that other parts of the Honda/Toyota/Mitsubishi/etc conglomerates could use.
If I’m not mistaken, the idea I believe was that if they settled on and developed hydrogen infrastructure, that would power not just cars, but also heavy machinery, etc that other parts of the Honda/Toyota/Mitsubishi/etc conglomerates could use.
This might be it, but it bled over into their internal efforts and they got too focused on the political side and less on what would work for customers.
Politicians like hydrogen because if you ignore all the crap to get their (drilling for fossil fuels, separation, energy use in compression, transport, capital costs of building networks etc) you get that picture of water out of a tailpipe. The physics of it remain very poor.
Politicians like hydrogen because if you ignore all the crap to get their (drilling for fossil fuels, separation, energy use in compression, transport, capital costs of building networks etc) you get that picture of water out of a tailpipe. The physics of it remain very poor.
There’s a gas field in disputed area in East China Sea, which some says could produce hydrogen at scale, and energy self sufficiency had been an ambition of the country for … some time. There’s no equivalent oil field or Uranium deposit.
Most of the clean hydrogen production schemes I've seen are pipe dreams or scams, but happy to be shown something here.
As a point of ref we have relatively clean electricity generation already (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear) depending on what you count.
Any indication how close to production this east china sea resource is? How willing China is to let Japan develop it or is it already well developed? Again - these are often pipe dream type ideas.
As a point of ref we have relatively clean electricity generation already (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear) depending on what you count.
Any indication how close to production this east china sea resource is? How willing China is to let Japan develop it or is it already well developed? Again - these are often pipe dream type ideas.
It’s not happening, and there’s zero reason China is willing to give in, but sort of remains as an ambition. Yeah pipe dream is probably spot on.
I think it has more to do with external independence/isolationism, than about environments theme, carrying over from the century before. I don’t understand why the government just go double down on nuclear fuel cycle concept but maybe there are too much political complications in it.
I think it has more to do with external independence/isolationism, than about environments theme, carrying over from the century before. I don’t understand why the government just go double down on nuclear fuel cycle concept but maybe there are too much political complications in it.
@numpad0 Is it the Chunxiao gas field [1] that you’re thinking of?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunxiao_gas_field
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunxiao_gas_field
Same understanding. Is there any credible report about this? It seems like a nation-level scanadal. Singlehandedly may have created a trillion dollar market cap for Tesla.
Exactly this.
The prius was AMAZING.
Their other hybrids also great. They had aero down, ev engines down, power management down.
It's so weird to see them fight EV's so hard for so long.
The prius was AMAZING.
Their other hybrids also great. They had aero down, ev engines down, power management down.
It's so weird to see them fight EV's so hard for so long.
It's a safe bet some top brass in the company was playing a visionary with hydrogen.
It was apparently a push by the Japanese government.
One may wonder where the Japanese government got this idea from..
One of the arguments is that if battery production is limited it's better to spread the batteries out over a larger number of vehicles.
For example, the RAV4 Hybrid has a 1.6KWH battery (and NiMH to boot), the RAV4 Prime (plug-in with 42 miles of EV range) has a 16KWH battery, a similar Model Y has an 75 KWH battery.
For example, the RAV4 Hybrid has a 1.6KWH battery (and NiMH to boot), the RAV4 Prime (plug-in with 42 miles of EV range) has a 16KWH battery, a similar Model Y has an 75 KWH battery.
My next car is a hybrid Corolla (current is a regular one). I live the damn things. Hopefully the hybrid is offered as a hatchback as well.
> considering I got it under $25K
Doesn't this answer the question? Batteries were and are still too expensive.
Doesn't this answer the question? Batteries were and are still too expensive.
First Prius with Hybrid system and electric batteries launched in 1997. So if Toyota would have followed its Kaizen/Continuous Improvement philosophy to improve electric batteries for last 24 years, they would have been way ahead in electrification especially battery tech and efficiency. That's the point.
> Their hybrid power trains had everything needed, they literally had power mgmt, battery, electric motors etc.
They don't have what they would need in the battery dept - and the battery is the most important part of an EV. The Prius has a NiMH battery, which has lower energy density than Li-ion and other newer chemistries.
The (non-plugin) Prius can get by with the NiMH battery because the battery is only used for regen braking energy capture and acceleration at low speeds, not for high amounts of energy storage or power output. For those it uses gasoline and the ICE engine.
They don't have what they would need in the battery dept - and the battery is the most important part of an EV. The Prius has a NiMH battery, which has lower energy density than Li-ion and other newer chemistries.
The (non-plugin) Prius can get by with the NiMH battery because the battery is only used for regen braking energy capture and acceleration at low speeds, not for high amounts of energy storage or power output. For those it uses gasoline and the ICE engine.
The Prius had a NiMH battery. Current production Priuses (Prii?) almost all* use lithium-ion batteries, from the 2016 model year (fourth-generation/XW50) on.
* A subset of fourth-gen Priuses, those equipped with all-wheel drive, went back to NiMH for better cold-weather performance.
* A subset of fourth-gen Priuses, those equipped with all-wheel drive, went back to NiMH for better cold-weather performance.
My Corolla Hybrid has a Li-Ion battery as well.
Latest Toyota's Ni-MH density is 1000Wh/L that outperform latest Li-ion. Maybe Wh/kg isn't good for BEV but maybe fine for HEV and possibly PHEV. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27890676
Yep. Interesting that a 3rd party has developed and released a LiFePO4 battery pack for the Prius [0]. It is cheaper than the OEM NiMH pack. I'm on some Prius forums and it has been interesting to see the amount of detail owners get into, from replacing cells in their OEM packs, to upgrades, to eeking out every bit of performance. Toyota had a huge advantage with their brand and some fanatical customers that they totally blew by not going full EV.
[0] - https://projectlithium.com/products/prius-lithium-replacemen...
[0] - https://projectlithium.com/products/prius-lithium-replacemen...
The toyota I desperately want them to sell is a plug in prius - pre-2018’s fugly makeover - with a decent LIon pack, let’s say 30kWh, with the more recent PiP’s max EV speed of 80mph.
The hydrogen distraction is baffling.
The hydrogen distraction is baffling.
Hmm, perfect is the enemy of the good and all? I have that... er, 'made-over' Prius, the Prime PHEV, and while its puny 8.8kWh LiIon battery could certainly be bigger, it's enough that 75% of all my driving is electric-only.
I’m driving the 2013 Plug-in Prius (UK name for the Prime I think ?) with the 4.4kWh pack. I get 25% EV.
Maybe 20kWh would be enough to get it to 90%+ for most people ?
That, in my opinion, is pretty close to problem sorted in terms of decarbonisation of transport. Toyota could have had it in the bag by now.
Maybe 20kWh would be enough to get it to 90%+ for most people ?
That, in my opinion, is pretty close to problem sorted in terms of decarbonisation of transport. Toyota could have had it in the bag by now.
I agree - most drivers only need to get around town for commuting and errands most of the time (and batteries bigger than 20kWh take a long time to charge without a dedicated charger at home).
The original Plug-In Prius is quite different from the Prime[1] though, the original was spun off the Gen 3 Prius, the Prime is even a little farther from the Gen 4.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid#XW...
The original Plug-In Prius is quite different from the Prime[1] though, the original was spun off the Gen 3 Prius, the Prime is even a little farther from the Gen 4.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid#XW...
Hydrogen was a cynical distraction to give legislators something to push 'in the future' while allowing car manufacturers to continue with business as usual.
(Of course, governments the world over leapt at hydrogen and clung on for dear life because it was the only renewable vehicle tech that preserved the current fuel distribution model and so allowed them to keep supporting road infrastructure with fuel taxes. They saw the legislative advantage, physical efficiency was nothing to do with it.)
Toyota had something special back in the 80s and early 90s and it seems like they lost it. Was there some key innovator high up in the company who retired some time around then?
(Of course, governments the world over leapt at hydrogen and clung on for dear life because it was the only renewable vehicle tech that preserved the current fuel distribution model and so allowed them to keep supporting road infrastructure with fuel taxes. They saw the legislative advantage, physical efficiency was nothing to do with it.)
Toyota had something special back in the 80s and early 90s and it seems like they lost it. Was there some key innovator high up in the company who retired some time around then?
Additionally, now China companies dominating massive Li-ion manufacturing for EV, like solar panels (despite their energy still heavily use coals). It's natural that other governments don't want core industry to rely on them, but still climate change is a thing so they discovering alternatives.
One tiny detail about Toyota. They didn’t chronologically move to hydrogen after their initial forays into electric. They always explored both, with most of their efforts on hydrogen.
So imagine if instead of concurrently trying to make hydrogen happen while their side-gig of hybrids managed to completely corner the market, they went all in on electric. It would be a very different car market.
So imagine if instead of concurrently trying to make hydrogen happen while their side-gig of hybrids managed to completely corner the market, they went all in on electric. It would be a very different car market.
This. Not sure why OP think they went all in to hydrogen at all.
Just like every other car manufacture they couldn't quite put the numbers together on how Battery EV will work without a ridiculous amount of investment or bet. It is worth remembering they are primarily a car manufacture, not battery manufacture. Now things have changed not only because the path is clearer, and numbers are easier to do with less risk, ( big enterprise are risk averse ), but more importantly Investors loves EV. It doesn't matter if you have no concrete plan to make profit out of EV, your stock price will rise, and this has an effect on management, board, banks, cash flow, all sort of things.
Although I am skeptical of Solid State Battery, I would have thought a conservative company like Toyota would have went with conventional Li Battery with Silicon Anode type.
Just like every other car manufacture they couldn't quite put the numbers together on how Battery EV will work without a ridiculous amount of investment or bet. It is worth remembering they are primarily a car manufacture, not battery manufacture. Now things have changed not only because the path is clearer, and numbers are easier to do with less risk, ( big enterprise are risk averse ), but more importantly Investors loves EV. It doesn't matter if you have no concrete plan to make profit out of EV, your stock price will rise, and this has an effect on management, board, banks, cash flow, all sort of things.
Although I am skeptical of Solid State Battery, I would have thought a conservative company like Toyota would have went with conventional Li Battery with Silicon Anode type.
A lot of their current models are available as hybrids with great efficiency. I drove a new venza hybrid last week and it got low 40s mpg!
They aren’t as behind as you’d think given that a hybrid still makes more sense than an ev to a lot of people. A reliable hybrid that just works is what people need. More so with their adaptive cruise control.
Could they have done better? Sure. It’s hard to say different given their size and culture.
Also, GM had the EV1 years before …
They aren’t as behind as you’d think given that a hybrid still makes more sense than an ev to a lot of people. A reliable hybrid that just works is what people need. More so with their adaptive cruise control.
Could they have done better? Sure. It’s hard to say different given their size and culture.
Also, GM had the EV1 years before …
40 mpg is what you got 15 years ago in Ford Focus 2 Wagon 1.4 tcdi.
Yeah but then you are driving a shitty underpowered diesel.
The real question would be :
Why aren’t the euro manufacturers building hybrid diesel powertrains? A small modern Diesel engine coupled to an electric motor would certainly provide more mpgs.
The real question would be :
Why aren’t the euro manufacturers building hybrid diesel powertrains? A small modern Diesel engine coupled to an electric motor would certainly provide more mpgs.
Because Atkinson cycle gas ICE has about the same efficiency as a diesel ICE (about 40%), but is a lot simpler and cheaper to produce. Gasoline cost is just one factor. There are also maintenance costs and turbodiesels lose pretty badly there. It is also harder to get emissions other than CO2 low in a diesel engine (you need DPF, EGR, all of that adds complexity and decreases durability).
I feel pretty well placed to answer this as in my country most cars are diesel, my summer project has been fixing an old diesel engine, and I drive a Prius :-)
- Diesel engines are more complicated than petrol engines. You have a high pressure fuel injection system and turbo(s), which both need significant maintenance approximately every 150,000km. If you don't you'll end up burning excess fuel or oil (that's what happens when you see a diesel vehicle with plumes of black or white smoke under acceleration) which is obviously not good in terms of pollution. If you leave it, eventually your engine will blow up (the turbo will leak oil into the intake air leading to hydrolock, or injectors will put in too much fuel wearing down the cylinder). Compare this to a petrol engine, where maybe you need to replace the spark plugs, and if you don't the worse that could happen is misfires or the engine simply not starting.
- Diesel engines emit a lot more NoX emissions than petrol which needs complicated filters in the exhaust to remove. DPF filters are usually removed after 150,000km because they end up clogged (causing loss of power, higher fuel consumption, and can damage the engine). You can't actually buy new replacements - I don't know why - and 'regeneration' doesn't really work, so they are usually just cut out. In Europe NoX is regulated by the engine class (e.g. Euro 6) when it is manufactured, not during regular emissions checks, so this doesn't cause you to fail that. AdBlue is slightly better, but there are already devices you can plug into cars to disable the system, which many people (and companies) do.
- Diesel engines don't operate well when cold. All modern engines have glow plugs (electric resistance heaters) which heat up the engine block when you turn on the ignition. I imagine this wouldn't work well with a hybrid system where the engine doesn't run as often.
- Diesel engines have a much higher compression than petrol, and use compression to ignite the fuel. This means the cranking power needed to start the engine is a lot higher. For parallel hybrids (like the Prius) this shouldnt be an issue, as the same motors for driving are used to crank the engine, but I imagine it may be more tricky to make that transition smooth compared to petrol. Same when the engine cuts off, as you don't just cut power to the spark plugs to stop it.
- Diesel engines are only usually available in larger sizes because it's not economical to produce a 1.0 litre diesel engine. This would mean a diesel hybrid would be more expensive than a petrol hybrid, and would probably need a larger engine bay.
- Petrol hybrids usually use the Atkinson cycle which is more efficient and provides more torque towards higher RPMs. The electric motor provides the high torque at low RPMs so it works well together. Diesel engines typically provide higher torque at lower RPMs, and need a turbocharger to provide any useful torque at higher RPMs, so it's the opposite of what a parallel hybrid needs. I'm not sure if there are any alternative cycles for diesel engines that would work better for a hybrid.
- After VWs scandal I feel diesel has lost a lot of political clout.
That said, I am jealous of the Audi A2 1.2l 45kW diesel which has a much lower fuel consumption than my Prius :-)
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/3-Audi/19-A2.html
- Diesel engines are more complicated than petrol engines. You have a high pressure fuel injection system and turbo(s), which both need significant maintenance approximately every 150,000km. If you don't you'll end up burning excess fuel or oil (that's what happens when you see a diesel vehicle with plumes of black or white smoke under acceleration) which is obviously not good in terms of pollution. If you leave it, eventually your engine will blow up (the turbo will leak oil into the intake air leading to hydrolock, or injectors will put in too much fuel wearing down the cylinder). Compare this to a petrol engine, where maybe you need to replace the spark plugs, and if you don't the worse that could happen is misfires or the engine simply not starting.
- Diesel engines emit a lot more NoX emissions than petrol which needs complicated filters in the exhaust to remove. DPF filters are usually removed after 150,000km because they end up clogged (causing loss of power, higher fuel consumption, and can damage the engine). You can't actually buy new replacements - I don't know why - and 'regeneration' doesn't really work, so they are usually just cut out. In Europe NoX is regulated by the engine class (e.g. Euro 6) when it is manufactured, not during regular emissions checks, so this doesn't cause you to fail that. AdBlue is slightly better, but there are already devices you can plug into cars to disable the system, which many people (and companies) do.
- Diesel engines don't operate well when cold. All modern engines have glow plugs (electric resistance heaters) which heat up the engine block when you turn on the ignition. I imagine this wouldn't work well with a hybrid system where the engine doesn't run as often.
- Diesel engines have a much higher compression than petrol, and use compression to ignite the fuel. This means the cranking power needed to start the engine is a lot higher. For parallel hybrids (like the Prius) this shouldnt be an issue, as the same motors for driving are used to crank the engine, but I imagine it may be more tricky to make that transition smooth compared to petrol. Same when the engine cuts off, as you don't just cut power to the spark plugs to stop it.
- Diesel engines are only usually available in larger sizes because it's not economical to produce a 1.0 litre diesel engine. This would mean a diesel hybrid would be more expensive than a petrol hybrid, and would probably need a larger engine bay.
- Petrol hybrids usually use the Atkinson cycle which is more efficient and provides more torque towards higher RPMs. The electric motor provides the high torque at low RPMs so it works well together. Diesel engines typically provide higher torque at lower RPMs, and need a turbocharger to provide any useful torque at higher RPMs, so it's the opposite of what a parallel hybrid needs. I'm not sure if there are any alternative cycles for diesel engines that would work better for a hybrid.
- After VWs scandal I feel diesel has lost a lot of political clout.
That said, I am jealous of the Audi A2 1.2l 45kW diesel which has a much lower fuel consumption than my Prius :-)
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/overview/3-Audi/19-A2.html
Not in city driving. I own a hybrid Highlander and in city driving it burns considerably less gas than Ford Galaxy or VW Sharan with a diesel engine, despite being bigger, heavier and more powerful at the same time. I agree that on a highway hybrids are very close to diesels in terms of mpg.
They also produced 2 generations of RAV4 EV's, the second of which they partnered with Tesla on.
>The mind boggles a bit to imagine what might have been for them if they had just moved forward on hybrid, plug in hybrid, full EV path. They could have blended that mix more and more until full EV.
i think there is a speadsheet somewhere inside Toyota where your "nightmarish" - because it cannibalizes significant share of the current revenue from hybrids - scenario is precisely described. The fear of cannibalization of current cash cow (and related internal uphill battle with the top management milking the cow) is frequently the reason behind seemingly obvious blunders by BigCo-s.
i think there is a speadsheet somewhere inside Toyota where your "nightmarish" - because it cannibalizes significant share of the current revenue from hybrids - scenario is precisely described. The fear of cannibalization of current cash cow (and related internal uphill battle with the top management milking the cow) is frequently the reason behind seemingly obvious blunders by BigCo-s.
Japanese govt pushed hydrogen as one "fuel" to rule them all, including household heating and cookin
I believe this is it too. Honda also has the equivalent hydrogen powered car and lack of EV's. Occam's razor says they didn't both come to that unideal scenario by chance.
How did Nissan dodge it then?
Maybe the fact that Nissan is owned by Renault has something to do with it.
Nissan wasn't "winning" like Toyota was.
While Toyota was raking in wheelbarrows of easy cash from moneyed buyers Nissan was selling Altimas for bottom dollar to people who were rolling in negative equity from a Dodge Journey.
This is standard BigCo stuff. You get a lead and you lose that lead because you don't jump hard enough onto the next big thing because you don't want to divert resources over the thing you're currently winning with. IBM, Boeing, Ford, Microsoft, they've all been down this road.
Nissan never had that lead so they had nothing to stop them from going into EVs deep enough to grab a good share of the market.
While Toyota was raking in wheelbarrows of easy cash from moneyed buyers Nissan was selling Altimas for bottom dollar to people who were rolling in negative equity from a Dodge Journey.
This is standard BigCo stuff. You get a lead and you lose that lead because you don't jump hard enough onto the next big thing because you don't want to divert resources over the thing you're currently winning with. IBM, Boeing, Ford, Microsoft, they've all been down this road.
Nissan never had that lead so they had nothing to stop them from going into EVs deep enough to grab a good share of the market.
Nissan beat Tesla by years with the first mass market EV with the Leaf. In some ways the 2022 Leaf is still a much better value than the Tesla model 3 if you don't need frequent fast charging. The price is a lot lower and the reliability and build quality are excellent.
The Leaf can fast charge and this is now included in all models, but it can only suck down 50KW vs Tesla now being able to draw 100+KW. It also uses ChaDEMO which is a fading standard, though still very common where I live. Apparently there are some converters in the works to let the Leaf charge off CCS and perhaps even the Tesla network in the future, but they'll probably cost hundreds of dollars since apparently a DC fast charge mega-dongle is not trivial.
In other news: there is now a market for dongles for cars. I have seen the future and it has a dongle.
The Leaf can fast charge and this is now included in all models, but it can only suck down 50KW vs Tesla now being able to draw 100+KW. It also uses ChaDEMO which is a fading standard, though still very common where I live. Apparently there are some converters in the works to let the Leaf charge off CCS and perhaps even the Tesla network in the future, but they'll probably cost hundreds of dollars since apparently a DC fast charge mega-dongle is not trivial.
In other news: there is now a market for dongles for cars. I have seen the future and it has a dongle.
I agree. We have a Bolt, and until recently a Tesla. If I were buying again right now, I'd get a Bolt (if there wasn't a stop-sale, at least). When we got ours, the brand-new price was $24K. For 258 miles of range, and basic 50kW fast charging, that's a ridiculous deal. For a Model 3, I'd be into it damn near twice that.
Interestingly, at work we have some DC charging stations. The "Tesla" stations are actually a ChaDEMO Chargepoint station coupled to a Tesla "dongle". So the dongle not only exists, but seems to be very feasible. It just needs to work in the other direction.
Newer Nissans are supposed to use the CCS standard (if Nissan gets its crap together and actually launches the Arya).
Newer Nissans are supposed to use the CCS standard (if Nissan gets its crap together and actually launches the Arya).
I wonder how this all works out long term for Tesla. From a first principles standpoint, they don't really have much. The Nissan Leaf is a workhorse. But Tesla is killing it these days.
I think people don't really like plug-ins unless its Tesla and has a fast charge. That is all I can think of. Tesla ride quality is also pretty good if everything is going right, can't comment on a bolt or leaf.
Depends on your driving habits. If you are a heavy driver or a frequent road tripper I'd recommend getting a Tesla or at least a car with faster charging than the Leaf.
In Europe they've standardized the chargers.
Yeah what I mean it's not the government to blame for Toyota ineptitude.
Or you could argue the government assigned Toyota for Plan A with Hydrogen/FCEV path and Nissan was assigned to the backup Nuclear/BEV route.
Honestly, with Toyota clout the opposite could likely happen: it assigned the government of Japan to promote Hydrogen.
Hm, possibly. Strongest Hydrogen push was like 15-20 years ago. Pivotal change to BEV right now is a trainwreck to current manager classes at the height of their career.
Mitsubishi also invested to BEV by i-MiEV and PHEV by Outlander PHEV. Finally they acquired by Nissan.
No, that is ~$14 Billion per year.
Totally agree
The ideal model, if I had some power/leadership 10 years ago with some foresight would have been:
- add a plug to the Prius for all-electric mode, get the technology to as many carmakers as possible with whatever negotiated means possible.
- push them to increase the all-electric mode to 50 miles
- once tech was doable, impose incentives/requirements/taxation that required all new cars be PHEV. Especially for trucks/SUVs.
- incentivize home charging and start incentivizing gas stations to have plugs as well as a requirement to staying in business
Given the current supply of cobalt, nickel, lithium, etc, the most effective way to electrify consumer transportation is the 50 mile PHEV. It would have electrified 95% of daily trips for those vehicles, and eliminates range anxiety for the longer trips until the infrastructure is done.
With that and Toyota's lead, the plug in hybrid would have provided practical market "EV" leadership probably through 2030. It is mystifying to me why they dragged their feet to add a simple plug to the system. A massive management failure that ceded not only pseudo-EV leadership, but leadership in the hybrid market.
Toyota may be able to coattail the nascent OEM market for EV components and leverage their status as current #1 to keep afloat, but so many companies are far ahead in the vertical integration for the EV. An OEM component EV will be inferior to vertically integrated manufacturers (Tesla currently, VW and probably GM soon).
I'd guess that the OEM model of ICE drivetrains is basically an extreme optimization of a long-running design. Early ICE companies were probably vertically integrated intheir parts/components manufacturing until specific market competition for components between dedicated OEM manufacturers could eventually beat the in-house teams.
But EVs are a MASSIVE revolution in terms of the core components, and designs are innovating/evolving so rapidly that you can't tie yourself to components. Look at Tesla, they are building their own motors, batteries/chemistries, and even minerals extraction pipelines per battery investor day.
OEM ecosystems only exist once a sufficient number of cars are using a component. So an automotive OEM EV motor won't be competitive with Tesla until several generations of EVs go through the market, and a generation for a car is at least 5 years traditionally?
Almost all the car companies annoucing EV programs/funding aside from VW and maybe GM are just doing the OEM model: we'll get some OEM motors and OEM batteries, slap them onto a traditional OEM ICE platform. And boom, the CEO gets to tell major activist shareholders that he isn't being left behind: please don't fire me like you canned the BMW CEO.
Toyota is likely still stuck in OEM mode. They can't maintain leadership with that mentality, the vertical integration model will win for the next two decades at least, even if solid state closes some of the tech gap with Tesla for the main auto people (which is what they are basically all gambling on)
The ideal model, if I had some power/leadership 10 years ago with some foresight would have been:
- add a plug to the Prius for all-electric mode, get the technology to as many carmakers as possible with whatever negotiated means possible.
- push them to increase the all-electric mode to 50 miles
- once tech was doable, impose incentives/requirements/taxation that required all new cars be PHEV. Especially for trucks/SUVs.
- incentivize home charging and start incentivizing gas stations to have plugs as well as a requirement to staying in business
Given the current supply of cobalt, nickel, lithium, etc, the most effective way to electrify consumer transportation is the 50 mile PHEV. It would have electrified 95% of daily trips for those vehicles, and eliminates range anxiety for the longer trips until the infrastructure is done.
With that and Toyota's lead, the plug in hybrid would have provided practical market "EV" leadership probably through 2030. It is mystifying to me why they dragged their feet to add a simple plug to the system. A massive management failure that ceded not only pseudo-EV leadership, but leadership in the hybrid market.
Toyota may be able to coattail the nascent OEM market for EV components and leverage their status as current #1 to keep afloat, but so many companies are far ahead in the vertical integration for the EV. An OEM component EV will be inferior to vertically integrated manufacturers (Tesla currently, VW and probably GM soon).
I'd guess that the OEM model of ICE drivetrains is basically an extreme optimization of a long-running design. Early ICE companies were probably vertically integrated intheir parts/components manufacturing until specific market competition for components between dedicated OEM manufacturers could eventually beat the in-house teams.
But EVs are a MASSIVE revolution in terms of the core components, and designs are innovating/evolving so rapidly that you can't tie yourself to components. Look at Tesla, they are building their own motors, batteries/chemistries, and even minerals extraction pipelines per battery investor day.
OEM ecosystems only exist once a sufficient number of cars are using a component. So an automotive OEM EV motor won't be competitive with Tesla until several generations of EVs go through the market, and a generation for a car is at least 5 years traditionally?
Almost all the car companies annoucing EV programs/funding aside from VW and maybe GM are just doing the OEM model: we'll get some OEM motors and OEM batteries, slap them onto a traditional OEM ICE platform. And boom, the CEO gets to tell major activist shareholders that he isn't being left behind: please don't fire me like you canned the BMW CEO.
Toyota is likely still stuck in OEM mode. They can't maintain leadership with that mentality, the vertical integration model will win for the next two decades at least, even if solid state closes some of the tech gap with Tesla for the main auto people (which is what they are basically all gambling on)
I agree with the 50 mile PHEV. Before my fully electric car I had a Chevrolet Volt (not the crappy Bolt). It had a ~50 mile electric range (40-60 depending on weather), and then it just turned into a normal hybrid. It was a great car and I almost never had to use the gas on the car. I had to do a few longer distance drives a year and the > 300 mile gas range covered that easily. It's unfortunate that Chevy killed off the Volt. It was a great car and was an excellent transition car for people to go electric but without the range anxiety issues. It got me used to having to charge my car, but without the risk of getting stranded if I wasn't able to for some reason.
> the crappy Bolt
Bolts are crappy? My wife drives one, and given the cost, I like it more than my Tesla. Before covid pricing, you could pick one up brand new for mid-20s. And they will get back to that level after the bubble pops, because GM is keeping the mediocre range and "fast" charging speeds. For someone who just wants a runabout that can handle pretty much any daily driver scenario, the ROI is unbeatable. That it makes me smile to drive it is a plus.
Bolts are crappy? My wife drives one, and given the cost, I like it more than my Tesla. Before covid pricing, you could pick one up brand new for mid-20s. And they will get back to that level after the bubble pops, because GM is keeping the mediocre range and "fast" charging speeds. For someone who just wants a runabout that can handle pretty much any daily driver scenario, the ROI is unbeatable. That it makes me smile to drive it is a plus.
> Bolts are crappy?
“GM recalls every Chevy Bolt ever made, blames LG for faulty batteries”
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/gm-recalls-every-chevy-...
I think having to recall every Bolt ever made for battery system failure, which is the primary part of the car is “crappy”. The other parts of the car might be fine but the actual battery system has been giving people trouble for years now. That’s why I say it’s no good. The other parts of the car are probably decent. But having to recall every car and swap the battery is a massive failure on GM’s part (and their partner LG).
“GM recalls every Chevy Bolt ever made, blames LG for faulty batteries”
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/gm-recalls-every-chevy-...
I think having to recall every Bolt ever made for battery system failure, which is the primary part of the car is “crappy”. The other parts of the car might be fine but the actual battery system has been giving people trouble for years now. That’s why I say it’s no good. The other parts of the car are probably decent. But having to recall every car and swap the battery is a massive failure on GM’s part (and their partner LG).
It turns out that a car that is good for consumers is almost never good for GM. Who could blame GM for scrapping a $20K car with $4K margin or a $40K car with $5k margin when they can use their resources to build a $30K car with $12K margin or a $65K truck with $30K margin?
Innovation is cute and everything. But profit is king.
Innovation is cute and everything. But profit is king.
One thing everyone forgets about the Volt and the timing of it's demise; the end of production coincided with the phasing out of a lot of the tax credits/incentives provided by the govt. For most of it's life it was a 40k vehicle you could get for closer to 33k.
GM likely saw the writing on the wall, people probably weren't willing to pay the full MSRP. Especially when Kia/Hyundai is managing to provide plug-in hybrids for 30k. (As far as quality/fit, I sat in an early Niro Plugin and the interior was something in between the Bolt and a Sonata... but some people care more about price nowadays.)
GM likely saw the writing on the wall, people probably weren't willing to pay the full MSRP. Especially when Kia/Hyundai is managing to provide plug-in hybrids for 30k. (As far as quality/fit, I sat in an early Niro Plugin and the interior was something in between the Bolt and a Sonata... but some people care more about price nowadays.)
Whenever I get frustrated with GM killing off another promising project, I try to be fair to them about what their motivations should be.
GM doesn't mind selling a $40k car instead of a $33k car. What matters is volume x margin. You hit on the volume factor. I suggest that GM could have increased their volume dramatically by actually marketing the car. In my opinion they actively discouraged sales. They did not want to sell more of them. I think this points to a margin problem. Every hour of labor and every square foot of production facility given to the Volt was actually hurting GM. Not because the Volt had a negative margin, but because the Volt had a negative _relative_ margin.
If GM layed off every line worker/engineer/artist etc working on the Volt and closed every production facility that manufactured it, GM would have lost money.
But if they repurpose all that into the production of a 1/2-ton truck, they make more money than they do on the Volt.
If they repurpose it all into the production of the Bolt that sells for $40k, they make more money than on the Volt. You can argue that the Volt is 2x or 3x better than the Bolt. But that would be arguing from the wrong perspective. With a little marketing the Bolt should sell as well as the Volt (even at a higher price tag) and provide significantly higher margins. Same volume x higher margin = kill the Volt.
GM doesn't mind selling a $40k car instead of a $33k car. What matters is volume x margin. You hit on the volume factor. I suggest that GM could have increased their volume dramatically by actually marketing the car. In my opinion they actively discouraged sales. They did not want to sell more of them. I think this points to a margin problem. Every hour of labor and every square foot of production facility given to the Volt was actually hurting GM. Not because the Volt had a negative margin, but because the Volt had a negative _relative_ margin.
If GM layed off every line worker/engineer/artist etc working on the Volt and closed every production facility that manufactured it, GM would have lost money.
But if they repurpose all that into the production of a 1/2-ton truck, they make more money than they do on the Volt.
If they repurpose it all into the production of the Bolt that sells for $40k, they make more money than on the Volt. You can argue that the Volt is 2x or 3x better than the Bolt. But that would be arguing from the wrong perspective. With a little marketing the Bolt should sell as well as the Volt (even at a higher price tag) and provide significantly higher margins. Same volume x higher margin = kill the Volt.
Before my fully electric car I had a Chevrolet Volt (not the crappy Bolt)
Aside from the battery recall, what's crappy about the Bolt? $36,000 for 250 miles of range and the reviews seem pretty good. That said, I was disappointed that they canceled the Volt.
Aside from the battery recall, what's crappy about the Bolt? $36,000 for 250 miles of range and the reviews seem pretty good. That said, I was disappointed that they canceled the Volt.
Totally agreed. I don't know why they don't offer PHEV aggressively in 2010s. Possibly shortage of battery is a reason to stick HEV but they should invest for battery at the time.
Upvoted you. Don't know why you have been downvoted, as I agree with your comment 100%
> Then they went absolutely crazy over hydrogen - which I always hated
I always loved hydrogen, especially if someone comes up with a better way to generate it. The refueling issue and the chemical disaster with batteries would be solved.
I always loved hydrogen, especially if someone comes up with a better way to generate it. The refueling issue and the chemical disaster with batteries would be solved.
It seems more likely that in the time we could get a viable hydrogen infrastructure in place (I imagine decades) that both the refueling and 'chemical disaster' aspect of batteries will have been solved. We're getting fairly close on both counts, I believe.
> It seems more likely that in the time we could get a viable hydrogen infrastructure in place (I imagine decades) that both the refueling and 'chemical disaster' aspect of batteries will have been solved. We're getting fairly close on both counts, I believe.
I would be surprised if they solved the battery issues in less than decades
I would be surprised if they solved the battery issues in less than decades
According to Ars, they're aiming for 180-200 GWh annual capacity by 2030. By 2030 Tesla is aiming for 3 TWh and VW is aiming for 2 TWh. It's only about twice what Tesla consumed last year.
They're still not serious about EV's.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/toyota-finally-gets-ser...
They're still not serious about EV's.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/toyota-finally-gets-ser...
> It's only about twice what Tesla consumed last year.
I don't think it is a fair comparison. How many of those batteries made it into their vehicles vs their other products?
I don't think it is a fair comparison. How many of those batteries made it into their vehicles vs their other products?
What's relevant is the scale of production, that's what it helps shed light on. Toyota is a behemoth in terms of industrial size and output, and extraordinarily profitable for an automaker (meaning they have ridiculous financial resources to push toward battery production). And over there is little 'ol Tesla's rapidly expanding battery output; a company that as recently as 2017 had 5% the sales of Toyota. It reveals that Toyota clearly still isn't serious about EVs, or they'd be a lot more serious about battery production.
What is Toyota producing batteries for? Vehicles. What is Tesla producing batteries for? Vehicles, charging network, home storage, business storage, small grid storage, large scale grid storage, and probably other things. Tesla is shooting to become an energy company that maybe still makes cars while Toyota is an automotive manufacturer with no known intentions of getting into energy. Comparing the two based on batteries produced is like comparing a banana to an iPhone.
Cars are the overwhelming majority of batteries produced. Supercharging doesn't need batteries.
I don't have exact number but my guess is that of all Tesla consumed batteries 80-90% is far cars.
So even if you take a much more absurdly optimistic assumptions, the announced package for Toyota is only 1-2 million cars. That is 20% of their output in cars today.
I don't have exact number but my guess is that of all Tesla consumed batteries 80-90% is far cars.
So even if you take a much more absurdly optimistic assumptions, the announced package for Toyota is only 1-2 million cars. That is 20% of their output in cars today.
From March 17th, 2021: "Toyota lobbies US government in its increasingly delusional effort to slow down electric vehicles"
https://electrek.co/2021/03/17/toyota-lobbies-us-government-...
Seems like they're late to the party & know it.
https://electrek.co/2021/03/17/toyota-lobbies-us-government-...
Seems like they're late to the party & know it.
It kind of reminds me of Intel's dismissive attitude throughout the tail end of the '90's and early 2000's about ARM and mobile processing. They completely misjudged it, got dethroned as the best chip manufacturer as a result and are still playing catch-up while paying out the nose trying to do so.
These are the numbers that matter, and they're not good. They're proudly declaring that they will be producing a bit over 2 million EVs per year by 2030. Tesla is currently shipping at a rate of 1m per year.
I'm afraid they're going to use their brand power and customer loyalty to drag everyone else down.
I'm afraid they're going to use their brand power and customer loyalty to drag everyone else down.
We are still talking 8 years at this point. Toyota is going to respond to actual sales not just what they think sales are going to be. Assuming they produce a desirable EV they could still ramp up production well past that by 2030.
It’s one thing not to be the company on a new technology, it’s another not to ramp up production when your selling out month after month.
It’s one thing not to be the company on a new technology, it’s another not to ramp up production when your selling out month after month.
> Toyota is going to respond to actual sales
You can't respond to sales if you don't have a product that you can sell.
> Assuming they produce a desirable EV they could still ramp up production well past that by 2030.
Sure that goes for every car company. There is no way current plans of Toyota will stand. However they will still be massively behind the curve.
It takes years for the supply chain to develop to build 1 million EVs. Battery factories, lithium production, cobalt mining, cathode/anode production all need to scale and there is increasing competition and very limited human resources.
Its not so easy to 'just' throw up 50GWh of battery output if in 2026 you decide you want more cars 2030.
And if Toyota is last to market with good products and last to realize they need to massively increase production goals it not hard to see how it could be to late.
You can't respond to sales if you don't have a product that you can sell.
> Assuming they produce a desirable EV they could still ramp up production well past that by 2030.
Sure that goes for every car company. There is no way current plans of Toyota will stand. However they will still be massively behind the curve.
It takes years for the supply chain to develop to build 1 million EVs. Battery factories, lithium production, cobalt mining, cathode/anode production all need to scale and there is increasing competition and very limited human resources.
Its not so easy to 'just' throw up 50GWh of battery output if in 2026 you decide you want more cars 2030.
And if Toyota is last to market with good products and last to realize they need to massively increase production goals it not hard to see how it could be to late.
For comparison Tesla started construing of their Nevada factory in June 2014, it began production in 2016 and was producing 20GWh in 2018. That’s the equivalent of 2026 to 2030.
Toyota has been manufacturing lithium ion car batteries since the 97 Prius, and plug in hybrid since 2012. So, I suspect they can ramp up at least that fast if not faster. Will they is of course a completely different story, they aren’t making great EV’s even if they have the expertise and technology to do so.
Toyota has been manufacturing lithium ion car batteries since the 97 Prius, and plug in hybrid since 2012. So, I suspect they can ramp up at least that fast if not faster. Will they is of course a completely different story, they aren’t making great EV’s even if they have the expertise and technology to do so.
> A Prius' battery consists of 28 Panasonic nickel-metal hydride modules.
Toyota is not producing its own batteries anyway.
And the battery manufacturing plant is not actually the biggest difficulty. The problem is that every battery produce has multiple partners and are already scaling as fast as they can and are already oversubscribed.
The same goes for lithium and other materials producers. The amount of battery factories in planning or being built is outstripping the amount of lithium, graphite projects being in development and the amount of materials production.
Of course you can increase above your initial planning, but for Toyota to remain in the same leadership position it would have to in 2025 say 'we are gone 5-10x' our plans. And that is certainty not easy to do.
Toyota is not producing its own batteries anyway.
And the battery manufacturing plant is not actually the biggest difficulty. The problem is that every battery produce has multiple partners and are already scaling as fast as they can and are already oversubscribed.
The same goes for lithium and other materials producers. The amount of battery factories in planning or being built is outstripping the amount of lithium, graphite projects being in development and the amount of materials production.
Of course you can increase above your initial planning, but for Toyota to remain in the same leadership position it would have to in 2025 say 'we are gone 5-10x' our plans. And that is certainty not easy to do.
> A Prius' battery consists of 28 Panasonic nickel-metal hydride modules.
Tesla‘s 2021 Model 3’s are still using Panasonic cells. It’s a partnership where Panasonic brings the IP and expertise and the other party brings giant piles of money.
Tesla‘s 2021 Model 3’s are still using Panasonic cells. It’s a partnership where Panasonic brings the IP and expertise and the other party brings giant piles of money.
Not sure what your point is, you said something that was simply wrong. Like, literally a factual error and I pointed that out. Not sure what counterpoint you are trying to make.
And btw, this is also wrong, Tesla 2021 Model 3 uses different cells depending on where they built and at what trim. They can be from CATL, Panasonic or LG.
Its double wrong in claiming that Modern Tesla is simply using Panasonic cells and they just showed up with money. Tesla and Panasonic built up a lot of expertise together, and the 2170 cells with the specific chemistry being produced in Nevada is cooperation between the companies. The idea that Tesla showed up with money and Panasonic did literally everything is nonsense.
Tesla since then of course has spend many billions investing in internal battery expertise, including supply chain, materials and designing their own cells (their own cathode and anode chemistry) and their own battery manufacturing plant.
So on the one hand you have Toyota buying mostly non-lithium ion cells from Panasonic, on the other you have Tesla who is starting to produce its very own cells from its own factories.
Toyota could ramp up faster because they had the money but over the next 5-10 years you have literally every company trying to do that and being last with the smallest plan is clearly not the position you want to start .
And btw, this is also wrong, Tesla 2021 Model 3 uses different cells depending on where they built and at what trim. They can be from CATL, Panasonic or LG.
Its double wrong in claiming that Modern Tesla is simply using Panasonic cells and they just showed up with money. Tesla and Panasonic built up a lot of expertise together, and the 2170 cells with the specific chemistry being produced in Nevada is cooperation between the companies. The idea that Tesla showed up with money and Panasonic did literally everything is nonsense.
Tesla since then of course has spend many billions investing in internal battery expertise, including supply chain, materials and designing their own cells (their own cathode and anode chemistry) and their own battery manufacturing plant.
So on the one hand you have Toyota buying mostly non-lithium ion cells from Panasonic, on the other you have Tesla who is starting to produce its very own cells from its own factories.
Toyota could ramp up faster because they had the money but over the next 5-10 years you have literally every company trying to do that and being last with the smallest plan is clearly not the position you want to start .
First the Plug in Prius was using Lithium ion back in 2010 page 1: https://techinfo.toyota.com/techInfoPortal/staticcontent/en/... Non plug in hybrids want different battery chemistry as the charge / discharge cycles are much more frequent.
Second that timeline from 2016 to 2018 was Panasonic cells.
To be clear Tesla does employ battery experts directly and invests serious money into R&D, however that’s really just a pile of money for the time period I was talking about without Panasonic. Anyone can try and kick things off from scratch, without the IP and technical expertise from Panasonic Tesla wouldn’t have had those kinds of turnaround times.
As to everyone kicking things off yea, but Toyota is already spending ~10 billion on battery manufacturing over the next 8 years. It’s very different to ramp that up than simply starting from scratch.
Second that timeline from 2016 to 2018 was Panasonic cells.
To be clear Tesla does employ battery experts directly and invests serious money into R&D, however that’s really just a pile of money for the time period I was talking about without Panasonic. Anyone can try and kick things off from scratch, without the IP and technical expertise from Panasonic Tesla wouldn’t have had those kinds of turnaround times.
As to everyone kicking things off yea, but Toyota is already spending ~10 billion on battery manufacturing over the next 8 years. It’s very different to ramp that up than simply starting from scratch.
> Assuming they produce a desirable EV
If they aren't serious about EVs, why would they do this? I honestly don't understand Toyota and Honda here. Something is causing them to fight EVs and push for Hydrogen. Patents? Geopolitics? Existing supply chain and manufacturing processes?
If they aren't serious about EVs, why would they do this? I honestly don't understand Toyota and Honda here. Something is causing them to fight EVs and push for Hydrogen. Patents? Geopolitics? Existing supply chain and manufacturing processes?
They just bet multiple energy sources rather than single. Should it be blamed? But I still want they to bet EV more.
I love the Japanese, but there is a culture of deference that cuts both ways. In the right circumstances you get consistent high quality from a master that knows what he's doing and eager proteges trying their best to head their every word. In the wrong circumstances it leads to Fukushima.
Say what you will about Americans, this is not their way. Musk was wrong about the vertical doors and over automation and his team kept screaming at him until he didn't just relent he frequently brings it up in interviews as an area where he messed up.
The flip side is that for years Japanese automotive manufacturers prized engineering graduates as managers and beat the pants off of over financialized leadership at GM and Ford.
Say what you will about Americans, this is not their way. Musk was wrong about the vertical doors and over automation and his team kept screaming at him until he didn't just relent he frequently brings it up in interviews as an area where he messed up.
The flip side is that for years Japanese automotive manufacturers prized engineering graduates as managers and beat the pants off of over financialized leadership at GM and Ford.
You can't ramp up production if you don't have the batteries to do so.
It doesn’t take 8 years to build a battery factory. Kicking things off with new models that need extra battery capacity and a factory to manufacture them is a larger hurdle than scaling things after everything is in production.
> larger hurdle than scaling things after everything is in production
The relevant data points we have on this are from Tesla. Elon has been beating the "scaling production is the hardest thing" drum. His callouts around the cost of design vs manufacturing are quite interesting.
Now Toyota has been in the at-scale manufacturing game a long time, so perhaps they're just better at this. Either way battery capacity will hold them back for a decade.
The investments we're seeing in batteries (LG, Philips, Tesla, VW) are 10x+ what Toyota is doing. I don't see how this results in Toyota able to ship cars in volume as the transition to electric accelerates.
The relevant data points we have on this are from Tesla. Elon has been beating the "scaling production is the hardest thing" drum. His callouts around the cost of design vs manufacturing are quite interesting.
Now Toyota has been in the at-scale manufacturing game a long time, so perhaps they're just better at this. Either way battery capacity will hold them back for a decade.
The investments we're seeing in batteries (LG, Philips, Tesla, VW) are 10x+ what Toyota is doing. I don't see how this results in Toyota able to ship cars in volume as the transition to electric accelerates.
I don’t mean that one or the other is harder, just that doing both takes longer. If Toyota has a battery pack design and factory layout their happy with then they can “just” copy it which saves time over designing the equipment then factory and then building it.
As to your 10+x comment that’s very true today, but Toyota isn’t selling any EV’s. It’s perfectly reasonable for them to have a conservative adoption curve right now rather than assuming their going to sell 10m EV’s in 8 years and then potentially massively over build capacity. This is especially true if their aiming for true mainstream cars without significant markup to justify more risky investments.
As to your 10+x comment that’s very true today, but Toyota isn’t selling any EV’s. It’s perfectly reasonable for them to have a conservative adoption curve right now rather than assuming their going to sell 10m EV’s in 8 years and then potentially massively over build capacity. This is especially true if their aiming for true mainstream cars without significant markup to justify more risky investments.
Anyone wishing to steel-man Toyota's strategy should read their chief scientist's (and former head of DARPA) Gill Pratt's posts:
https://medium.com/toyotaresearch/carbon-is-our-enemy-lets-u...
https://medium.com/toyotaresearch/more-straight-talk-about-t...
> Maximizing the benefit of every battery cell produced requires that we distribute them smartly.
> This means putting them into a greater number of “right sized” electrified vehicles, including HEVs and PHEVs, instead of placing them all into a fewer number of long-range BEVs, like my model X. This is particularly important because presently it is difficult to recycle the kinds of batteries used in BEVs. If we are to achieve carbon neutrality, we must pay attention to all parts of the “3R” process — Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.
> For example, we hardly ever put gas into our RAV4 Prime PHEV, which has a battery ⅙ as large as our Model X BEV. For the same investment in batteries as our single Model X, five other RAV4 Prime customers could reduce their carbon footprint too.
https://medium.com/toyotaresearch/carbon-is-our-enemy-lets-u...
https://medium.com/toyotaresearch/more-straight-talk-about-t...
> Maximizing the benefit of every battery cell produced requires that we distribute them smartly.
> This means putting them into a greater number of “right sized” electrified vehicles, including HEVs and PHEVs, instead of placing them all into a fewer number of long-range BEVs, like my model X. This is particularly important because presently it is difficult to recycle the kinds of batteries used in BEVs. If we are to achieve carbon neutrality, we must pay attention to all parts of the “3R” process — Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.
> For example, we hardly ever put gas into our RAV4 Prime PHEV, which has a battery ⅙ as large as our Model X BEV. For the same investment in batteries as our single Model X, five other RAV4 Prime customers could reduce their carbon footprint too.
Hmm, what about BEVs make them more difficult to recycle?
Tesla batteries are made out of individual cells - pretty much ripe for the Reuse in the 3R process.
Tesla batteries are made out of individual cells - pretty much ripe for the Reuse in the 3R process.
With the amount of glue holding the cells together, it's only practical to reuse the entire pack (or maybe individual modules).
Depends on how much glue I suppose. I've salvaged plenty of 18650 cells from 'glued' packs. I'd assume that the Tesla batteries aren't a brick of epoxy since they use fluid temperature management that would have to flow around the cells.
When Munro did the teardown, getting to individual cells was pretty destructive. Glue between the cells and the cooling channels, etc. Unless something has changed, his observation was that it would be difficult to salvage them intact.
Thanks for the links. This is a really well written case which relies on an easily swallowed fallacy. The argument is that the main limiter to improvement of batteries is research which needs time, so we shouldn't quickly scale up battery production and end up with suboptimal batteries.
Of course the main way to improve batteries at this point is to make them cheaper, which comes directly from production scale (look at what happened with solar panels). And even if that wasn't the case, while we wait for improved tech before we scale up battery production, we're continuing to dig up and burn fossil fuels.
This reminds me of some of the propaganda spread by fossil fuel companies decades ago. They position themselves as being on the side of environment, and yet the conclusion is always to delay, do more research, and continue with the status quo.
Of course the main way to improve batteries at this point is to make them cheaper, which comes directly from production scale (look at what happened with solar panels). And even if that wasn't the case, while we wait for improved tech before we scale up battery production, we're continuing to dig up and burn fossil fuels.
This reminds me of some of the propaganda spread by fossil fuel companies decades ago. They position themselves as being on the side of environment, and yet the conclusion is always to delay, do more research, and continue with the status quo.
I'm surprised a Toyota chief scientist is admitting to driving a Model X...
That is a good message for the Toyota Corp. actually.
Their chief scientist looks left and right to find solutions.
Nothing is worse than a blind entourage.
Nothing is worse than a blind entourage.
You can rent cars for a period of time to get familiar with their offering. Owning another mfg. car that you use, signals to most that your own offering is subpar compared to another's in some way. In some things like fast food execs eating at Michelin star restaurants, that's ok. Consumers acknowledge there is a price discrepancy.
Better late than never, it would seem: Toyota pioneering hybrid systems and then ignoring electrification seems strange. Even the "Prius Prime" today only has what appears to be an 8.8 kWh battery in it, for about $30K (Toyota says it gets about 25 electric miles), and the regular Prius only has a .8 kWh battery. The first-generation Chevy Volt had a 16 kWh battery back in 2011—ten years ago!—and the second generation 18.4 kWh. Battery costs have fallen by 90% or more over the last ten years. Where's the higher range and/or lower cost Prius? The $30K Prius Prime is in the same price range as a new Chevy Bolt, which gets 259 miles of range.
I drive a prius prime: problem is where to put the battery. The 8.8kwH takes up considerable space in the rear cargo area (no room for a spare tire, you are left with a fix a flat kit)
Throwing out the gasoline motor in a full redesign will be great to see (ev mode almost feels sporty already), but in the meantime I’m enjoying my 550mi range on a 10 gallon tank + never using gas on days I don’t leave town.
Throwing out the gasoline motor in a full redesign will be great to see (ev mode almost feels sporty already), but in the meantime I’m enjoying my 550mi range on a 10 gallon tank + never using gas on days I don’t leave town.
I was curious about how much more Toyota could fit in that same volume if using state of the art batteries.
The 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR has a pack volumetric energy density of roughly 240Wh/l.
The 2017 Prius Prime has a pack volumetric energy density of roughly 150Wh/l.
So ignoring Toyota's poor battery placement, you could fit ~14kWh in that same space in the Prime using a better pack design with more modern batteries.
If Toyota pulled their heads out of their asses and actually designed a car to be an EV, they could match Tesla's battery pack sizes and still have reasonable trunk space.
I say this as someone who owns two Priuses and do not understand why they didn't capitalize on their advantage to design a decent EV years ago.
The number of Priuses sold per year in the US tells a story of Toyota absolutely failing to capitalize on new technology when they had the lead: https://motorandwheels.com/10-toyota-prius-statistics-facts/
The 2021 Tesla Model 3 LR has a pack volumetric energy density of roughly 240Wh/l.
The 2017 Prius Prime has a pack volumetric energy density of roughly 150Wh/l.
So ignoring Toyota's poor battery placement, you could fit ~14kWh in that same space in the Prime using a better pack design with more modern batteries.
If Toyota pulled their heads out of their asses and actually designed a car to be an EV, they could match Tesla's battery pack sizes and still have reasonable trunk space.
I say this as someone who owns two Priuses and do not understand why they didn't capitalize on their advantage to design a decent EV years ago.
The number of Priuses sold per year in the US tells a story of Toyota absolutely failing to capitalize on new technology when they had the lead: https://motorandwheels.com/10-toyota-prius-statistics-facts/
To be fair, I have 3 cars, none of which have spare tires. Teslas don't have spares, either.
What do you do without a spare?
The Tesla has somehow gotten 2 flats in 3 years / 50k miles. I attribute that to racking up commute miles on heavily travelled/littered urban freeways. First one, used roadside, wheel+tire delivered to us but it took an hour as it was in the middle of rush hour. Still had to sort out the original tire and return the loaner from Tesla. (tow company they contract with stocks Tesla loaners, I guess). The other was going low slowly, caught by TPMS, just dealt with it at my leisure.
Other car without a spare, had a flat once in 15 years, it was sitting in my driveway, dealt with it in the usual way.
Other other car without a spare came with runflats but I replaced with "normal" tires. I carry a plug kit and a compressor, and pray?
But normally, AAA or similar. I have roadside through my insurance and also separate AAA coverage. On long trips I try to make sure I have cash to pay local helpers/tow trucks/etc.
Other car without a spare, had a flat once in 15 years, it was sitting in my driveway, dealt with it in the usual way.
Other other car without a spare came with runflats but I replaced with "normal" tires. I carry a plug kit and a compressor, and pray?
But normally, AAA or similar. I have roadside through my insurance and also separate AAA coverage. On long trips I try to make sure I have cash to pay local helpers/tow trucks/etc.
In the case of Tesla, you call Tesla Roadside. For other cars, you use the fix-a-flat kit or call AAA/other roadside service.
For most people, calling AAA is probably the way they're gonna go, instead of changing their own tire.
I am fascinated by this world we've created where something as basic as carrying a spare is now considered unusual.
Tires don't fail often anymore. A blow out was a regular thing that happened to everyone once in a while, in that world everyone had a spare and knew how to change it. Today tires are a lot better (and last a lot longer), most tires make it to end of life with no problems. It thus doesn't make sense to dedicate volume and weight (read fuel mileage) to a spare tire that won't even be used. As such it doesn't make sense to have a spare or know how to change it, just let someone else do it.
Do most punctures result in a slow leak?
in my experience.
I'm not a tire expert, but it seems to me that the blowouts of the past were a quality issue and not caused by punctures.
I'm not a tire expert, but it seems to me that the blowouts of the past were a quality issue and not caused by punctures.
Yeah; and on-board tire pressure monitoring was mandated in the US as of 2007, so typically you'll catch it before it's an issue.
I guess they figure few enough people know what they're doing, feel safe doing it at the side of the road without an emergency vehicle with lights watching out for them, using a janky scissor or bottle jack, and the problems are rare enough that why bother?
And then most peoples' spare tires were never checked so they're underinflated/rotted and unsafe anyway.
In most cases, if I got a flat in a car with a spare, I wouldn't replace it at the roadside with my spare anyway. I'd do.. something else. Get a free tow from AAA to the tire shop (because I'll need to get my tire fixed ANYWAY), get a ride home and get a real jack,... but not use an unsafe trunk kit jack on the side of a freeway.
I guess they figure few enough people know what they're doing, feel safe doing it at the side of the road without an emergency vehicle with lights watching out for them, using a janky scissor or bottle jack, and the problems are rare enough that why bother?
And then most peoples' spare tires were never checked so they're underinflated/rotted and unsafe anyway.
In most cases, if I got a flat in a car with a spare, I wouldn't replace it at the roadside with my spare anyway. I'd do.. something else. Get a free tow from AAA to the tire shop (because I'll need to get my tire fixed ANYWAY), get a ride home and get a real jack,... but not use an unsafe trunk kit jack on the side of a freeway.
[deleted]
Ex Corrola and Celica owner, and ex Toyota fanboy. I was on the market and considering a Supra once the car craze would settle. After seeing all the lobby money against right to repair, trying slowing down Tesla with congress and all, I decided I would not contribute to a brand that used to be a leader in quality and innovation, but now acts as a desperate trainwreck and instead of focussing on improving seriously, they are playing games with numbers (and not being any better than Bezos with SpaceX on the political side) Shame.
Must hurt them bad having sold those TSLA shares when they were worth a fraction of today’s price.
I hope they bounce back, drop the attitude and become competitive again. They made the mistake of being overconfident without acknowledging the competition or (ex) partners, clean competition is always good. Especially in this segment for our planet’s sake.
Must hurt them bad having sold those TSLA shares when they were worth a fraction of today’s price.
I hope they bounce back, drop the attitude and become competitive again. They made the mistake of being overconfident without acknowledging the competition or (ex) partners, clean competition is always good. Especially in this segment for our planet’s sake.
Sorry, but as someone who knows little about U.S politics and lobbying there, I don't understand how you are putting Tesla and "the right to repair" in a single sentence. What will you do if the electronics in Tesla fails? What will you do if the motor fails? Battery? You won't be able to fix that on your own.
Teslas can be only repaired in a professional shop, whereas Toyotas can be fixed by a moderately skilled individual in a private garage. You can order all the parts for Toyota online and do everything from engine rebuild to any kind of maintenance.
Teslas can be only repaired in a professional shop, whereas Toyotas can be fixed by a moderately skilled individual in a private garage. You can order all the parts for Toyota online and do everything from engine rebuild to any kind of maintenance.
Simple, 2 separate issues tickling me.
Not saying Tesla are not terrible at RTR, they are. But they are also accelerating electrification and catching everybody off guard. Including auto repair shops. Some are actually starting to be the Rossman of teslas and I beleive the momentum RTR is getting will naturally creep in and bite them too soon or later.
For now I can just agree and its one of the reasons I won’t buy a Tesla as I like to keep my cars until they completely die (usually rusted beyond repair with 300kkm+) while keeping my repair costs down.
Toyota was pointed as a major lobyist against right to repair and financed FUD ads in the US on ballot initiatives btw, Tesla was not in that group.
Not saying Tesla are not terrible at RTR, they are. But they are also accelerating electrification and catching everybody off guard. Including auto repair shops. Some are actually starting to be the Rossman of teslas and I beleive the momentum RTR is getting will naturally creep in and bite them too soon or later.
For now I can just agree and its one of the reasons I won’t buy a Tesla as I like to keep my cars until they completely die (usually rusted beyond repair with 300kkm+) while keeping my repair costs down.
Toyota was pointed as a major lobyist against right to repair and financed FUD ads in the US on ballot initiatives btw, Tesla was not in that group.
> considering a Supra
Not a Toyota.
Not a Toyota.
Am I missing something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Supra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Supra
Joint venture with BMW, lots of BMW tech, so not a “natural” Supra just like the ft86/fr-s is a joint venture with Subaru, people call ‘em a Toyobaru around here :).
It's not just "lots of BMW tech". It's literally a restyled Z4 with the same German engineering quality that will fall apart in five years. Toyota throwing them money doesn't change who really designed it.
I'm reminded of the "GNU plus Linux" copypasta.
Imagine if they rebuild the mark 4 with carbon fibre and an electric drive train.
I wonder if there's a bit of a late mover advantage here. If Company A spends $10B on from 2010 to 2020, and $10B from 2020 to 2030 and Company B spends 0B from 2010 to 2020 and 20B from 2020 to 2030, how much can company B copy company A's homework?
One potential advantage Toyota might have is their use of modular platforms - TNGA-K is used for a sedan, minivan, suv and luxury car, e-TNGA will likely be a similar story.
One potential advantage Toyota might have is their use of modular platforms - TNGA-K is used for a sedan, minivan, suv and luxury car, e-TNGA will likely be a similar story.
> how much can company B copy company A's homework?
Patent lifespan is 14-20 years, depending on the type of patent, and which country issued it (there are probably outliers that have longer/shorter time-spans, though most countries now are unified). The question is there anything useful in patents that are expire, but if so there is copying about it.
Most car companies have weird cross licensing agreements (weird in part because there are anti-monopoly laws in place to work around) so to some extent they can.
Patent lifespan is 14-20 years, depending on the type of patent, and which country issued it (there are probably outliers that have longer/shorter time-spans, though most countries now are unified). The question is there anything useful in patents that are expire, but if so there is copying about it.
Most car companies have weird cross licensing agreements (weird in part because there are anti-monopoly laws in place to work around) so to some extent they can.
> how much can company B copy company A's homework?
Not only this, but company B is buying fresh new machines that manufacturers have been competing to optimize for at least one tech-generation. They can build new factories optimized for 10x volume, which took the market years to reach and would have been insane ten years earlier.
They can skip compromises in products that were necessary due to immature tech.
Earlier-mover gave tesla brand recognition, but no other lock-in.
Not only this, but company B is buying fresh new machines that manufacturers have been competing to optimize for at least one tech-generation. They can build new factories optimized for 10x volume, which took the market years to reach and would have been insane ten years earlier.
They can skip compromises in products that were necessary due to immature tech.
Earlier-mover gave tesla brand recognition, but no other lock-in.
> One potential advantage Toyota might have is their use of modular platforms
Literally everybody does that.
Literally everybody does that.
Yes, though my understanding is Toyota has been one of several mfgs particularly aggressive in going to modular with TNGA/going towards a modular and global architectures.
https://europe.autonews.com/article/20141103/ANE/141109996/v...
https://europe.autonews.com/article/20141103/ANE/141109996/v...
1.5T JPY ⩯ 11.5G EUR ⩯ 13.6G USD ⩯ 9.9G GBP ⩯ 18.4G AUD
I agree that this is a silly way to state this info, but it's hilarious to me how irritated it makes people.
G for Giga (10^9)? This confused me. I was expecting Billions (B)
Oh yeah I assumed the T stood for tera.
~> units '1.5 teraJPY' gigaEUR
* 11.511012What the heck is G ?
Gigaquids
surely this is taught in various science classes in every country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix
I have never seen anyone use metric prefixes with money.
Every now and again I'll talk to someone who uses kilobuck for various things. It's not common, but it's common enough that informal dictionaries have definitions for it.
My grandmother (who just passed away a few weeks ago) used to say "megabucks" a lot when talking about expensive things or rich people. I wonder if that's what she meant.
Metric prefixes aren't typically adjacent to numbers but space separated from the modified units in sciences (typical, the reverse is true), so, no, that usage isn't taught in most science classrooms.
Yeah, real helpful. Use (B) for billion not whatever G stands for.
Tera/giga are globally standardized; trillion/billion are ambiguous.
Aight, I'll ask my manager to raise my salary by a few kiloeuros.
Fucking ridiculous.
Fucking ridiculous.
no really, billion has different meaning around the world. personally I’m a fan of gigabucks, way shorter to say than “billions of dollars”
Yup, the long and short scale[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scale
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scale
In France, they use "milliard" for billions.
Amusingly I think he'd understand your request at least...
Have you genuinely never seen people refer to, say, $10k to mean ten thousand dollars? It's very common.
How are trillion and billion ambiguous?
Is a billion a million million, or one followed by twelve noughts (1,000,000,000,000) or is a billion a thousand million?
Same thing for a trillion. I think the first is or maybe was a UK'ism. Maybe the rest of the world does that too?
Same thing for a trillion. I think the first is or maybe was a UK'ism. Maybe the rest of the world does that too?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Good bot.
It's about time. At the current Munich Auto Show, I don't think there's even one single old-style oil burning car presented. In Europe (and China), it's complete game over starting now.
This is a very interesting change of direction. Considering they and through their lobbying Japanese Govt. were pushing for Hydrogen cars.
Maybe it's a "bet on both horses" strategy. Hydrogen cells have some advantages over battery cells (e.g. energy density, refueling time) but if there's no infrastructure they won't sell any significant amount of cars on that platform.
I live in an urban area in a EU country. Some thoughts:
* There is a huge subset of motorized vehicles that are spending a considerable percentage of their daily time on the road. Thinking about taxis, buses, trucks, etc.
* A large percentage of private cars are parked on the streets.
Those two observations alone make the case for electric vehicles slightly problematic.
Of course, a private individual with a garage can get an electric vehicle and use it almost like an ICE one, with a large environmental but also budgetary gain.
But for these other classes of vehicles, hydrogen could provide a better alternative.
Apologies if I'm missing something, but I cannot think what other zero emission technology could give the solution at this point, for these types of vehicle usage.
* There is a huge subset of motorized vehicles that are spending a considerable percentage of their daily time on the road. Thinking about taxis, buses, trucks, etc.
* A large percentage of private cars are parked on the streets.
Those two observations alone make the case for electric vehicles slightly problematic.
Of course, a private individual with a garage can get an electric vehicle and use it almost like an ICE one, with a large environmental but also budgetary gain.
But for these other classes of vehicles, hydrogen could provide a better alternative.
Apologies if I'm missing something, but I cannot think what other zero emission technology could give the solution at this point, for these types of vehicle usage.
> There is a huge subset of motorized vehicles that are spending a considerable percentage of their daily time on the road. Thinking about taxis, buses, trucks, etc.
Model 3 currently has a range up to 353 miles. At 40MPH city driving that's more than 8 hours. Then you need ~20 minutes at a supercharger.
Eventually somebody is going to make an electric SUV with more batteries in it which will then have a >480 mile range when not towing anything, which gets you 12 hours between charges. That's a typical shift for a cab, and they already have the 20 minutes of down time during the shift change to clean the vehicle etc.
Trucks and buses will be the same. They'll fit larger batteries and then get enough range to last the full shift. It also wouldn't be surprising to see cities fit main thoroughfares with overhead lines and then have electric buses with pantographs so they can charge while in motion.
> A large percentage of private cars are parked on the streets.
So as electric vehicles get more common they'll start installing chargers on streets. The more vehicles there are, the more chargers they can justify. The more chargers there are, the more people buy electric vehicles. It doesn't have to go from zero chargers to every urban parking space has a charger overnight, but that's where you end up in a few decades.
Model 3 currently has a range up to 353 miles. At 40MPH city driving that's more than 8 hours. Then you need ~20 minutes at a supercharger.
Eventually somebody is going to make an electric SUV with more batteries in it which will then have a >480 mile range when not towing anything, which gets you 12 hours between charges. That's a typical shift for a cab, and they already have the 20 minutes of down time during the shift change to clean the vehicle etc.
Trucks and buses will be the same. They'll fit larger batteries and then get enough range to last the full shift. It also wouldn't be surprising to see cities fit main thoroughfares with overhead lines and then have electric buses with pantographs so they can charge while in motion.
> A large percentage of private cars are parked on the streets.
So as electric vehicles get more common they'll start installing chargers on streets. The more vehicles there are, the more chargers they can justify. The more chargers there are, the more people buy electric vehicles. It doesn't have to go from zero chargers to every urban parking space has a charger overnight, but that's where you end up in a few decades.
>It also wouldn't be surprising to see cities fit main thoroughfares with overhead lines and then have electric buses with pantographs so they can charge while in motion.
These are already a thing but not done because Americans complain about things like wires in the sky and public transportation
These are already a thing but not done because Americans complain about things like wires in the sky and public transportation
how can trucks work on batteries? and be economical? you do know roads have a load rating you can't go over? so Trucks will have to carry less and we will have to make and use more trucks? driving up the cost of everything.
The load limit for most truck routes is 80,000 pounds and most loads don't weigh that much. Existing semi trucks already weigh 10,000-25,000 pounds. An electric semi would be at the higher end of that range, but it would also have lower fuel costs. So you get a cost savings for the large majority of loads that weren't already at the weight limit.
There will also be different electric semi tractors. The one with a 500 mile range will weigh more than the one with a 250 mile range. So then you can use the one with the shorter range for the heaviest loads, leaving more of the weight limit for the load. If you weren't transporting it farther than that range then it doesn't matter. If you were then you have to stop to charge more often, which has a time cost, but it's not obvious even in those cases that the extra charging time is going to cost you more than the fuel savings.
The general expectation is that overall costs will go down, because that's the thing causing truckers to buy electric trucks.
There will also be different electric semi tractors. The one with a 500 mile range will weigh more than the one with a 250 mile range. So then you can use the one with the shorter range for the heaviest loads, leaving more of the weight limit for the load. If you weren't transporting it farther than that range then it doesn't matter. If you were then you have to stop to charge more often, which has a time cost, but it's not obvious even in those cases that the extra charging time is going to cost you more than the fuel savings.
The general expectation is that overall costs will go down, because that's the thing causing truckers to buy electric trucks.
Siemens actually set up a road with overhead wire and put a pantograph on a truck.[1] Probably not a great idea.
Tried in Super Mario Brothers, the movie (1983) [2]
[1] https://insideevs.com/photo/3938111/siemens-to-conduct-ehigh...
[2] https://youtu.be/G7GUvttfe0k
Tried in Super Mario Brothers, the movie (1983) [2]
[1] https://insideevs.com/photo/3938111/siemens-to-conduct-ehigh...
[2] https://youtu.be/G7GUvttfe0k
There is something to be said about shipping around the energy source for quick refuel.
If there is anything to these new electrolytes and shipping them around to "gas" stations, I think they could end up replacing charging stations for sure.
If there is anything to these new electrolytes and shipping them around to "gas" stations, I think they could end up replacing charging stations for sure.
> * There is a huge subset of motorized vehicles that are spending a considerable percentage of their daily time on the road. Thinking about taxis, buses, trucks, etc.
Those also often spend the nights in specialized depots or garages. Moreover, lot of those public transport and utility vehicles spend a lot of time idling (think garbage truck or bus at stop) which makes them especially wasteful if ICE.
Around here, bus depots are colocated with tram and train depots so they already have powerful electricity lines.
> * A large percentage of private cars are parked on the streets.
I'm convinced there's a correlation between "parking on the street near condos" and driving relatively little day to day. The cars that drive the most distance would be the ones owned by people living in suburbs or villages. But people with houses can probably charge at home, right?
...
For me specifically, my commute is 15 km one way, so even with something with not much range like Peugeot e-208 I would have to charge it about every two weeks if I'm onsite daily, or about once a month if I'm mostly remote. I'm still not planning to buy one because I'd rather use bike or public transport, but it would work.
Those also often spend the nights in specialized depots or garages. Moreover, lot of those public transport and utility vehicles spend a lot of time idling (think garbage truck or bus at stop) which makes them especially wasteful if ICE.
Around here, bus depots are colocated with tram and train depots so they already have powerful electricity lines.
> * A large percentage of private cars are parked on the streets.
I'm convinced there's a correlation between "parking on the street near condos" and driving relatively little day to day. The cars that drive the most distance would be the ones owned by people living in suburbs or villages. But people with houses can probably charge at home, right?
...
For me specifically, my commute is 15 km one way, so even with something with not much range like Peugeot e-208 I would have to charge it about every two weeks if I'm onsite daily, or about once a month if I'm mostly remote. I'm still not planning to buy one because I'd rather use bike or public transport, but it would work.
Agreed - everyone is trying to frame this as a they are no longer betting on Hydrogen. They are betting on both horses - and moving away from O&G. Smart move since they work across different industries/use-cases and different countries (policy drivers).
It does seem like that's the play. Pretty sad that it took them this long to make this investment, but I am excited for what Toyota might bring to the EV market.
Really disappointing to see them go down the hydrogen rabbit hole. I was a Toyota fan but this shook my confidence in the company. They had the lead and squandered it. They are really behind the curve now.
I wonder what make Toyota changes their tone, because Toyota is known to be very reluctant against BEVs as they want to keep their inverstment in hybrids and continue to bet on hydrogen fuel cells.
Perhaps it's the US states like CA that have basically shown that they can't support H2 fuel supply lines.
Take a look at the current status of stations in CA [1]. Mostly offline, and who knows for how long. A symptom of the entire fuel-cell economy.
[1] https://m.cafcp.org
Take a look at the current status of stations in CA [1]. Mostly offline, and who knows for how long. A symptom of the entire fuel-cell economy.
[1] https://m.cafcp.org
I don't think adding new infrastructure is even necessary anymore. In fact, in many places, we're seeing natural gas lines intentionally not being built for new homes. Why? Electric is enough. Heat pumps for your home, modern electric appliances are arguably better than natural gas, no need to maintain electric lines AND gas lines. Adding hydrogen into the mix means a whole parallel set of infrastructure. Look into what happened in Lawrence Massachusetts (hardly the sticks) when the gas company made a mistake -- the town quite literally burst into flames.
I sympathize with going full electric in the home with modern appliances, but honestly the hydrogen thing was all supposed to be for automotives.
The cheapest hydrogen fuel is a byproduct of fracking so that's why it was pushed. It was never sustainable or made sense, obviously.
The cheapest hydrogen fuel is a byproduct of fracking so that's why it was pushed. It was never sustainable or made sense, obviously.
That’s worse than the McFlurry machines. There was a big push for hydrogen when Schwarzenegger was governator, but the infrastructure for hydrogen hasn’t expanded beyond that. Fuel cell technology for cars, like its emissions, are vaporware.
Unless they know something that the rest of the world doesn't, hydrogen fuels cells is a bad bet.
There is not enough time/space to explain all the reasons why; it is a very long list of factors working against hydrogen --- and it starts with the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
There is not enough time/space to explain all the reasons why; it is a very long list of factors working against hydrogen --- and it starts with the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Hydrogen -- liquified hydrogen -- makes sense for large aircraft, rockets, and eventually bulk storage, and not much else.
The reason hydrogen makes sense for aircraft is the huge advantage of carrying enormously less weight of fuel up to the stratosphere. Add to that, that it will be produced and stored directly at airports from surplus peak electric power, thus obviating need for a great deal of other storage capacity, and of expense extracting, refining, and transporting petroleum.
Its downside is it needs much more space on board, thus new airframes with aerogel-insulated tankage somewhere other than in skinny wings.
We need a government-led initiative to get major airports outfitted with LH2 production and storage systems, to solve the inherent chicken-and-egg problem and get those new airframes into the pipeline. Any extra storage capacity an airport builds out substitutes for storage elsewhere. Airports could afford to get into the load-balancing business in a big way.
The reason hydrogen makes sense for aircraft is the huge advantage of carrying enormously less weight of fuel up to the stratosphere. Add to that, that it will be produced and stored directly at airports from surplus peak electric power, thus obviating need for a great deal of other storage capacity, and of expense extracting, refining, and transporting petroleum.
Its downside is it needs much more space on board, thus new airframes with aerogel-insulated tankage somewhere other than in skinny wings.
We need a government-led initiative to get major airports outfitted with LH2 production and storage systems, to solve the inherent chicken-and-egg problem and get those new airframes into the pipeline. Any extra storage capacity an airport builds out substitutes for storage elsewhere. Airports could afford to get into the load-balancing business in a big way.
You can't simply ignore that liquid hydrogen is stored at 700 bar. That increases the system weight substantially. Direct ammonia fuel cells have competitive system weights even though NH3 is only 17% hydrogen:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/arpae11_abbasi...
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/arpae11_abbasi...
That document refers to compressed, not liquified hydrogen. I don't know of any reason to keep LH2 under extreme pressure, other than to increase its boiling point to a more comfortable temperature, or to stiffen tank walls.
The last would probably be a consideration mainly for rockets.
The last would probably be a consideration mainly for rockets.
The critical point of hydrogen is 33.2 K, that is Kelvin, or -240 degrees celsius.
Any higher temperature than that, hydrogen is not a liquid, and exerts pressure on the walls of its container.
...
so, you have the choice of making a very strong container, or a very well-isolated one, preferably both.
But probably not a lightweight container, which is what you'd prefer.
I thought that writing "liquified hydrogen" would adequately suggest that I was talking about hydrogen in liquid phase; maybe I needed to be clearer, and say that liquified hydrogen really is liquid, and not gas, but I still don't see why.
Aerogel is both very, very light in weight, and also extremely effective at isolating substances of very different temperatures such as LH2 and aircraft parts. Thus, practical LH2 tanks on aircraft would be insulated with aerogel.
Given a tank of LH2 insulated with aerogel, there would be no need for the tank to be "very strong", as it would not need to hold back any more pressure than the (very light) weight of the column of LH2 contained. Liquified-gas tanks are routinely equipped with fart valves to relieve any pressure that arises from heat leaking in and boiling the contained fluid.
Aerogel is both very, very light in weight, and also extremely effective at isolating substances of very different temperatures such as LH2 and aircraft parts. Thus, practical LH2 tanks on aircraft would be insulated with aerogel.
Given a tank of LH2 insulated with aerogel, there would be no need for the tank to be "very strong", as it would not need to hold back any more pressure than the (very light) weight of the column of LH2 contained. Liquified-gas tanks are routinely equipped with fart valves to relieve any pressure that arises from heat leaking in and boiling the contained fluid.
I think terrorism fears will keep ammonia far away from use as a fuel. Isn't ammonia / ammonium nitrate used in some home-made IED designs?
Ammonia is used industrially, today, by the millions of tons, mostly in pure liquid form. Management of large quantities of liquid ammonia is very mature, and has been for most of a century.
Tens of thousands of warehouse-scale refrigeration systems use ammonia as refrigerant. It is the preferred refrigerant in most places besides homes, small offices, and road vehicles.
Liquified ammonia is the odds-on favorite to replace bunker oil in intercontinental shipping, as engines already in place could easily be converted to burn ammonia just by replacing tankage and plumbing, which would not require any structural changes. You need a larger space for the ammonia than for bunker oil, but ships have plenty of room.
Tens of thousands of warehouse-scale refrigeration systems use ammonia as refrigerant. It is the preferred refrigerant in most places besides homes, small offices, and road vehicles.
Liquified ammonia is the odds-on favorite to replace bunker oil in intercontinental shipping, as engines already in place could easily be converted to burn ammonia just by replacing tankage and plumbing, which would not require any structural changes. You need a larger space for the ammonia than for bunker oil, but ships have plenty of room.
Ammonium nitrate is a common, cheap explosive, but the key to explosives is nitrate, not ammonia. Almost every practical high explosive is a nitrate or an organic nitro compound.
Major obstacles to ammonia fuel include the smell and its corrosiveness. Only a small amount (~12%) of energy is lost converting hydrogen to ammonia, and you save energy by avoiding compression/refrigeration.
Major obstacles to ammonia fuel include the smell and its corrosiveness. Only a small amount (~12%) of energy is lost converting hydrogen to ammonia, and you save energy by avoiding compression/refrigeration.
If there's a context where power density is way more important than efficiency, then hydrogen starts looking pretty good. As batteries get better, the number of those shrinks, however.
I'm not sure I would take this bet as them betting against hydrogen that everyone seems hellbent on making the narrative. I would take it as there is clearly a rise in EV that they can capitalize on. We will have both hydrogen and EV. Different use cases.
Nothing. They are doing the exact minimum needed not to complete fall behind.
Because Japan for some reason went all out on hydrogen, so Toyota being Japanese followed suit. What makes me wonder is why didn't they just look outside of Japan to realize this was not a good bet.
Was there a new innovation or discovery that triggered this direction change, information the public at large is not yet aware of? I hate to see this move as subject to the whims of the leadership, a decision that could change 5 years from now... If this change has, as a foundation, a scientific / engineering basis, I would feel a lot more assured in Toyota's EV aspirations.
It's not a direction change. They are just hedging.
There was an interesting discussion here the other day about what makes a company a tech company. Reading here about R&D investments like this from a company that isn’t considered a ‘tech company,’ I can’t help but think back to that discussion and chuckle.
Toyota's revenue is 27T JPY. This 1.5T figure over 9 years is 0.16T per year or about 0.6% of their annual revenue. That this even makes the news is indeed worth chuckling about.
Why? Do you think anything new will come out of this? The market is pretty far past them in battery tech, hard to catch up for the price of 1 tesla battery factory.
You don't need to catch up, you need to get 95% of the way there, which Toyota is definitely capable of doing. Then you compete beyond batteries and overcome the differences and then some, which Toyota also very much can.
The world isn't instantly switching to batteries. There's no infrastructure where I live and I can't charge an electric vehicle at either of my condos.
My mom lives in the suburbs and I see very few Teslas there. Mostly pickup trucks. Cybertruck is not going to appeal to those folks.
There is plenty of time for the incumbents to catch up. Especially when Japan will stand behind their car industry.
EVs are still in the Virtual Reality phase of the adoption curve.
I'm not going to bet against Tesla, but I'd be happy to buy your Toyota shares at a discount.
My mom lives in the suburbs and I see very few Teslas there. Mostly pickup trucks. Cybertruck is not going to appeal to those folks.
There is plenty of time for the incumbents to catch up. Especially when Japan will stand behind their car industry.
EVs are still in the Virtual Reality phase of the adoption curve.
I'm not going to bet against Tesla, but I'd be happy to buy your Toyota shares at a discount.
Teslas are still selling like hotcakes, and have a 4-6 month wait right now. I see a few more every month in my flyover state. New service center being made in my town.
I have only owned 1 condo, but power meters were right by my deeded parking spot. Would have been very easy to slap a charger in.
Cannot imagine going back to a Toyota after this. The future is now. Just a matter of if Toyota is able to catch up, or if they have missed the train. They had a huge lead with Prius, and so far have squandered it on fuel cell chasing.
I have only owned 1 condo, but power meters were right by my deeded parking spot. Would have been very easy to slap a charger in.
Cannot imagine going back to a Toyota after this. The future is now. Just a matter of if Toyota is able to catch up, or if they have missed the train. They had a huge lead with Prius, and so far have squandered it on fuel cell chasing.
So you don't have power in those condos? 95% of charging happens at home.
Long trips are well served by the Super/destination charger network. You'll be surprised how much availability there is: https://www.tesla.com/findus
Long trips are well served by the Super/destination charger network. You'll be surprised how much availability there is: https://www.tesla.com/findus
Thinking through the particulars in my case: How do I charge if I only have street parking? Can I rely on superchargers only? What's the price of those vs charging at home vs gas? Will I destroy my battery over time if I do that? Am I giving up the thing I like most about my current car (2013 civic -- never leaves me stranded + basically only have to get the oil changed + replace wearable items)?
The greater reliability of EVs is one of the factors pushing business uptake in areas like taxis.
If you dont drive many miles then todays EVs are already fine for your use case. If you drive a lot then the fuel savings are enough for you to want to make it work.
If you dont drive many miles then todays EVs are already fine for your use case. If you drive a lot then the fuel savings are enough for you to want to make it work.
Lots of places (theaters, grocery stores) have destination chargers (some are even free). If you go to those once or twice a week, top up there. If you don't drive much, a weekly supercharger visit is fine. Keep in mind that charging is currently worst case. It will improve by ~50% each year.
Battery degradation is not something you should be worried about. It will remain above 85-90% for hundreds of thousands of miles.
Don't forget about depreciation. Gas cars will be worth nothing soon as millions become undesirable. Electric will be so in demand that they'll barely depreciate. Used Model 3s right now are selling for thousands more than a new one.
Battery degradation is not something you should be worried about. It will remain above 85-90% for hundreds of thousands of miles.
Don't forget about depreciation. Gas cars will be worth nothing soon as millions become undesirable. Electric will be so in demand that they'll barely depreciate. Used Model 3s right now are selling for thousands more than a new one.
> Gas cars will be worth nothing soon as millions become undesirable.
Long bet: in 10 years you're wrong.
Long bet: in 10 years you're wrong.
I would put some money on this. There are very few inherit benefits to gas right now except "faster to refill" and "more range between stops". Both get solved by increasing battery densities, charging speeds, etc. At 300 miles range, I have 1 common trip I need to charge for 5 minutes. At 400 miles range (which I can get on an S), all my common trips are charge free. Vacation trips already work great with 300 miles range.
Gas stations will start going under. Gas prices will increase. Parts will stop being made or have prices increase. Used market will be flooded, in a race to the bottom. New electric cars will become cheaper and charging ubiquitous. Battery charging speeds will improve.
This means that within the decade, EVs will be more convenient and cheaper (already cheaper including lifetime costs).
This means that within the decade, EVs will be more convenient and cheaper (already cheaper including lifetime costs).
Vague bet. What does "worth nothing" mean? Obviously collectibles will be worth something and even crappy cars will have scrap value.
Think about how hard it was to get reliable internet on your cell phone for streaming video.
iPhone was released in 2007 followed by rapid deployment of infrastructure. I have been streaming Netflix reliably even in a moving car since at least 2016 or 2017. It took less than a decade.
When consumers demand infrastructure, it arrives swiftly.
iPhone was released in 2007 followed by rapid deployment of infrastructure. I have been streaming Netflix reliably even in a moving car since at least 2016 or 2017. It took less than a decade.
When consumers demand infrastructure, it arrives swiftly.
Yeah.. It's clear that the incumbents are paying very close attention to trends. Not sure why anyone would bet against them, particularly Japanese auto.. I can guess though haha.
Heck, the first EV I would look into if I were in the market ATM would be the Chevy Bolt EV/EUV haha.
Heck, the first EV I would look into if I were in the market ATM would be the Chevy Bolt EV/EUV haha.
Toyota is behind GM, Ford, VW, Hyundai and everybody else.
Do you mean panasonic battery factory? Because that's who Tesla buys most of their cells from (some LG and in China CATL). Tesla has no scale battery manufacturing right now.
I think it's too little too late. It's so much more than EV now, it's about FSD, AI, data collection, charging networks, owning mass battery production, automation of manufacturing, remote software updates, the center screen interface, service to the home networks, direct to customer sales infrastructure, solar panels on your home to charge your car, etc... I believe every car company is 10 years late responding and Tesla will destroy them like Apple iPhone destroyed Blackberry, Nokia, etc... If Ford can mass produce the electric F-150 before cybertruck hits, they may stand a chance (#1 selling vehicle in NA), but again, they are behind on so many of the other factors. I think Tesla will do it in a more streamlined way, more profitability and are ultimately heading towards a robo taxi network which isn't even in the competitors' visions.
you seem to be a little too biased towards Tesla? are you invested? some of your points make no sense and "robo taxi network which isn't even in the competitors' visions." and yet Waymo has already done exactly this... Tesla can't even navigate in a closed loop tunnel...
Yes and:
Tesla is integrating vertically, like mining lithium. Both as hedge against supply disruptions and to squeeze efficiency.
> ...like Apple iPhone destroyed...
Also copying Apple's monopsony playbook. Tesla bought booked the production of "gigacasting" gear. Just like Apple bought all the CNC machines (for making unibody cases) and miniature harddrives (for iPod) and... So competitors can't emulate, even if they wanted to and had the capital.
Tesla is integrating vertically, like mining lithium. Both as hedge against supply disruptions and to squeeze efficiency.
> ...like Apple iPhone destroyed...
Also copying Apple's monopsony playbook. Tesla bought booked the production of "gigacasting" gear. Just like Apple bought all the CNC machines (for making unibody cases) and miniature harddrives (for iPod) and... So competitors can't emulate, even if they wanted to and had the capital.
Vertical integration like that sounds good, but often ends up a distraction. Toyota tends to be more of we do the Engine and frame, and outsource the rest.
I'm really hyped to see their hydrogen "combustion" engines <3
Why? Hydrogen combustion engines are about the worst combination of fuel and engine.
Convert the hydrogen to methanol and just use that if you really want to use ICE.
Convert the hydrogen to methanol and just use that if you really want to use ICE.
Why? I'm way more excited to get an EV -- no oil changes, transmission problems, way better acceleration, quieter, etc. Combustion is going to be obsolete soon.
As 14 billion US dollars over a decade it sounds less dramatic.
That's still quite a lot, but yeah, trillions are more exciting than tens of billions.
Are other auto companies pursuing in-home batteries like Tesla? I’m hoping for more competition in the Powerwall space
Generac and Enphase are in that space, I’m pretty sure there are more too
This also indirectly signals an exit from the consumer hydrogen fuel cell cars.
[deleted]
How many million USD is that?
FYI, 1.5 trillion yen equates to 13,607,664,000.00 USD.
I thought it was just one yen, but one that was highly magnetic.
weird how everyone is an "expert" about hydrogen vs EV and knows more than the biggest car company in the world.
The results speak for themselves. For years Toyota and Honda have been playing around with Hydrogen cars in tiny production numbers, lease-only, and with little progress, while Tesla is increasingly shipping more and more cars, 400x the Toyota Mirai numbers, to almost limitless demand.
didn't know the competition was over. We're still at less than 1% adoption. Thats like saying that the results speak for themselves about AOL winning the ISP wars in the 90s.
In some market, specially high tech rich markets, the adoption is already far, far higher.
The car industry is not the same as the internet. Its not new industry, its a technology shift inside the existing industry.
And plans have to be made 5 years ahead or more, and we know that pretty much every major player is going for EV and most of them have basically stopped working on hydrogen.
The idea that we are are stupid and Toyota is smart ignore all the other companies that together are far larger then Toyota have picked differently. That why I hate the 'oh random guy thinks he knows more then X company'. You literally can not have an opinion without disagreeing with either Toyota or VW.
We see basically no growth in hydrogen vehicles or hydrogen fuel stations, not even announcements of new cars or infrastructure. Building the need infrastructure is a decade long heavy investment project, it doesn't just come out of nowhere.
The car industry is not the same as the internet. Its not new industry, its a technology shift inside the existing industry.
And plans have to be made 5 years ahead or more, and we know that pretty much every major player is going for EV and most of them have basically stopped working on hydrogen.
The idea that we are are stupid and Toyota is smart ignore all the other companies that together are far larger then Toyota have picked differently. That why I hate the 'oh random guy thinks he knows more then X company'. You literally can not have an opinion without disagreeing with either Toyota or VW.
We see basically no growth in hydrogen vehicles or hydrogen fuel stations, not even announcements of new cars or infrastructure. Building the need infrastructure is a decade long heavy investment project, it doesn't just come out of nowhere.
This. Electric cars are currently at the dialup internet phase of adoption. It's unlikely the current leaders will be the future leaders. Nor will the current technology be the stuff we will use in the future.
Sure, but I reckon the leader is even less likely to be Toyota than Tesla.
Toyota is much more likely to be a major player in the future than Tesla. I don't think Toyota plans on being a leader of anything.
Who knew there were so many polymaths on hackernews
Just yesterday there was a conversation about college degrees. Why is it that so many people here feel like they're an expert in absolutely everything? Condescending people who are vaccine skeptical, for one, as if they themselves were literal vaccine experts. There's so much hubris in the top tier of society it's almost sickening.
You could say some of the top tier of society has a presence here, but I don't think it describes most of HN's audience and commentariat.
Anyway, comment quality does vary a lot by subject matter. Industry insiders aren't likely to say anything new in this case, whether because of NDAs or language barriers or disinterest in HN, yet there is broad interest in the direction of automobile development. It's something people here are trying pretty hard to understand themselves, so they often feel they have gained enough insight to share, just as they do with COVID. I'm no sociologist though, this is just a layman's take. :)
Anyway, comment quality does vary a lot by subject matter. Industry insiders aren't likely to say anything new in this case, whether because of NDAs or language barriers or disinterest in HN, yet there is broad interest in the direction of automobile development. It's something people here are trying pretty hard to understand themselves, so they often feel they have gained enough insight to share, just as they do with COVID. I'm no sociologist though, this is just a layman's take. :)
[deleted]
What IS incredible is that Toyota HAD the absolute lead in EV. Their hybrid power trains had everything needed, they literally had power mgmt, battery, electric motors etc.
Then they went absolutely crazy over hydrogen - which I always hated. The cycle is terrible currently (from production to power on road).
The mind boggles a bit to imagine what might have been for them if they had just moved forward on hybrid, plug in hybrid, full EV path. They could have blended that mix more and more until full EV. They had most of the pieces it seems including production capacity.