Toyota CEO Says “Silent Majority” of Auto Industry Is Doubting EV-Only Future(carscoops.com)
carscoops.com
Toyota CEO Says “Silent Majority” of Auto Industry Is Doubting EV-Only Future
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/12/toyota-ceo-says-silent-majority-of-auto-industry-is-doubting-ev-only-future/
172 comments
> Toyota is regretting wasting the past 30 years foregoing battery research
That's true.
But EVs have a massive infrastructure problem in developing countries which won't be fixed anytime soon or even ever, and somebody has to make cars for them as well.
That's true.
But EVs have a massive infrastructure problem in developing countries which won't be fixed anytime soon or even ever, and somebody has to make cars for them as well.
If you saw any of the video's where many of the EV Chargers across the US broke (including a few of the famously reliable Tesla's) due to winter cold I think it is more than just a problem for developing nations.
Charging networks in the US need ALOT of work, and it appears the stations can not even properly report there outages as there are countless stories of charging spots being reported by the apps as operational only for the EV driver to find them unusable on arrival.
BEV's have a long way to go to build trust with cold weather drivers, and for me this winter has removed any desire I had to buy a BEV in the coming year.
Charging networks in the US need ALOT of work, and it appears the stations can not even properly report there outages as there are countless stories of charging spots being reported by the apps as operational only for the EV driver to find them unusable on arrival.
BEV's have a long way to go to build trust with cold weather drivers, and for me this winter has removed any desire I had to buy a BEV in the coming year.
> ”EVs have a massive infrastructure problem in developing countries which won't be fixed anytime soon or even ever”
Thailand has just gone from near-zero charging infrastructure to nationwide fast charging networks and being the leading country in South-east Asia for EV sales, in about 2 years.
It doesn’t take long to turn things around once the right policies and incentives are in place.
Thailand has just gone from near-zero charging infrastructure to nationwide fast charging networks and being the leading country in South-east Asia for EV sales, in about 2 years.
It doesn’t take long to turn things around once the right policies and incentives are in place.
[deleted]
Still easier to fix using charging stations than hydrogen though :s
When you’re behind, it’s easier to sling mud then catch up, especially when you’re a conservative multinational without recent experience swinging for the fences (to give credit due, Toyota’s hybrid synergy drive was the result of their fear of US emissions standards decades ago).
Tesla spent $1B on their global Supercharger network. Does Toyota not have $1B to invest? Their market cap is $226B, so clearly this isn’t the case. Get building y’all. You just need a charger team to identify locations, coordinate plans and permits with the local AHJ (authority having jurisdiction), and to engage local electrical contractors to receive the equipment and install. Every Toyota dealer is a possible location to operate a charger installer team out of if so desired (for residential and level 2 requirements).
(Tangentially, make sure your fast DC chargers actually work in the cold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ ["Kyle finds out that the new Electrify America chargers that they co-developed with BTC don't work in cold temperatures. He also heads to ChargePoint, EVgo, and other EA chargers to see if they have similar issues in this cold snap."])
Norway’s ban on new combustion vehicle sales goes into effect in 2025; registration data shows they’re almost at 100% EV and hybrid sales (with hybrids making up less than 10% of new car sales), and their mobility story hasn’t come to a grinding halt. The evidence is overwhelming that challenges raised (cold weather, charging infra) can be solved for with time and resources.
https://supercharge.info/map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34069028
Tesla spent $1B on their global Supercharger network. Does Toyota not have $1B to invest? Their market cap is $226B, so clearly this isn’t the case. Get building y’all. You just need a charger team to identify locations, coordinate plans and permits with the local AHJ (authority having jurisdiction), and to engage local electrical contractors to receive the equipment and install. Every Toyota dealer is a possible location to operate a charger installer team out of if so desired (for residential and level 2 requirements).
(Tangentially, make sure your fast DC chargers actually work in the cold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ ["Kyle finds out that the new Electrify America chargers that they co-developed with BTC don't work in cold temperatures. He also heads to ChargePoint, EVgo, and other EA chargers to see if they have similar issues in this cold snap."])
Norway’s ban on new combustion vehicle sales goes into effect in 2025; registration data shows they’re almost at 100% EV and hybrid sales (with hybrids making up less than 10% of new car sales), and their mobility story hasn’t come to a grinding halt. The evidence is overwhelming that challenges raised (cold weather, charging infra) can be solved for with time and resources.
https://supercharge.info/map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34069028
That would require someone admitting a bad decision from a position where that is not only not going to go well, but from which they may defacto not be able to do so.
Which is the big problem with top down, ‘lifetime job’ type environments - or authoritarian ones. Thought sometimes they can be flexible, ironically, by blaming ‘the other’ or similar tricks.
Which is the big problem with top down, ‘lifetime job’ type environments - or authoritarian ones. Thought sometimes they can be flexible, ironically, by blaming ‘the other’ or similar tricks.
I've never understood the infrastructure argument for Hydrogen vs Battery. Electricity is ubiquitous in many places in the world and can be made in situ. One can argue that there will need to be a lot of infrastructure upgrades for the power demand, but that is needed for the slightly less efficient hydrogen electrolysis as well.
I see developing countries continue to do what they have already been doing; using smaller, more efficient vehicles including bikes (both motorized and non), and shared transport methods.
BEVs have a pretty massive infrastructure problem even in developed countries. Many people live in apartment buildings where you can't just use your own dedicated level-2 charger every night, or in places where the electrical grid just isn't up to providing enough shared ones. I think a (second) paradigm shift is still necessary, but hydrogen is the least likely alternative. Ammonia-based hybrids and especially swappable battery systems both loom larger in my mind, at least.
I live in such an apartment and this is such FUD. Everyone is getting by just fine with level 1 chargers. Almost no one drives so much they actually need level 2, and in a pinch there are public charging stations.
> Everyone ... Almost no one ...
sigh People presenting their personal, and often anomalous, experience as some sort of universal rule is the absolute worst HN habit. You took a statement about two categories of people for whom L1 is not enough, stripped one off, and only addressed the other with an untrue statement (clearly messing up on the difference between L2 and L3 in the process BTW). Are you that sure there isn't one person who's not getting by fine with level 1? That's all it takes for your statement to be false, and in fact statistics show there are many, making your excluded-middle pseudo-argument a bit pathetic.
Let me introduce you to the concept of thresholds. It's not necessary for everyone to need more than L1 regularly for lack of same to be a problem, nor did I claim that. There is simply some percentage of people being "left out in the cold" because of a bad ratio between vehicles and chargers, and we're already hovering right around that level. Availability of charging is already a major limiting factor in adoption, which wouldn't be the case if anything you said were generally true.
The reason I know this is that I own an EV myself. The ad hominems elsewhere in this thread about discouraging EV usage made me laugh. I'm personally doing fine because I own my own home and had my own dedicated 240V circuit put in for charging, but I know many people for whom that's not the case. I'm well aware of things like how cold or speed affects range, or the actual availability of L3 chargers. I want EVs to succeed, and (unlike some here) I'm actually putting my money where my mouth is.
When you see someone claim that working unoccupied public chargers are plentiful, there's always a good chance you're dealing with someone who doesn't even own an EV (the most common case), hardly drives it at all, or works at a FAANG where free charging is a perk. None of those are the real world of most EV drivers.
sigh People presenting their personal, and often anomalous, experience as some sort of universal rule is the absolute worst HN habit. You took a statement about two categories of people for whom L1 is not enough, stripped one off, and only addressed the other with an untrue statement (clearly messing up on the difference between L2 and L3 in the process BTW). Are you that sure there isn't one person who's not getting by fine with level 1? That's all it takes for your statement to be false, and in fact statistics show there are many, making your excluded-middle pseudo-argument a bit pathetic.
Let me introduce you to the concept of thresholds. It's not necessary for everyone to need more than L1 regularly for lack of same to be a problem, nor did I claim that. There is simply some percentage of people being "left out in the cold" because of a bad ratio between vehicles and chargers, and we're already hovering right around that level. Availability of charging is already a major limiting factor in adoption, which wouldn't be the case if anything you said were generally true.
The reason I know this is that I own an EV myself. The ad hominems elsewhere in this thread about discouraging EV usage made me laugh. I'm personally doing fine because I own my own home and had my own dedicated 240V circuit put in for charging, but I know many people for whom that's not the case. I'm well aware of things like how cold or speed affects range, or the actual availability of L3 chargers. I want EVs to succeed, and (unlike some here) I'm actually putting my money where my mouth is.
When you see someone claim that working unoccupied public chargers are plentiful, there's always a good chance you're dealing with someone who doesn't even own an EV (the most common case), hardly drives it at all, or works at a FAANG where free charging is a perk. None of those are the real world of most EV drivers.
Hi, seems you miss interpreted "everyone" in my post to mean "everyone in the world" when in my context I used to to mean "everyone with electrics cars in my apartment building". You seem to me engaging in the absolute worst HN habit of not assuming good faith and jumping to conclusions. ;)
So it was meant as anecdata, but that's sufficient to accuse me of FUD for sharing a different (statistically more common) experience? Not buying it. I think there was sufficient reason to interpret your comment the way I did. Why didn't you assume good faith on my part? Don't use that as a shield after you've denied it to others.
That’s literally a last several meters problem. It can trivially be fixed with a tax incentive for landlords to install chargers. Even installing simple wall plugs would be helpful since most EVs come with those chargers or they can be easily purchased. We have an EV that we trickle charge in our garage and that’s usually enough.
For hydrogen you have to do much more significant build out. Apartments already have grid connections.
For hydrogen you have to do much more significant build out. Apartments already have grid connections.
> That’s literally a last several meters problem. It can trivially be fixed with a tax incentive for landlords to install chargers.
It's not just that. The grid is nowhere up to what is needed to support the majority of vehicles being EVs; take a look at this study[0] done by National Grid in New England, which shows the problem clearly. "Already have grid connections" is not enough for electrified long-distance travel or cargo-hauling, simply due to the amount of power required that far exceeds current capabilities.
[0]: https://www.nationalgrid.com/us/EVhighway
It's not just that. The grid is nowhere up to what is needed to support the majority of vehicles being EVs; take a look at this study[0] done by National Grid in New England, which shows the problem clearly. "Already have grid connections" is not enough for electrified long-distance travel or cargo-hauling, simply due to the amount of power required that far exceeds current capabilities.
[0]: https://www.nationalgrid.com/us/EVhighway
That’s still an easier problem than gigantic amounts of heavy piping or compressed gas transport everywhere.
Wires are just cheaper and lower maintenance. They are also more general purpose. Improving the grid will improve its robustness generally.
Wires are just cheaper and lower maintenance. They are also more general purpose. Improving the grid will improve its robustness generally.
> gigantic amounts of heavy piping
You are aware that liquids can be transported over land, not just in pipes, right? Like we already do for gasoline, in case you need a very concrete and relevant example. At least GP provided data, which is too rare around here.
You are aware that liquids can be transported over land, not just in pipes, right? Like we already do for gasoline, in case you need a very concrete and relevant example. At least GP provided data, which is too rare around here.
Transporting hydrogen by truck is going to be very energy intensive especially given the heavy refrigeration required to liquify hydrogen, meaning you're going to lose a lot more in the transfer than you do with the power grid. That's gonna really wreck the economics.
You lose a lot in oil and gas trucking too, which is part of how you end up with stuff like "driving an EV powered 100% by coal emits less carbon per mile than an average gasoline car." It's not just the vehicle efficiency but the whole end-to-end system efficiency. Trucking fuel around is very expensive.
You lose a lot in oil and gas trucking too, which is part of how you end up with stuff like "driving an EV powered 100% by coal emits less carbon per mile than an average gasoline car." It's not just the vehicle efficiency but the whole end-to-end system efficiency. Trucking fuel around is very expensive.
> Transporting hydrogen by truck
If you look back a bit, you might see that this whole thread started with me saying that I wasn't that keen on hydrogen. This is one of the reasons that I was suggesting ammonia or swappable batteries instead.
> Trucking fuel around is very expensive.
So is transmission over power lines. Transformers and wires are not free, nor are the rights of way they sit on, nor maintenance of same in remote locations. 5-7% is lost in transmission. Sometimes there are fires. Let's not be too selective about which advantages and disadvantages we focus on for which alternative. That's called cherry picking.
I do think we need to get away from fossil fuels, and that transmission over copper lines should be our first choice in most cases, but I don't make up reasons why "just build out the grid" should be the only option we consider.
If you look back a bit, you might see that this whole thread started with me saying that I wasn't that keen on hydrogen. This is one of the reasons that I was suggesting ammonia or swappable batteries instead.
> Trucking fuel around is very expensive.
So is transmission over power lines. Transformers and wires are not free, nor are the rights of way they sit on, nor maintenance of same in remote locations. 5-7% is lost in transmission. Sometimes there are fires. Let's not be too selective about which advantages and disadvantages we focus on for which alternative. That's called cherry picking.
I do think we need to get away from fossil fuels, and that transmission over copper lines should be our first choice in most cases, but I don't make up reasons why "just build out the grid" should be the only option we consider.
What is so complicated about installing plugs in parking garages? It doesn’t need to be level 2, even 110v would probably be fine for a lot of people. And since we’re probably talking about cities, power draw probably isn’t a concern. My apartment in Brooklyn had plugs 3 years ago
> What is so complicated about installing plugs in parking garages?
Nothing is technically complicated about it, but a great many landlords are unwilling to incur even the tiniest expense. Have you never seen an apartment with inadequate insulation? With leaky plumbing? I've seen plenty, even when it was the landlords themselves who ended up bearing a cost greater than simple improvement would have incurred. Sometimes it's a liquidity issue, sometimes it's "boiling frog" syndrome or pure laziness, but no matter the reasons it's reality.
> My apartment in Brooklyn had plugs 3 years ago
How nice for you. Are all of your experiences universal?
Nothing is technically complicated about it, but a great many landlords are unwilling to incur even the tiniest expense. Have you never seen an apartment with inadequate insulation? With leaky plumbing? I've seen plenty, even when it was the landlords themselves who ended up bearing a cost greater than simple improvement would have incurred. Sometimes it's a liquidity issue, sometimes it's "boiling frog" syndrome or pure laziness, but no matter the reasons it's reality.
> My apartment in Brooklyn had plugs 3 years ago
How nice for you. Are all of your experiences universal?
Mmmm.
Think for a sec. Large concrete structure right?
So you can't lay your wire in the concrete parts, which means you're putting it in conduits...that are exposed, and open to be harvested by people looking to repurpose the copper wiring for other things.
Or you're doing inductive charging via copper loops in parking spaces, but then maintenance is potentially impacted.
Point being "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Think for a sec. Large concrete structure right?
So you can't lay your wire in the concrete parts, which means you're putting it in conduits...that are exposed, and open to be harvested by people looking to repurpose the copper wiring for other things.
Or you're doing inductive charging via copper loops in parking spaces, but then maintenance is potentially impacted.
Point being "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Level 1 chargers do not work well in the winter, in cold climates
As someone with an EV that is charged primarily with a level 1 charger and is currently experiencing temps below -20C, that is simply not true.
Please don't parrot lies pushed by the fossil fuel industry. I've seen far too many people on this site that have clearly never been within 100 feet of an EV repeating obviously wrong "information".
Please don't parrot lies pushed by the fossil fuel industry. I've seen far too many people on this site that have clearly never been within 100 feet of an EV repeating obviously wrong "information".
Let me guess, garage kept?
There are plenty of first person accounts on YT, Twitter, and other social media where people report being unable to charge their EV because the energy needed to keep the battery warmed exceeds the available power for charging
Please stop blaming everything on some kind of conspiracy by the evil oil industry, you sound like qAnon when you do that.
There are plenty of first person accounts on YT, Twitter, and other social media where people report being unable to charge their EV because the energy needed to keep the battery warmed exceeds the available power for charging
Please stop blaming everything on some kind of conspiracy by the evil oil industry, you sound like qAnon when you do that.
No, it's an outside regular 110V outlet.
This bad behavior is well-documented. Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni...
Please stop trying to dispute facts. If you're going to argue, you should at least attempt to not be ignorant of the basic relevant facts.
This bad behavior is well-documented. Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni...
Please stop trying to dispute facts. If you're going to argue, you should at least attempt to not be ignorant of the basic relevant facts.
You’re getting like 1.3-1.5 kWh with that charger. Assuming an 90% efficiency on charging (~1.2kwh). You wouldn’t be able to really do half of the average American daily commute (20 miles) and use your heating system to bring the car up from -5 C to 20 C.
Your car is likely going to be using 400-450 wh per mile until it’s warmed up and maybe down to 320 wh per mile for the rest of the trip. That’s ~10 kWh for your one day commute.
Now this is assuming basically a lot of perfect conditions for winter time driving. Also it’s assuming no traffic, because once you add waiting in traffic while heating up the interior of the car the power use skyrockets.
Also this is assuming you’re even able to hit 90% charging efficiency on 110V which honestly I’ve never seen personally.
Your car is likely going to be using 400-450 wh per mile until it’s warmed up and maybe down to 320 wh per mile for the rest of the trip. That’s ~10 kWh for your one day commute.
Now this is assuming basically a lot of perfect conditions for winter time driving. Also it’s assuming no traffic, because once you add waiting in traffic while heating up the interior of the car the power use skyrockets.
Also this is assuming you’re even able to hit 90% charging efficiency on 110V which honestly I’ve never seen personally.
I'm not really sure what to tell you. Empirically, I plug the car in when I get home, and that charges it well enough that I never worry about range except long distance trips. The car says I averaged around 30 kWh/100km on the trip that I took today on the highway, though it's also warmed up today all the way to -11C. Units are metric even though I'm in the U.S. because imperial units are silly.
It helps that I've got a 62 kWh Leaf, so I've got lots of range to start with.
It helps that I've got a 62 kWh Leaf, so I've got lots of range to start with.
How long is your commute though and are these low temps normal? I get about 3-4 “miles” of charge per hour with 110v and honestly that’s barely enough.
I WFH, so no commute. These temps are pretty normal for winter where I am.
I don't know what your situation is, but you'll honestly probably have good luck with just finding a regular outlet somewhere at work and trickle charging. I've done several vacations where I just asked where an outlet was, and left the car to charge up to 100% for the return trip. It's a lovely trick that gas cars can't duplicate.
I don't know what your situation is, but you'll honestly probably have good luck with just finding a regular outlet somewhere at work and trickle charging. I've done several vacations where I just asked where an outlet was, and left the car to charge up to 100% for the return trip. It's a lovely trick that gas cars can't duplicate.
That only happens around -20C, which is when most IC cars start to struggle too. It’s like every EV caveat is some gotcha that means we shouldn’t adopt, when IC cars have many of the same issues that we accept without really thinking about it.
Faster charging times (fast enough that your vehicle is charged in the time it takes to enjoy a coffee and a bagel at the coffee shop adjacent to the charging point) would also be an acceptable solution in many cases.
You still need the same amount of energy, but now in a shorter timeframe, so that probably won't help.
Historically (before China's manufacturing boom) it was used cars that made their way to developing countries, and the infrastructure was built for those cars.
Which is to say, nobody made cars for them, but cars made their way there, and they still developed the infrastructure to support them. A solution to the problem will likely be found once there is a problem to be solved.
Which is to say, nobody made cars for them, but cars made their way there, and they still developed the infrastructure to support them. A solution to the problem will likely be found once there is a problem to be solved.
Still true for much of the developing world: large quantities of vehicles from the UK and Europe end up being exported to African countries, for example.
Once there are sufficient volumes of cheap used EVs being exported to Africa, the infrastructure will naturally emerge to support them.
Once there are sufficient volumes of cheap used EVs being exported to Africa, the infrastructure will naturally emerge to support them.
Hydrogen has an even larger infrastructure problem and grid wiring is easier to deploy than pipelines or compressed gas supply chains.
I only see a big future for hydrogen in grid scale energy storage if it can be made competitive with batteries. It has the advantage of requiring less manufactured mass and costly materials to store more energy and perhaps would be better able to warehouse energy long term. You could reuse at least some of the natural gas storage and power generation infrastructure, probably with some upgrades to deal with hydrogen or a hydrogen / methane mix.
I only see a big future for hydrogen in grid scale energy storage if it can be made competitive with batteries. It has the advantage of requiring less manufactured mass and costly materials to store more energy and perhaps would be better able to warehouse energy long term. You could reuse at least some of the natural gas storage and power generation infrastructure, probably with some upgrades to deal with hydrogen or a hydrogen / methane mix.
Green hydrogen is very important if we want to decarbonise many industrial processes that currently depend heavily on fossil fuels, like steel making.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense as a general-purpose transport fuel, however, in a world where cheaper and more efficient battery EVs already exist.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense as a general-purpose transport fuel, however, in a world where cheaper and more efficient battery EVs already exist.
[deleted]
Such a generalization is a far worse crime.
From the perspective of the USA, the fact remains that we are right on the line of consuming more power than we generate, yet we've made building and operating new power generation facilities unfeasible for mercurial reasons. It takes just one winter storm to trigger rolling blackouts. That should not happen in a modern civilization.
I fail to see the reasoning behind the EV push, not only from a supply standpoint, but an environmental one, as well. How can we expect the grid to go from handling around 2,000,000 EV to 250,000,000 just in under 10 years? And how much strip mining will nations (mostly China) need to do to create (non-recyclable) EV batteries?
When the Gov of CA tells you that you can't buy a ICE vehicle, that only EVs will be allowed to be sold, but then in the next breath, tells you not to charge your EVs, you have to ask yourself if what you're advocating for falls within the realm of sanity or lunacy.
Akio Toyoda recognizes this. It is physically impossible without a complete rework of the grid, new power stations, and a network of charging stations that rival the network of gas stations, untold reserves of rare earth minerals, and a host of other concerns managed ...all in under 10 years.
The infrastructure isn't there. The money isn't there. The generation isn't there. The rare earth minerals aren't there and we'd have to destroy large parts of earth's surface to find them with no guarantee of success, PLUS use incredible amounts of electricity and diesel fuel to mine, transport, and process those minerals.
Terrible priorities and terrible long-term leadership got us here. We're careening head-long into a man-made disaster on a civilization scale.
From the perspective of the USA, the fact remains that we are right on the line of consuming more power than we generate, yet we've made building and operating new power generation facilities unfeasible for mercurial reasons. It takes just one winter storm to trigger rolling blackouts. That should not happen in a modern civilization.
I fail to see the reasoning behind the EV push, not only from a supply standpoint, but an environmental one, as well. How can we expect the grid to go from handling around 2,000,000 EV to 250,000,000 just in under 10 years? And how much strip mining will nations (mostly China) need to do to create (non-recyclable) EV batteries?
When the Gov of CA tells you that you can't buy a ICE vehicle, that only EVs will be allowed to be sold, but then in the next breath, tells you not to charge your EVs, you have to ask yourself if what you're advocating for falls within the realm of sanity or lunacy.
Akio Toyoda recognizes this. It is physically impossible without a complete rework of the grid, new power stations, and a network of charging stations that rival the network of gas stations, untold reserves of rare earth minerals, and a host of other concerns managed ...all in under 10 years.
The infrastructure isn't there. The money isn't there. The generation isn't there. The rare earth minerals aren't there and we'd have to destroy large parts of earth's surface to find them with no guarantee of success, PLUS use incredible amounts of electricity and diesel fuel to mine, transport, and process those minerals.
Terrible priorities and terrible long-term leadership got us here. We're careening head-long into a man-made disaster on a civilization scale.
Our power grids have to do load shedding in both the summer and the winter. It’s fair to say that we’re well past the past that generation/consumption line.
>"As a rule"
Uh, okay.
That Toyota has no foresight or the belief that they haven't invested billions in the future of the auto industry - hydrogen and EV - sounds like an "unpopular desire" of your own.
Uh, okay.
That Toyota has no foresight or the belief that they haven't invested billions in the future of the auto industry - hydrogen and EV - sounds like an "unpopular desire" of your own.
No, hydrogen's failings have been well-documented. Toyota has been working on this since the 90s and snapping up all the parents in the false hope that they can corner a burgeoning market. Unfortunately for them, hydrogen-powered cars are a technological dead end.
I’ve been arguing this online for 15 years at this point and I no longer mince words on this topic: Hydrogen is a fucking scam pushed by the oil industry when they thought EV would never happen, it was a way to delay regulation now because “hydrogen is coming”, when it never really is.
They thought they could dangle the hydrogen carrot and just keep riding their oil infra into the ground, and Tesla screwed all that up.
They thought they could dangle the hydrogen carrot and just keep riding their oil infra into the ground, and Tesla screwed all that up.
I’m not so sure. If I was an auto executive, and talked to other auto executives, they are never going to go on-the-record with me without a long arduous legal department review. But if many of them do express doubts, what else can I say? It’s the only thing I can say even if you don’t like the rhetorical appeal.
Except that this is a completely information-free statement. I can claim that the silent majority of people are fond of mixing human hair and feces into their tuna casseroles, but they're all too embarrassed to admit it. It's a rhetorical tactic that is deliberately designed to resist any request to provide evidence. It's a hallmark tactic of bullshitters.
I can also say the silent majority of people think people who don’t brush their teeth this morning are gross. “Silent majority” is often used as a BS tactic because it doesn’t say anything about the truth or falsehood of a claim - yet, the underlying claim could still be true. Don’t make the logical mistake of assuming “silent majority” claims are automatically “likely false.”
In which case, perhaps this article could be retitled to the exact same thing but with less use of the “tactic”: Toyota CEO talks to other carmakers, warns many of them are cautious on EVs.
In which case, perhaps this article could be retitled to the exact same thing but with less use of the “tactic”: Toyota CEO talks to other carmakers, warns many of them are cautious on EVs.
> Don’t make the logical mistake of assuming “silent majority” claims are automatically “likely false.”
Is that a mistake? Would it not be fairly safe to assume that if someone had hard evidence to back up their big claim they would not resort to crediting "a silent majority"? Until they make a falsifiable claim, I'm going to err on the side of "probably bullshit."
Is that a mistake? Would it not be fairly safe to assume that if someone had hard evidence to back up their big claim they would not resort to crediting "a silent majority"? Until they make a falsifiable claim, I'm going to err on the side of "probably bullshit."
You're not doing the world any favors by giving the time of day to bullshitters. In the absence of evidence, apply Occam's razor: is it more likely that Toyota is bravely taking a stand for the poor and downtrodden automakers, or is it more likely they're trying to do the same thing they've done for years and spread FUD about EVs merely as a way to save face and justify their boneheaded investments in hydrogen cars?
Which is why the statement from a Toyota executive (a company with long history of developing EV tech) carries more weight.
No, it's the opposite, because Toyota has been loudly resisting EVs in favor of their proprietary hydrogen tech for years. This statement carries less weight precisely because it's coming from Toyota.
It's not really that silent though, it's just that for it to be a majority many of them aren't speaking publicly. Power companies are very much sounding the alarm that increased electrical demand generated by the asymmetrical loads of widespread EVs are not reasonably achievable. Car executives are much more reluctant to speak out because there is a lot of near term money and clout in EVs.
Using data generally makes sense, or identifying specific reasons. If folks have lots of vague ‘but everyone really just doesn’t like it, but won’t say it’, it’s more generally just grousing about something uncomfortable but perhaps inevitable.
No auto executive is going to go on the record saying they’re going all in on electric vehicles because their current product range is polluting, obsolete junk, justifiably destined to be banned.
Funny because EV is a losing strategy if everyone tries to get giant long-range batteries. Resourcing that many minerals is quite a problem. Small batteries and hybrid for long trips might be the winner after all. 95% of car trips
are already under 30 miles which would be well served by something like the Prius prime which has electric only for that distance.
Toyota is in last place in the EV race. It's going as well for them as the smartphone transition went for Nokia.
As a rule, research may be appropriate.
A quick back-of-the-envelope makes clear that a pure EV future that's structured similarly to what exists today isn't viable. There's ~1.44B cars world wide. Replace them all with EVs, and you and up using something around 130MT of copper just for the cars. Currently commercially viable copper reserves are around ~900MT.
Given that you also need a charger infrastructure, and that humanity has a few other uses for copper, that's problematic.
Thinking about alternatives besides copper-based cars is simply hedging their bets. And while not all car manufacturers have a hydrogen hedge at hand, they all employ plenty of people who can do the basic math above.
EV only is not going to happen without significant shifts either reducing total number of cars by a large number, or reducing the amount of copper needed by a large number. Clearly, car makers don't care about option 1, and there are not that many option 2 alternatives.
A quick back-of-the-envelope makes clear that a pure EV future that's structured similarly to what exists today isn't viable. There's ~1.44B cars world wide. Replace them all with EVs, and you and up using something around 130MT of copper just for the cars. Currently commercially viable copper reserves are around ~900MT.
Given that you also need a charger infrastructure, and that humanity has a few other uses for copper, that's problematic.
Thinking about alternatives besides copper-based cars is simply hedging their bets. And while not all car manufacturers have a hydrogen hedge at hand, they all employ plenty of people who can do the basic math above.
EV only is not going to happen without significant shifts either reducing total number of cars by a large number, or reducing the amount of copper needed by a large number. Clearly, car makers don't care about option 1, and there are not that many option 2 alternatives.
Your argument is that because initial EV designs haven’t immediately solved all the problems necessary for global replacement of ICEs overnight, it can’t happen?
“Not that many” alternative metals? Alloys are everywhere.
“Not that many” alternative metals? Alloys are everywhere.
My argument (and that of the car industry, behind closed doors, fwiw) is that we're not going to see an all-EV future any time soon, and that you need to hedge your bets.
Also, resource shortages are not a problem you easily engineer yourself out. You need copper. (What do you think is the major component of those alloys?). Conductivity requires copper or silver, and, well, copper is the cheap and plentiful one. Sure, make copper/zinc alloys, but that's not reducing the fundamental need for resources that are scarce at this scale.
(Well, scarce when looked at through a commercial viability lens. If we revolutionize copper mining, things look different. But, just in terms of sustainability, what do you think that will look like? And, yes, "asteroid mining". Which will not happen in the next 20 years, either)
So, no, within the next few decades, the chances for a global EV future aren't high enough to bet a company on it. You can bet on luxury/status EVs. There's even a good chance a large percentage of freight in industrialized countries might move to EV.
But unless you're a boutique car maker, you have a much wider audience than that. And you need to plan for that.
Also, resource shortages are not a problem you easily engineer yourself out. You need copper. (What do you think is the major component of those alloys?). Conductivity requires copper or silver, and, well, copper is the cheap and plentiful one. Sure, make copper/zinc alloys, but that's not reducing the fundamental need for resources that are scarce at this scale.
(Well, scarce when looked at through a commercial viability lens. If we revolutionize copper mining, things look different. But, just in terms of sustainability, what do you think that will look like? And, yes, "asteroid mining". Which will not happen in the next 20 years, either)
So, no, within the next few decades, the chances for a global EV future aren't high enough to bet a company on it. You can bet on luxury/status EVs. There's even a good chance a large percentage of freight in industrialized countries might move to EV.
But unless you're a boutique car maker, you have a much wider audience than that. And you need to plan for that.
Transmission lines went to aluminum years ago. What makes you think that EVs won't be using aluminum instead of copper?
Because aluminum has a lower current carrying capacity (EV's have relatively high amperage, compared to transmission lines - 30A-50A vs 1A). And the greater resistance means a larger cross-section(~1.5x) than copper, which in a space-constrained environment is a problem.
Also, access to aluminum means trading with China, Russia, or India - which means inherent geopolitical threats to your supply chain. (Copper is Peru and Chile, so somewhat less contentious)
Are these issues solvable? Likely. They are, as the adage goes "just engineering problems". But they aren't solved yet, and that means, if you run a business, you hedge.
Also, access to aluminum means trading with China, Russia, or India - which means inherent geopolitical threats to your supply chain. (Copper is Peru and Chile, so somewhat less contentious)
Are these issues solvable? Likely. They are, as the adage goes "just engineering problems". But they aren't solved yet, and that means, if you run a business, you hedge.
There is less preventing EVs from becoming simple and low-cost than there is with ICE vehicles.
I’m not surprised your narrative is present within extant automakers because with the exception of perhaps Nissan they are in this market having been dragged here by others’ innovation.
The reason status is winning is not because EVs need to be expensive. It’s because EVs like the Model S Plaid completely destroyed the performance segment of the market. For $120k you could not only beat but outright embarrass any ICE vehicle. ICE vehicles could not compete, and the fast EVs were profitable at lower volumes. EVs redefined the status segment.
Once the market wakes up, which the pandemic has largely accomplished, the transition will be as fast as we can produce the necessary vehicles, and as soon as people can afford them. Global oil conflict only helps the situation.
I’m not surprised your narrative is present within extant automakers because with the exception of perhaps Nissan they are in this market having been dragged here by others’ innovation.
The reason status is winning is not because EVs need to be expensive. It’s because EVs like the Model S Plaid completely destroyed the performance segment of the market. For $120k you could not only beat but outright embarrass any ICE vehicle. ICE vehicles could not compete, and the fast EVs were profitable at lower volumes. EVs redefined the status segment.
Once the market wakes up, which the pandemic has largely accomplished, the transition will be as fast as we can produce the necessary vehicles, and as soon as people can afford them. Global oil conflict only helps the situation.
electric cars cost way too much, homeownership is harder than ever, its hard to see an economy where people are buying a lot of expensive electric cars in bulk in the near future
As a rule, anytime an intellectual attempts to carpet-bomb someone’s argument with “as a rule”, i just stop reading.
There are no EV downsides? EV cars are awful in snow and hanging out at the charger station gets old fast.
I live in Tahoe, I charge at home using a regular plug. I road trip pretty regularly. It’s not an issue at all.
This is a straw man. Nobody's claiming EVs don't have downsides. However, the downside of fossil fuels is that they're destroying our biosphere, and the downside of hydrogen is that it's physically infeasible.
By all means, forego a car entirely and ride a bike if you can get away with it.
By all means, forego a car entirely and ride a bike if you can get away with it.
Majority of consumers dont really care fossil fuel destroying the biosphere. They care only affordability. The vast majority car purchases are non-EV...and maybe at best hybrid. Currently EVs sales have stagnant and Tesla had to subsidized it partially via 7K credit and free charge. I dont see as a way going forward unless Tesla type of car can drop to under 10K in 2nd hand market and motorshop repair able to service it. Toyota still outsell and outvolume Tesla by several fold and still growing with recalls near miniscule unlike how many times Tesla doing recalls this year alone.
Biosphere destruction is not something that can be ignored forever, prioritizing consumer's preferences is not a feasible strategy. Eventually all the finance talk will be replaced with practical environmental strategy, even if it means some of the middle class is inconvenienced.
>hanging out at the charger station gets old fast
On the other hand, a lot of people can charge an EV at home, but you cannot fill gas at home.
On the other hand, a lot of people can charge an EV at home, but you cannot fill gas at home.
You can. You'll need a tank and a pump and a company that will deliver. It's more commonly done (that I've seen) with diesel for farms, but I've come across people who do it for gasoline also. From what I understand, they can get a better price per gallon. I'm sure there's some laws and regulations around it but it is certainly feasible. At least in the USA.
Why are they awful in the snow? They are heavier and easier to make AWD than ICE cars. You mean because the temperature limits the range? Battery warmers are already solving that.
Hanging out at the charger station pre-smartphones would have been a challenge. I don’t see the challenge now. It may require a little adjustment to existing behavior patterns.
Hanging out at the charger station pre-smartphones would have been a challenge. I don’t see the challenge now. It may require a little adjustment to existing behavior patterns.
Yeah, I call BS on "they are awful in the snow". I live in Colorado, and have spent 40 years driving Subarus and Audi Quattros. My Tesla Model S is at least as capable in the snow as those. I attribute much of that to having two independent motors so it doesn't have to play any tricks with center differentials or torsen availability. Though I will admit that my B6 Audi S4 with Blizzaks and traction control off was a lot of fun in the snow.
They probably meant they are awful in cold weather because the cabin heater uses up 20% to 33% of the battery capacity. Newer EVs have swapped out resistive heaters for heat pumps, which helps a lot.
heavier isn't perfectly good thing. One of another reason is that heating on ICE is free while on EV is expensive
Why would you try to spread obvious lies like this? Have you ever actually tried driving an EV in snow? I literally just got home from driving my EV around in the snow and it handled great.
I also rarely charge anywhere other than a regular 110V line at home, no need for hanging out at any charger station. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I also rarely charge anywhere other than a regular 110V line at home, no need for hanging out at any charger station. Please stop spreading misinformation.
He could be right, but it's hard not to view this in the context of Toyota squandering it's first mover advantage in hybrid cars and dumping a huge amount of R&D cash into hydrogen for fairly minimal returns (so far). They still haven't sold 20k Mirais and I'm not sure who they are expecting to pay to build out hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
A neighbor here in LA has one, and it seems like a perfectly cromulent car, but perhaps arrived 10 years too late and is now a solution in search of a problem.
A neighbor here in LA has one, and it seems like a perfectly cromulent car, but perhaps arrived 10 years too late and is now a solution in search of a problem.
FWIW, there is evidence it isn't just the CEO of Toyota who feels this way:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/20/auto-execs-less-confident-in...
The irrational exuberance of the last several years is being met with a re-calibration of expectations across all industries.
An EV-Only future has very large headwinds and it would be foolish to make such a bet without any hedge.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/20/auto-execs-less-confident-in...
The irrational exuberance of the last several years is being met with a re-calibration of expectations across all industries.
An EV-Only future has very large headwinds and it would be foolish to make such a bet without any hedge.
Sounds like a variation of "the dog ate may homework" to explain to share holders why it's 2022, there's a rapidly growing and highly lucrative market for EVs, and why Toyota is getting almost none of that because there are barely any Toyota EVs on the market.
I get it, he needs to say something. The only thing that matters to Toyota share holders is how quickly they can fix this mess. It's getting embarrassing.
Toyota boss: "there is no demand"
Most Toyota competitors: "we can't keep up with demand; please wait 6 months for your vehicle to be delivered while we figure out how to make some more."
Obviously that can't both be true. And we know the last one is true ...
Now for hydrogen cars on the other hand, there is indeed no demand whatsoever. As little EVs as Toyota makes, it's still way more than the number of hydrogen cars they are making; or likely, will ever make. And they've been pretending really hard that that is the future for quite some time now. And still are. The article still mentions fuel cell cars.
I get it, he needs to say something. The only thing that matters to Toyota share holders is how quickly they can fix this mess. It's getting embarrassing.
Toyota boss: "there is no demand"
Most Toyota competitors: "we can't keep up with demand; please wait 6 months for your vehicle to be delivered while we figure out how to make some more."
Obviously that can't both be true. And we know the last one is true ...
Now for hydrogen cars on the other hand, there is indeed no demand whatsoever. As little EVs as Toyota makes, it's still way more than the number of hydrogen cars they are making; or likely, will ever make. And they've been pretending really hard that that is the future for quite some time now. And still are. The article still mentions fuel cell cars.
EVs are, in their current form, still a nightmare. Extremely cold intolerant, battery chemistry is less than amazing (tho that is hopefully changing soon), etc etc.
I really don’t see why more hybrids haven’t been done and more effort put into them. I adore my Volt and will not go pure EV anytime remotely soon for a variety of reasons.
I’m not going to own two vehicles just so I can travel easier and I’m not going to rapidly kill my EVs batteries by raping them with insane amperage charging to get remotely close to fill up times on a gas/diesel vehicle.
waits for the peanut gallery to pop up telling me I shouldn’t drive for more than 2 hours without a 20-30mins rest stop anyways and so it’s a nonissue because it’s not an issue where they* live or for their lifestyle.*
I really don’t see why more hybrids haven’t been done and more effort put into them. I adore my Volt and will not go pure EV anytime remotely soon for a variety of reasons.
I’m not going to own two vehicles just so I can travel easier and I’m not going to rapidly kill my EVs batteries by raping them with insane amperage charging to get remotely close to fill up times on a gas/diesel vehicle.
waits for the peanut gallery to pop up telling me I shouldn’t drive for more than 2 hours without a 20-30mins rest stop anyways and so it’s a nonissue because it’s not an issue where they* live or for their lifestyle.*
I think calling EVs a 'nightmare' and 'extremely cold intolerant' is overstating these problems. They're not perfect but nothing is. The amount of energy EVs lose in the cold varies from 10% to 40% depending on the model, so if that's important to you, buy a model that isn't cold intolerant. Older EVs have resistive heating but newer ones have a heat pump which uses a lot less electricity.
Regarding, HEVs and PHEVs, I agree. Until battery components are more plentiful, HEVs can reduce fuel usage by almost half and PHEVs by up to 90% and require a fraction of the batteries to do it.
PHEVs typically have 1/10th the range of an EV and thus use about 1/10th the batteries and require 1/10th the electricity to charge. This means instead of building an EV that reduces gasoline use by 100%, we could build 10 PHEVs that reduce gasoline use by 90%, because 90% of daily usage is less than the 30 mile range of the PHEV battery. Those 10 PHEVs together, reduce gasoline use by 900% compared to 100% with an EV with 10x the batteries. Also, PHEVs don't have range anxiety.
We have one vehicle. It's an HEV but we're planning to upgrade to a PHEV. If we got a second vehicle, it'd be an inexpensive EV for short trips when the PHEV is already being used, but we'd still keep the PHEV for those longer trips and road trip vacations.
Regarding, HEVs and PHEVs, I agree. Until battery components are more plentiful, HEVs can reduce fuel usage by almost half and PHEVs by up to 90% and require a fraction of the batteries to do it.
PHEVs typically have 1/10th the range of an EV and thus use about 1/10th the batteries and require 1/10th the electricity to charge. This means instead of building an EV that reduces gasoline use by 100%, we could build 10 PHEVs that reduce gasoline use by 90%, because 90% of daily usage is less than the 30 mile range of the PHEV battery. Those 10 PHEVs together, reduce gasoline use by 900% compared to 100% with an EV with 10x the batteries. Also, PHEVs don't have range anxiety.
We have one vehicle. It's an HEV but we're planning to upgrade to a PHEV. If we got a second vehicle, it'd be an inexpensive EV for short trips when the PHEV is already being used, but we'd still keep the PHEV for those longer trips and road trip vacations.
Has anybody ever claimed the auto industry will go 100% electric anytime soon? Feels like Toyota is trying to setup a straw man.
More surprising to me was that the Toyota CEO is named Toyoda.
More surprising to me was that the Toyota CEO is named Toyoda.
It's pretty easy to find contrary evidence--depending on your exact definition of soon.
At COP26, leading automotive companies, businesses, governments, and investors agreed to work towards all new cars and vans being zero emission vehicles by 2035 in leading markets and by 2040 globally.
New Polling Shows U.S. Voters Support Full Transition to Electric Cars by 2030
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-polling-shows-u...
At COP26, leading automotive companies, businesses, governments, and investors agreed to work towards all new cars and vans being zero emission vehicles by 2035 in leading markets and by 2040 globally.
New Polling Shows U.S. Voters Support Full Transition to Electric Cars by 2030
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-polling-shows-u...
>>leading automotive companies, businesses, governments, and investors agreed
Yes, they are all rent seeking trying to get tax payers to pay for the capital outlays for the transition.
>New Polling Shows U.S. Voters Support
There are a few issues with their poll[1] and their sampling, by looking at their responses it appears they surveyed primary car drivers not SUV or Trucks, while SUV's and Trucks are the top selling class of vehicles this leads me to believe they have problems with their sampling and have a bias towards people that would naturally be more prone to accept BEV replacement
I also take issue with the phrasing of their questions around the public policy being proposed for 2030.
[1]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5888d6bad2b857a30238e...
Yes, they are all rent seeking trying to get tax payers to pay for the capital outlays for the transition.
>New Polling Shows U.S. Voters Support
There are a few issues with their poll[1] and their sampling, by looking at their responses it appears they surveyed primary car drivers not SUV or Trucks, while SUV's and Trucks are the top selling class of vehicles this leads me to believe they have problems with their sampling and have a bias towards people that would naturally be more prone to accept BEV replacement
I also take issue with the phrasing of their questions around the public policy being proposed for 2030.
[1]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5888d6bad2b857a30238e...
All this stuff is just words .
Such commitments can be reversed by approximately 57000 people in the specific counties in battleground states
And when the US pulls out of something everyone follows suit for obvious reasons.
Such commitments can be reversed by approximately 57000 people in the specific counties in battleground states
And when the US pulls out of something everyone follows suit for obvious reasons.
It would be interesting to know what europeans feel about EVs after the war
The Japanese auto makers are also against EVs in favor of hydrogen because Japan’s economy is driven by conglomerates who make a lot of money building heavy machinery etc which are better served by hydrogen than electricity.
As a result the Japanese carmakers have shied from investing in EVs since the soft edict from top was to build hydrogen instead.
It’s not a coincidence that the first Japanese car company that jumped right into EVs was Nissan when it was being headed by Ghosn, who isn’t Japanese himself. (The Prius doesn’t count…that was Toyota’s answer to CA’s requirements, and was wildly successful beyond what they expected. The fact that Toyota hardly built on the Prius brand for 2 decades tells one all they need to know about how the Japanese automakers staying away from EVs isn’t just a business decision, but is being driven by other considerations).
As a result the Japanese carmakers have shied from investing in EVs since the soft edict from top was to build hydrogen instead.
It’s not a coincidence that the first Japanese car company that jumped right into EVs was Nissan when it was being headed by Ghosn, who isn’t Japanese himself. (The Prius doesn’t count…that was Toyota’s answer to CA’s requirements, and was wildly successful beyond what they expected. The fact that Toyota hardly built on the Prius brand for 2 decades tells one all they need to know about how the Japanese automakers staying away from EVs isn’t just a business decision, but is being driven by other considerations).
> The Prius doesn’t count…that was Toyota’s answer to CA’s requirements
That sounded a bit US-centric - so I did a quick Google and found that belief is incorrect:
That sounded a bit US-centric - so I did a quick Google and found that belief is incorrect:
Sales in Japan were extremely strong from the outset, buoyed by Prius winning Japan’s Car of the Year award for 1998. By May 2000 more than 40,000 units had been sold and production capacity was increased to 3,000 a month in anticipation of its arrival in refreshed form (XW11 chassis) in export markets.
Initial testing in the U.S., in 1999, before release to the general public nearly sidelined the Prius before its debut. The few drivers involved in the testing were less than impressed. That, combined with no way to determine a viable buyer market for the Prius, almost halted the car’s journey outside of Japan.
[USA 2000]Nevertheless, the Prius caught on. Toyota was pleasantly surprised that sales the first year exceeded projections and when some Hollywood stars took notice (and purchased the vehicles), things only go better.
100% electric in the next ~15 years (soon?) is the dominant rhetoric in the industry, and from the regulators.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/08/25/california-enacts-world-le...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/business/gm-zero-emission...
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/08/25/california-enacts-world-le...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/business/gm-zero-emission...
Many countries have laws making electric mandatory in ~ decade
Making electric mandatory or banning ICE? Very different things. One gives electric a monopoly, the other doesn’t.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/eu-approves-effective....
"The European Union struck a deal on Thursday on a law to effectively ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, aiming to speed up the switch to electric vehicles and combat climate change."
I want to see that!
"The European Union struck a deal on Thursday on a law to effectively ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, aiming to speed up the switch to electric vehicles and combat climate change."
I want to see that!
That cover the EU, but there's a whole lot more to the world than that.
I'll be surprised if there are no fossil fuel cars being made or sold in China and Russia in 15 years. Even in the US, I'm pretty sure the defense department hasn't set a deadline for eliminating fossil fuels from their fleet and they buy a lot of vehicles, making them one of the planet's largest polluters.
I'll be surprised if there are no fossil fuel cars being made or sold in China and Russia in 15 years. Even in the US, I'm pretty sure the defense department hasn't set a deadline for eliminating fossil fuels from their fleet and they buy a lot of vehicles, making them one of the planet's largest polluters.
[deleted]
Most regulation that I've seen specifies electrified, which includes hybrids, not limited to just BEVs. There are perhaps exceptions, but since most people prefer to be outraged, it all gets peddled as "the gov't is going to force you to buy an EV!"
> carmakers must achieve a 100% cut in CO2 emissions by 2035, which would make it impossible to sell new fossil fuel-powered vehicles in the 27-country EU bloc.
Sure, properly developed CO2 sequestration along with the right regulation is a perfectly viable option to renewable-produced battery-electric vehicles. And fossil transport certainly has a role in the world economy for the foreseeable future.
But I'm questioning Toyota's motives here. Just pointing out, once again, that the main competencies retained by most auto manufacturers is design, powertrain manufacturing and final assembly. They have a very heavy vested interest in models that retain large parts of the status quo.
Toyota also famously bet heavily on hydrogen fuel cell-electric vehicles only a few years ago, downplaying the potential of battery electric vehicles. I always though that strategy was a nonsensical direction driven out of an Innovator's Dilemma type situation.
Thankfully, we don't really need the debate. Reality will eventually give us the correct conclusion here, since there is at least one auto manufacturer hell-bent on bringing electric vehicles to market in volumes that would eventually constitute an existential threat to other manufacturers. If Toyota's CEO turns out to be wrong, pure fossil manufacturers will simply be competed out. (Absent political intervention).
But I'm questioning Toyota's motives here. Just pointing out, once again, that the main competencies retained by most auto manufacturers is design, powertrain manufacturing and final assembly. They have a very heavy vested interest in models that retain large parts of the status quo.
Toyota also famously bet heavily on hydrogen fuel cell-electric vehicles only a few years ago, downplaying the potential of battery electric vehicles. I always though that strategy was a nonsensical direction driven out of an Innovator's Dilemma type situation.
Thankfully, we don't really need the debate. Reality will eventually give us the correct conclusion here, since there is at least one auto manufacturer hell-bent on bringing electric vehicles to market in volumes that would eventually constitute an existential threat to other manufacturers. If Toyota's CEO turns out to be wrong, pure fossil manufacturers will simply be competed out. (Absent political intervention).
I recently learned about eFuels[1]. Specifically that Porshe has invested in an eFuels plant in Chile[2]. The curious thing about this is that it's about creating traditional fuel out of captured carbon dioxide. I'm guessing Toyota's CEO thinks that something like this may become mainstream rather than all-electric.
I think it's possible, especially if the resources necessary to build good car batteries become too scarce. Though I am concerned that even though eFuels are "carbon neutral", they will still bring pollution to large urban areas. Something that electric vehicles are clearly much better at.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrofuel
2 - https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2022/company/porsche-highly-...
I think it's possible, especially if the resources necessary to build good car batteries become too scarce. Though I am concerned that even though eFuels are "carbon neutral", they will still bring pollution to large urban areas. Something that electric vehicles are clearly much better at.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrofuel
2 - https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2022/company/porsche-highly-...
The problem with the efuel story is scale. The ultimate claimed future capacity of that Chile plant is only enough to fuel one single commercial aircraft. It’s just way too much infrastructure for the output.
I mean, technology tends to get smaller, cheaper and more efficient over time.
It's like objecting to the first computers because they took up a giant room, were heavy and could only do 3rd grade math. They'll never go anywhere.
It's like objecting to the first computers because they took up a giant room, were heavy and could only do 3rd grade math. They'll never go anywhere.
Conversion of atmospheric CO2 to liquid fuels isn’t ever going to get more efficient. It’s limited by physics. And the claimed future capacity of that plant already bakes in substantially optimistic assumptions about benefits of scale. Its current capacity is 100x smaller.
If the technology can be miniaturized and applied directly to a car, it would generate its own fuel. Combined with an electromotor/batteries as a hybrid engine, this could be an extremely efficient way to drive.
20 years ago, solar panels and electric cars also had "scale" problems. Those turned out not to be problems.
No, even forty years ago it was clear that you could power the entire USA from a negligible sacrifice of southwestern territory to solar power. Your analogy doesn’t work.
You could, in a world of spherical cows. We could just as easily say synthetic fuels could power the entire USA if we just scaled it up.
My point is you can’t make that argument. It’s obviously false. You would need millions of the facility in the press release to even make a dent in global liquid fuel supply. You would cover the earth with windmills before you finished the job.
On the contrary, if you looked at solar panels in the 1990s, you would think that there would be flying cars before you could scale manufacturing up to fill a good chunk of the southwest US. Only later did people actually make silicon solar panels that could be cheap enough, and it took longer to make them with good enough yield to actually deploy them in large quantity.
This technology doesn't seem to have many known scaling limits yet, just processes which haven't been well-researched, so there's no need to dismiss it early.
This technology doesn't seem to have many known scaling limits yet, just processes which haven't been well-researched, so there's no need to dismiss it early.
GM isn’t investing double digit billions of dollars into EVs because they think EVs won’t be the platform that most people prefer.
Toyota was caught with their pants down. Compare the value proposition of the bZ4X to the Bolt EUV or Ioniq 5.
In just ten years we’ve gone from the first Model S leaving the assembly line to electric F-150 and Mustang. That’s as mainstream as it gets.
Toyota was caught with their pants down. Compare the value proposition of the bZ4X to the Bolt EUV or Ioniq 5.
In just ten years we’ve gone from the first Model S leaving the assembly line to electric F-150 and Mustang. That’s as mainstream as it gets.
> GM isn’t investing double digit billions of dollars into EVs because they think EVs won’t be the platform that most people prefer.
True, GM only cancels and gives up on EV programs that cost single digit billions. ;)
True, GM only cancels and gives up on EV programs that cost single digit billions. ;)
It’s a pretty funny joke but GM is investing $35 billion in a five year period:
https://www.gm.com/electric-vehicles
https://news.gm.com/newsroom.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/20...
https://www.gm.com/electric-vehicles
https://news.gm.com/newsroom.detail.html/Pages/news/us/en/20...
I'm going to guess the previous comment was in reference to the GM EV1 program[0]. I didn't read the whole article but I think GM lost around USD$800 million.
It's a "fun topic" because you can find an incredible amount of "fanboi-ism" about whether or not GM was on the side of good or evil. I live in SE Michigan, my Dad owned a business that was a supplier to GM and my long-term girlfriend works there[1]. And here's me ... I don't care about cars. I intentionally avoided "the big three" and any company that most of its business was "work for the big three[2]".
They either created it prematurely in order to destroy the market entirely, entered it prematurely in order to scare off smaller competition (akin to buying up the little guys and dismantling them in the manner of the electric rail cars), used it without any serious desire to create a legitimate product but only to harm their competitors through CARB regulations (them being the only EV manufacturer) ... frankly, I find all of that to be a bit tin-foil hat[3]. I've heard a million other arguments for and against but at the end of the day they poured a lot of money into it. I think they rightly recognized that "the issue was battery technology" and made a dangerous bet on it[3].
I suspect they expected the battery tech would improve, the cost would go down and they could control the losses by limiting production, refitting leased vehicles with newer tech and re-leasing them, eventually getting to a profitable state well before their competitors figured any of it out. Meanwhile, they'd take every advantage they could from government regulators/grants/programs (why wouldn't they?!). Unfortunately, 1999 tech wasn't up to producing a car that could be used to get to and from work in sub-freezing temperatures and there was no charging infrastructure at all.
Fast-forward to today ... I'm seriously considering a Bolt[4]. They have a lot of "regular old consumer" electric vehicles on the road for quite a while now and have had a few bumps in the road[4].
I think some of the GM hate originates from people being sore about the bailout. Hell, even living here and knowing how awful the impact would have been without it, I don't know how I felt about it at the time. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, it's kind of pointless to be sore about it any longer ...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
[1] Doing a job who's responsibilities are sufficiently complex enough that I can't explain them because I don't entirely understand them.
[2] Somehow I had a 17-year career at a global multinational telecom that nobody locally would be able to identify, then went on to conferencing software and a company that was mostly IoT but also did quite a bit with the autos, so I did end up doing a few (rather cool) things in the automotive space despite my efforts to avoid.
[3] An argument often made is that GM wouldn't sell these cars, they would only lease them. I'm not sure if that's true or not but I know the initial reason for the lease-only choice was that replacing the battery in the vehicle was $40,000 and was expected to be necessary after two years.
[4] I fully expected fires and the like ... and expect more of it as manufacturers figure out that "Li-Ion is hard" and municipalities discover that they need to refit their fire departments. I mean, I'm presently driving around with an incredibly flammable liquid in a device that operates by making it explode in a controlled manner. I don't believe for a second that the problems presented by these batteries can't similarly be solved.
It's a "fun topic" because you can find an incredible amount of "fanboi-ism" about whether or not GM was on the side of good or evil. I live in SE Michigan, my Dad owned a business that was a supplier to GM and my long-term girlfriend works there[1]. And here's me ... I don't care about cars. I intentionally avoided "the big three" and any company that most of its business was "work for the big three[2]".
They either created it prematurely in order to destroy the market entirely, entered it prematurely in order to scare off smaller competition (akin to buying up the little guys and dismantling them in the manner of the electric rail cars), used it without any serious desire to create a legitimate product but only to harm their competitors through CARB regulations (them being the only EV manufacturer) ... frankly, I find all of that to be a bit tin-foil hat[3]. I've heard a million other arguments for and against but at the end of the day they poured a lot of money into it. I think they rightly recognized that "the issue was battery technology" and made a dangerous bet on it[3].
I suspect they expected the battery tech would improve, the cost would go down and they could control the losses by limiting production, refitting leased vehicles with newer tech and re-leasing them, eventually getting to a profitable state well before their competitors figured any of it out. Meanwhile, they'd take every advantage they could from government regulators/grants/programs (why wouldn't they?!). Unfortunately, 1999 tech wasn't up to producing a car that could be used to get to and from work in sub-freezing temperatures and there was no charging infrastructure at all.
Fast-forward to today ... I'm seriously considering a Bolt[4]. They have a lot of "regular old consumer" electric vehicles on the road for quite a while now and have had a few bumps in the road[4].
I think some of the GM hate originates from people being sore about the bailout. Hell, even living here and knowing how awful the impact would have been without it, I don't know how I felt about it at the time. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, it's kind of pointless to be sore about it any longer ...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
[1] Doing a job who's responsibilities are sufficiently complex enough that I can't explain them because I don't entirely understand them.
[2] Somehow I had a 17-year career at a global multinational telecom that nobody locally would be able to identify, then went on to conferencing software and a company that was mostly IoT but also did quite a bit with the autos, so I did end up doing a few (rather cool) things in the automotive space despite my efforts to avoid.
[3] An argument often made is that GM wouldn't sell these cars, they would only lease them. I'm not sure if that's true or not but I know the initial reason for the lease-only choice was that replacing the battery in the vehicle was $40,000 and was expected to be necessary after two years.
[4] I fully expected fires and the like ... and expect more of it as manufacturers figure out that "Li-Ion is hard" and municipalities discover that they need to refit their fire departments. I mean, I'm presently driving around with an incredibly flammable liquid in a device that operates by making it explode in a controlled manner. I don't believe for a second that the problems presented by these batteries can't similarly be solved.
>>I think some of the GM hate originates from people being sore about the bailout.
The "sourness" is not about the bailout per say, it is the fact they took American Tax Payer money and used that to move the bulk of their manufacturing to Mexico, including parts manufacturing. The American tax payer built their automotive factories in Mexico. The bailouts was to "protect American jobs" but it simply delayed the layoffs until they got the Mexico factories going
The "sourness" is not about the bailout per say, it is the fact they took American Tax Payer money and used that to move the bulk of their manufacturing to Mexico, including parts manufacturing. The American tax payer built their automotive factories in Mexico. The bailouts was to "protect American jobs" but it simply delayed the layoffs until they got the Mexico factories going
Yeah, it was poke at the EV1 program. GM has some amazing engineers, but their management has historically left a lot to be desired, in my opinion.
GM nicked named government motors is investing billions of taxpayer money into bev's because that is what the federal government is subsidized them to do
“Government motors” is a pretty funny nickname if you’re stuck in 2008.
The government subsidizes the food you eat and the roads you drive on, maybe you should stop doing those activities if you hate the government so much.
Energy independence is a national security issue. BEV development is a worthy investment, and the government’s infrastructure law incentivizes domestic production.
The government subsidizes the food you eat and the roads you drive on, maybe you should stop doing those activities if you hate the government so much.
Energy independence is a national security issue. BEV development is a worthy investment, and the government’s infrastructure law incentivizes domestic production.
It will turn out just like the ethanol boondoggle. Copper, lithium and countless other materials are already in short supply with out factoring in bev production.
Government should not subsidize anything not food and certainly not EV's
>>the government’s infrastructure law incentivizes domestic production
False in incentives north American production for GM most of that investment is in MX not the US
Government should not subsidize anything not food and certainly not EV's
>>the government’s infrastructure law incentivizes domestic production
False in incentives north American production for GM most of that investment is in MX not the US
I love how whenever this argument comes up, everyone gives a free pass to oil, as if its supply is infinite and extracting it is preferable to mining battery materials. Somehow, burning a larger quantity of oil in inefficient individualized engines is better than building batteries that have potential and financial incentive to be recyclable.
Lithium mining is supposed to be bad but we all seem to gloss over the fact that oil extraction is no different than mining. BEVs plain and simple use less total energy per mile by a long shot, and you can generate that energy however you prefer.
Compare replacing the weight of your battery every 10 years with the weight and volume of all the fuel you’ve burned in 10 years of ICE driving. There’s no such thing as recycling gasoline.
The charts in this article illustrate the issue nicely. Even with non-ideal unimproved current-state EV technology, the massive amount of oil burned in your gas tank is the biggest problem:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ev-battery-recycling
Lithium mining is supposed to be bad but we all seem to gloss over the fact that oil extraction is no different than mining. BEVs plain and simple use less total energy per mile by a long shot, and you can generate that energy however you prefer.
Compare replacing the weight of your battery every 10 years with the weight and volume of all the fuel you’ve burned in 10 years of ICE driving. There’s no such thing as recycling gasoline.
The charts in this article illustrate the issue nicely. Even with non-ideal unimproved current-state EV technology, the massive amount of oil burned in your gas tank is the biggest problem:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ev-battery-recycling
The issue I, and many others have is not in the idea of BEV's but more in the current state of Battery technology. Lithium is infact "scarce" in the since that the total quantity available is less than what would be needed to replace all vehicles. Honestly though Lithium nor cobalt is the issue, cobalt will likly be replace with LiFE chem batteries anyway.
Copper is a greater issue, also the economical longevity of BEV's are another issue. You seem to focused on the idea of battery recycablity which has yet to be proven to be ECONOMICALLY viable (much like everything else beyond Aluminum) yet do not talk about all the other limited materials that go in an EV outside the battery like copper.
It is not uncommon for environmentalist to simply ignore economics as an inconvenient truth, or an irrelevant topic that does not need consideration but BEV's have all kinds of economic issues including a lower expected life due tot he cost of battery replacement, resell issues on the used market, etc.
That is with out getting into the technological problems with BEV's in winter..
If anyone is "glossing over" anything it is the BEV proponents that want to hand wave all of these things with whataboutisms (like you have in your comments) or simply pretending those are not issues, or worse that government can hand-wave a solution
Copper is a greater issue, also the economical longevity of BEV's are another issue. You seem to focused on the idea of battery recycablity which has yet to be proven to be ECONOMICALLY viable (much like everything else beyond Aluminum) yet do not talk about all the other limited materials that go in an EV outside the battery like copper.
It is not uncommon for environmentalist to simply ignore economics as an inconvenient truth, or an irrelevant topic that does not need consideration but BEV's have all kinds of economic issues including a lower expected life due tot he cost of battery replacement, resell issues on the used market, etc.
That is with out getting into the technological problems with BEV's in winter..
If anyone is "glossing over" anything it is the BEV proponents that want to hand wave all of these things with whataboutisms (like you have in your comments) or simply pretending those are not issues, or worse that government can hand-wave a solution
This really goes back to my other points I've made on this thread: if we focus on the economics, if everything you're saying is 100% is true, why are multiple major automotive companies spending so much money investing in EVs and visibly disinvesting from ICE vehicle development? If this knowledge is so available and the conclusion is so inevitable, why are multiple automotive companies abandoning ICE investment so completely?
These automotive companies lobby endlessly to sway various regulations in their favor, but they've seemingly rolled over and given up on the issue of EVs. They don't protest at California or Europe planning to ban ICE vehicle sales, and yet they have no difficulty discouraging the government from pursuing public transit and passenger rail investments. Why is that?
Why is Amazon building a custom EV delivery van with Rivian and outfitting their warehouses with expensive space-eating charging stations if the economics don't work and they expect battery materials to dry up? Are you accusing Amazon of acting against shareholder interests? Do you know of any public companies making investments of that scale without doing basic research? [2]
I'll tell you why it's happening: economically, EVs are less complicated to manufacture, more profitable, less expensive to fuel, and more desirable to consumers. I think that if we read between the lines, automakers aren't worried about securing enough batteries and finding enough materials. They're probably more worried about the way gasoline prices can fluctuate suddenly like in 2021, and how that fluctuation discourages sales of the most profitable types of vehicles (SUVs and trucks).
Economically, the US government knows that high gas prices alone can act as a trigger for recessions, and they most certainly have the data to know whether BEVs are a viable solution. 38% of Republican Senators voted for the infrastructure bill that introduces subsidies for electric vehicles. [1]
We can cynically look at that legislative action as a handout to corporations, but I see it as an admission that the world will change to BEVs whether any outside action takes place or not, purely due to the economics of the situation, and that incentivizing a domestic supply chain is necessary for economic stability and possibly even national security (i.e., shoring up energy independence: congress doesn't want the country's transportation infrastructure to be handcuffed to a new OPEC in the form of foreign battery suppliers).
I'm just following the money here.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026486578/senate-republican-...
[2] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/rivian-amazo...
These automotive companies lobby endlessly to sway various regulations in their favor, but they've seemingly rolled over and given up on the issue of EVs. They don't protest at California or Europe planning to ban ICE vehicle sales, and yet they have no difficulty discouraging the government from pursuing public transit and passenger rail investments. Why is that?
Why is Amazon building a custom EV delivery van with Rivian and outfitting their warehouses with expensive space-eating charging stations if the economics don't work and they expect battery materials to dry up? Are you accusing Amazon of acting against shareholder interests? Do you know of any public companies making investments of that scale without doing basic research? [2]
I'll tell you why it's happening: economically, EVs are less complicated to manufacture, more profitable, less expensive to fuel, and more desirable to consumers. I think that if we read between the lines, automakers aren't worried about securing enough batteries and finding enough materials. They're probably more worried about the way gasoline prices can fluctuate suddenly like in 2021, and how that fluctuation discourages sales of the most profitable types of vehicles (SUVs and trucks).
Economically, the US government knows that high gas prices alone can act as a trigger for recessions, and they most certainly have the data to know whether BEVs are a viable solution. 38% of Republican Senators voted for the infrastructure bill that introduces subsidies for electric vehicles. [1]
We can cynically look at that legislative action as a handout to corporations, but I see it as an admission that the world will change to BEVs whether any outside action takes place or not, purely due to the economics of the situation, and that incentivizing a domestic supply chain is necessary for economic stability and possibly even national security (i.e., shoring up energy independence: congress doesn't want the country's transportation infrastructure to be handcuffed to a new OPEC in the form of foreign battery suppliers).
I'm just following the money here.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026486578/senate-republican-...
[2] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/rivian-amazo...
> In just ten years we’ve gone from the first Model S leaving the assembly line to electric F-150 and Mustang. That’s as mainstream as it gets.
Let's just get out of the way and say if you have to use the term "silent majority" you better make sure you're not falling victim to confirmation bias (aka, "other automotive CEOs who are similarly viewed as 'behind' in the EV space feel the same").
But the bigger point is "the point at which the benefits of an EV exceed the trade-offs for most people in developed countries." I think we're there, or we're getting there once the initial cost of the vehicle comes down[0].
There's no question it's "mainstream" and I'm having a really hard time these days seeing any downside -- for my specific vehicle needs -- to owning an EV and several upsides without taking the cost of fuel into account[1]. Being that Volkswagen had let slip they were designing an electric version of the classic VW Bus, I figured I'd wait for that to be out a couple of years and purchased a used Dodge Caravan for the time being.
Family circumstances led to me no longer needing a van and because of how little I drive, I'm beginning to wonder if it makes sense for me to own a car at all. That was unthinkable where I live about 15 years ago but I'm driving so infrequently that I'm often finding I'm failing to do maintenance on time (well under miles, but past the date -- sometimes it matters). The car is paid off but I need to sit down and factor in the cost of maintaining insurance, registration, oil/transmission changes, tire rotations (which required new tires due to my failure to realize how past due I was), alignment, brakes (similar to tires, I'm often replacing rotors), fuel, cleaning and repair and just see what that is costing me per month. I own a motorcycle which I drive in the warm months in most weather -- total maintenance/insurance is $250/yr, tires/repairs, it's probably added $20/yr to the cost and I paid cash for it -- new -- in 2012. I'm easily past the point where "Uber/Lyft" would be much less costly than owning a car.
The loss of having a (safer) vehicle "on demand" and the way that might appear to someone I'm dating is a huge factor, though. I don't know what kind of regular maintenance is required for an electric vehicle, but I've read that some manufacturers are considering using drum brakes throughout[2]. There's no equivalent to oil changes, I'd expect there is (or will be at some point) a way to tell the vehicle to keep the charge at an "storage/idle state[3]" Stored in a garage between 40-80 (sorry, Fahrenheit) year round, what kind of other maintenance am I looking at? Could I sock some money away each month to replace the battery and how much would I need to plan to have/when?
I'm not what a lot of people would consider the mainstream EV buyer. External effects excluded, the cost of fuel would start affecting me, probably, at $10/gallon with my driving habits. I don't care abut the impact of my driving on climate change and generally do not make large purchasing decisions based on environmental concerns (character flaw as it is). I don't care how fast it accelerates, or how sexy it looks. For my driving needs (and wants), though, it's looking like an EV is by far the best choice.
Of course, astute observers will notice that this is a pretty non-optimal solution to my problem. The "Uber/Lyft" solution is cheapest, but involves someone driving me around. Because my driving tends to schedule well (mostly Friday-Monday, presently, though that will change), renting a car on the weekend would be a suitable option if it weren't an awful experience. I don't see a way for a company to swoop in and fill this space (without going bankrupt) with current technology/culture. For example, if the "Uber/Lyft" solution were self-driving vehicles, I'd be more apt to drop car ownership. I think a lot of people would. At what point does "getting places" become so generic that you simply "subscribe to transportation" and an array of options is available to you based on where you're headed/the purpose of your trip. At a certain point, that sort of thing changes "why we travel", as well.
[0] People are kind of terrible at factoring in total cost of ownership.
[1] The last time I was in the market for a new car, my driving needs were under 10,000 miles a year but most of those miles involved six passengers.
[2] Not a car guy but my understanding: Drum brakes are not exposed to the elements and otherwise last much longer but are more expensive to repair (they may also not stop the wheel as well but I don't know). With regenerative braking, drum brakes will last substantially longer than disc.
[3] Other EV devices I own recommend 40-60% to keep the battery from premature death.
EVs require a wide and reliable power grid. If the unavoidable climate change is as catastrophic as some predict, that assumption should be challenged. A deep irony of climate change is that access to remaining fossil fuel resources may be what matters more than luxury consumption items like EVs. Then again, status items have consistently performed better than I expected so my opinion may be flawed.
kinda
EVs use the most generic form of power exchange we’ve been able to come up with (electricity), and can be charged from any form of it relatively easily and inexpensively - from low voltage DC to high voltage AC , with various efficiency trade offs - with equipment we know how to design and build, and have been doing so for a long time now.
They’re remarkably flexible, and adaptable.
If one was sufficiently motivated, you could burn sugar refining leftovers in a boiler run a dynamo to charge, or direct charge off a solar panel array, or charge off a generator, or high voltage grid interconnect (relatively directly) that was available infrequently. Or a power outlet in a house.
They’re also remarkably low maintenance mechanically, with much smaller supply chains required, up to the life of the battery.
That potentially means they are the most flexible and best option during high change situations. It’s possible to cobble together working solutions in nearly any type of situation.
For most current users, they don’t need flexibility, they need convenience (in a specific, predictable set of circumstances), and a stable large interconnected grid definitely enables that.
But if the grid is down half the time, gas station pumps won’t work, refineries have issues, etc. too. EVs can still charge just fine when it’s up. It does take time, but in a ‘everything is falling apart’ situation, you either have none or more than you can deal with anyway. So it doesn’t likely change the situation much against it.
Hydrogen however is still not worth anything either way. :s
EVs use the most generic form of power exchange we’ve been able to come up with (electricity), and can be charged from any form of it relatively easily and inexpensively - from low voltage DC to high voltage AC , with various efficiency trade offs - with equipment we know how to design and build, and have been doing so for a long time now.
They’re remarkably flexible, and adaptable.
If one was sufficiently motivated, you could burn sugar refining leftovers in a boiler run a dynamo to charge, or direct charge off a solar panel array, or charge off a generator, or high voltage grid interconnect (relatively directly) that was available infrequently. Or a power outlet in a house.
They’re also remarkably low maintenance mechanically, with much smaller supply chains required, up to the life of the battery.
That potentially means they are the most flexible and best option during high change situations. It’s possible to cobble together working solutions in nearly any type of situation.
For most current users, they don’t need flexibility, they need convenience (in a specific, predictable set of circumstances), and a stable large interconnected grid definitely enables that.
But if the grid is down half the time, gas station pumps won’t work, refineries have issues, etc. too. EVs can still charge just fine when it’s up. It does take time, but in a ‘everything is falling apart’ situation, you either have none or more than you can deal with anyway. So it doesn’t likely change the situation much against it.
Hydrogen however is still not worth anything either way. :s
> They’re remarkably flexible, and adaptable.
I wouldn't say that for cars. BAtteries are great for smaller vehicles and mobility like e-bikes , but an ICE car can go away from civilization, be recharged instantly, carry extra fuel with itself, does not degrade in cold . It's more flexible.
Would be interesting to see if the army will use battery EVs
I wouldn't say that for cars. BAtteries are great for smaller vehicles and mobility like e-bikes , but an ICE car can go away from civilization, be recharged instantly, carry extra fuel with itself, does not degrade in cold . It's more flexible.
Would be interesting to see if the army will use battery EVs
Kinda.
ICE fuels degrade rapidly after production and don’t store well for any length of time (gasoline in a gas tank can go bad in a month or so, less if not stored well. Diesel can get fungus if not specially treated to prevent it.).
Longer range, and ability to care more fuel is indeed great - due to fuel density. But if refineries are out or distribution networks are screwed, there is no way to effectively make more, and existing stocks go bad quickly. Strategy was often about capturing refineries and oil fields in WW2, as it was absolutely essential that fresh supplies be acquired or everything would grind to a standstill.
Current EVs are definitely city queens, but as battery tech improves (better energy density), that is likely to change.
And ICE vehicles definitely degrade in cold, quite significantly. Diesels won’t even start without special measures when it gets cold, and diesel fuel without anti gelling agents will solidify. Gasoline engines can choke and/or go fuel rich until the engine warms up, but even then, oils, coolants, etc. often need to be switched or more heavily maintained to avoid freezing.
It’s all trade offs.
Army’s won’t switch until at least 20 years after the civilian market I’d expect, out of tradition and long established supply chain habits rather than anything else, maybe even 50.
It does have advantages too, as you note, regarding density.
ICE fuels degrade rapidly after production and don’t store well for any length of time (gasoline in a gas tank can go bad in a month or so, less if not stored well. Diesel can get fungus if not specially treated to prevent it.).
Longer range, and ability to care more fuel is indeed great - due to fuel density. But if refineries are out or distribution networks are screwed, there is no way to effectively make more, and existing stocks go bad quickly. Strategy was often about capturing refineries and oil fields in WW2, as it was absolutely essential that fresh supplies be acquired or everything would grind to a standstill.
Current EVs are definitely city queens, but as battery tech improves (better energy density), that is likely to change.
And ICE vehicles definitely degrade in cold, quite significantly. Diesels won’t even start without special measures when it gets cold, and diesel fuel without anti gelling agents will solidify. Gasoline engines can choke and/or go fuel rich until the engine warms up, but even then, oils, coolants, etc. often need to be switched or more heavily maintained to avoid freezing.
It’s all trade offs.
Army’s won’t switch until at least 20 years after the civilian market I’d expect, out of tradition and long established supply chain habits rather than anything else, maybe even 50.
It does have advantages too, as you note, regarding density.
I have mixed feelings: on one side I think that going electric is an evolutionary need at scale, we can't munge more from classic ICEs so it's time to build something better on one side, on the other we have many infra to distribute electricity, water, oil, gas, data, ... IF we can cut some of them, like we have done with the convergence to IP means a bigger step toward simplification and money saving. On the other side, also as an EV owner, I think we are not there. We just start to being able to produce usable EV for a sufficiently board set of possible use case.
Let's observe the society at a whole:
- we do need roads, or something equivalent because while we can fly also over land we can't easily fly anything, a cheap drone can fly a mail over a short distance, but fly some industrial machines, component needed to build a home etc are too large too heavy to be moved by air at acceptable costs or even at all in some cases;
- we do need water, at home/factory so we need pipes;
- we need data networks;
- we need electricity networks etc.
Can we erase oil pipelines? Gas pipelines? Their pumping station, the extractions fields, transport and processing stuff etc? Well not completely so far, for instance we need oil for plastic witch include electrical insulation materials, lubricants, joints, absorbing materials for pads/tampons, shoes, tissues, .... but we can drop MANY of them at the price of a bigger electricity network. This means far less stuff to build and maintain. Positive. Electricity is hard but we need it anyway and we can produce it at a significant scale from various sources. Electric motors are effective, well-known, powerful and have many margin of improvement.
That means a good advance.
BUT if we can't spread them on scale, produce enough batteries, energy, recycle enough raw materials than it's a disastrous move. It's something should be started BY THE PUBLIC with attentive and calm peace, instead of trying offloading costs on the people for private profits. And that's my concern.
Let's observe the society at a whole:
- we do need roads, or something equivalent because while we can fly also over land we can't easily fly anything, a cheap drone can fly a mail over a short distance, but fly some industrial machines, component needed to build a home etc are too large too heavy to be moved by air at acceptable costs or even at all in some cases;
- we do need water, at home/factory so we need pipes;
- we need data networks;
- we need electricity networks etc.
Can we erase oil pipelines? Gas pipelines? Their pumping station, the extractions fields, transport and processing stuff etc? Well not completely so far, for instance we need oil for plastic witch include electrical insulation materials, lubricants, joints, absorbing materials for pads/tampons, shoes, tissues, .... but we can drop MANY of them at the price of a bigger electricity network. This means far less stuff to build and maintain. Positive. Electricity is hard but we need it anyway and we can produce it at a significant scale from various sources. Electric motors are effective, well-known, powerful and have many margin of improvement.
That means a good advance.
BUT if we can't spread them on scale, produce enough batteries, energy, recycle enough raw materials than it's a disastrous move. It's something should be started BY THE PUBLIC with attentive and calm peace, instead of trying offloading costs on the people for private profits. And that's my concern.
I want us all to move to electric asap, but the thought of it sometimes scares me thinking about how much copper and infrastructure it will take and how unready we are to accommodate the different speeds of delivery with regard to charging vs. refueling for gas.
Our Tesla superchargers in our state were often getting to capacity and that is just a few spaces and a few cars in a whole state. When every car is electric and the cars take an hour to charge I’m not sure how that is all going to work out.
This problem could be fixed with forethought and planning and converting gas stations asap, but when do humans and specifically Americans ever do that?
Our Tesla superchargers in our state were often getting to capacity and that is just a few spaces and a few cars in a whole state. When every car is electric and the cars take an hour to charge I’m not sure how that is all going to work out.
This problem could be fixed with forethought and planning and converting gas stations asap, but when do humans and specifically Americans ever do that?
I'm not sure what state you're talking about, but I can say in 6 years of owning a Tesla, I've only had to wait for a Supercharger twice, maybe 3 times. I know there were long waits at some CA Superchargers 3-4 years ago, but I haven't seen them, largely in CO and on trips to NC.
Can someone put numbers in this? At glance:
1) Energy density of EVs is quite low, which means efficiency is lost on carrying giant and heavy batteries around.
2) Electricity consumption must meet the electricity production at any time and that's why providing energy during national events is a challenge because people start and stop energy consumption through things like water heaters at the same time. Charging a single EV typically requires power equivalent to something between 50 to 200 kettles, it can't be that easy to provide that kind of power everywhere - right?
1) Energy density of EVs is quite low, which means efficiency is lost on carrying giant and heavy batteries around.
2) Electricity consumption must meet the electricity production at any time and that's why providing energy during national events is a challenge because people start and stop energy consumption through things like water heaters at the same time. Charging a single EV typically requires power equivalent to something between 50 to 200 kettles, it can't be that easy to provide that kind of power everywhere - right?
50 to 200 kettles? That’s wildly off.
A typical kitchen water-boiler uses 1.5kW. My EV, when charging at home, charges at 5kW.
If you have to do a fast charge because you’re on a road trip, you might choose to accelerate battery degradation by charging at 50-200kW, but that’s the rare and expensive exception to the rule.
What’s hard about national events is that historically power generation hasn’t been good at load following. If you know you’re going to charge 2 million EVs every night, there’s very little load following needed, it’s a steady load.
It’s still a lot more energy than current grids can supply, so there’s no doubt that more production and transmission is needed, but the engineering to achieve this is not some radical departure from current techniques.
A typical kitchen water-boiler uses 1.5kW. My EV, when charging at home, charges at 5kW.
If you have to do a fast charge because you’re on a road trip, you might choose to accelerate battery degradation by charging at 50-200kW, but that’s the rare and expensive exception to the rule.
What’s hard about national events is that historically power generation hasn’t been good at load following. If you know you’re going to charge 2 million EVs every night, there’s very little load following needed, it’s a steady load.
It’s still a lot more energy than current grids can supply, so there’s no doubt that more production and transmission is needed, but the engineering to achieve this is not some radical departure from current techniques.
Really? Are fast charger use an exception? If so, why people make a big deal of Tesla's charging network?
What about people who don't live in detached private houses? Are they exception too?
What about people who don't live in detached private houses? Are they exception too?
Once or twice a year, when we go on a long road trip, it’s a great sense of security to have superchargers everywhere. Fast chargers for other vehicles or much more unevenly distributed, and they’re liable to just not work half the time.
But all of this only matter when we’re driving more than 200 miles from home, or doing a day trip somewhere more than 150 miles. Which for my family is just not very frequent.
But all of this only matter when we’re driving more than 200 miles from home, or doing a day trip somewhere more than 150 miles. Which for my family is just not very frequent.
Supercharger should be considered as a exceptional method to charge, but people focus on it.
Three main reasons I do not drive an EV:
1. electricity is expensive
2. they take long to charge
3. the range isn't good
It will take a while for me and many of my peers except those who want a status symbol.
It will take a while for me and many of my peers except those who want a status symbol.
Three main reasons I do drive an EV: 1. electricity is a fifth of the cost of gasoline, 2. it charges while I sleep so I don't spend any time waiting for fueling, and 3. the range is way more than I drive in a day.
Truly, it's #2 that I love the most. Instead of spending hours of my life every year sitting at a gas pump, my car is always fully charged every morning. #1 is cool, too, of course, it costs me $200/year to fuel my EV, where I was spending almost that every month with my last ICEV. #3 is a minimum requirement, of course.
Truly, it's #2 that I love the most. Instead of spending hours of my life every year sitting at a gas pump, my car is always fully charged every morning. #1 is cool, too, of course, it costs me $200/year to fuel my EV, where I was spending almost that every month with my last ICEV. #3 is a minimum requirement, of course.
Imagine if someone released a cellphone tomorrow that fully charged in 5 minutes, and last 4 days on a single charge, but you had to go to special charging centers, none of which are within 15-20 mins of your house, and pull out your credit card and pay for the charging each time, all the while breathing in noxious fumes at the charging center.
I suspect only a small fraction of people would opt for that option. It would be the people who are constantly using their phone because they do their work entirely from it for 15-20 hrs a day.
That’s pretty much what the car market should be like. The only reason people throw suspicion at it is because they’ve not experienced the comfort of never having to the gas station and simply waking up to a fully charged car like they do with their phone.
I suspect only a small fraction of people would opt for that option. It would be the people who are constantly using their phone because they do their work entirely from it for 15-20 hrs a day.
That’s pretty much what the car market should be like. The only reason people throw suspicion at it is because they’ve not experienced the comfort of never having to the gas station and simply waking up to a fully charged car like they do with their phone.
I drive an EV because all three of your points are wrong. Electricity is cheap (I spend about a fifth of what I did on gas), it charges overnight so the charging rate is irrelevant, and I have never even come close to running out of range.
Curious how much both you and sibling pay per kWh
I didn’t realize there was anywhere in the world where electricity is more expensive per mile than gasoline.
Curious how much you pay. Is it over $0.65 per kWh?
I pay $0.1161 cents per kWh.
I pay $0.1161 cents per kWh.
There is an old saying that where you stand on a topic depends on where you sit. I'm sure there are plenty of execs in Toyota who have a bias towards the thing they've been building for decades -- not that surprising really. That being said, the switch from ICE to EV takes more than building vehicles. The infrastructure build out takes much longer. We may see EV limits in certain places until that infrastructure catches up.
I don't think we'll be EV only in the "near" future but this is definitely viewed through the lens of Toyota betting the wrong way on this and now being behind the 8 ball. The first gas powered cars had lots of problems too, and there wasn't 2 gas stations at every intersection like there is now. The infrastructure and range problems will be worked out, just like they have been in the past.
He did reveal an electric Hilux during this interview and the new Prius has been released. The Hilux shows the company isn’t serious about doubting EVs - it’s their most popular vehicle. The new Prius shows why Toyota doesn’t want the world to forget about hybrids.
I’d say the new Prius is likely still attractive value wise compared to EVs, and they’ve made out look much better, albeit with a sacrifice to headroom.
I’d say the new Prius is likely still attractive value wise compared to EVs, and they’ve made out look much better, albeit with a sacrifice to headroom.
Given that at least, in part, the enthusiasm for EV by legacy car manufacturers seems driven out by wall-street. I wonder if a kind of course-correction is possible as it seems to have happened for media companies in streaming, where there were incited by wall street to be all-in in streaming, until past spring, and now a more balanced (at least in the short term) approach seems prefered.
No one's talking about how the difficult part of the EV-Only future is that it assumes we use exactly the same number of cars as we use today.
If we actually want to support an EV future, we're gonna have to support forms of EV that are not battery powered. I'm talking about real L3 autonomous electric vehicles AKA trains.
The industry wants to keep burning fossil fuels, polluting the air, and killing people due to particulate emissions because it doesn't risk profits.
A random mechanic may also volunteer their opinion that they "hate" EVs that they haven't even examined.
The actual silent majority also want to keep eating meat, ingesting massive quantities of HFCS, ignoring homeless people, and pretending far-right white nationalism isn't a cabal of terrorists.
This is were leadership and government regulation must make unpopular choices for the fate of the species and many other species. Fuck what people want: survival overrides the "freedom" to commit individual and industrial planetary omnicide. You are not free to be a terrorist, not permitted to overthrow the government, shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or dump sewage randomly onto neighboring properties, and so it is inconsistent to allow polluting the air like a sewer in the sky.
The regulation of and phasing-out of CFC's was and will be effective at stopping and reversing ozone depletion to pre-1980's levels by 2075. The same must be done with ICEs, methane emissions, and industrial processes. It's not a "should" or a "nice to have", it's an absolute nonnegotiable requirement for survival.
Then, to reach and maintain net negative emissions: bio CCS. The world must collectively and efficiently invest around a few 10's of trillions on oceanic biomass growth and sequestration. Life, and specifically life in the oceans, are the most readily scalable processes for capturing massive amounts of carbon.
A random mechanic may also volunteer their opinion that they "hate" EVs that they haven't even examined.
The actual silent majority also want to keep eating meat, ingesting massive quantities of HFCS, ignoring homeless people, and pretending far-right white nationalism isn't a cabal of terrorists.
This is were leadership and government regulation must make unpopular choices for the fate of the species and many other species. Fuck what people want: survival overrides the "freedom" to commit individual and industrial planetary omnicide. You are not free to be a terrorist, not permitted to overthrow the government, shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or dump sewage randomly onto neighboring properties, and so it is inconsistent to allow polluting the air like a sewer in the sky.
The regulation of and phasing-out of CFC's was and will be effective at stopping and reversing ozone depletion to pre-1980's levels by 2075. The same must be done with ICEs, methane emissions, and industrial processes. It's not a "should" or a "nice to have", it's an absolute nonnegotiable requirement for survival.
Then, to reach and maintain net negative emissions: bio CCS. The world must collectively and efficiently invest around a few 10's of trillions on oceanic biomass growth and sequestration. Life, and specifically life in the oceans, are the most readily scalable processes for capturing massive amounts of carbon.
Getting to vast majority EV is a matter of time. It might be a long time and probably won't be 100%, but it will be close to 100% IMO. Toyota needs to admit they were wrong and start innovating.
He is not doubting the demise of IC Engines but is saying (majorly) that the source of electricity for vehicles could be different - fuel cells (hydrogen) based vehicles are are also EVs.
Hydrogen is not ever happening. You can refuel your hydrogen car where? In the Bay area and Los Angeles, and that's pretty much it for the entire US? Versus where can you refuel your electric car ... anywhere with electricity, whatever the source. To a rough approximation, everywhere.
What benefits do EVs bring to the consumer who is spending his hard earned money ?
I mean real and pragmatic benefits not political or ideological
I mean real and pragmatic benefits not political or ideological
- less cost per mile (energy and maintenance) - absolute no brainer for commercial fleets around the world for this reason alone.
- car holds its value longer. You can expect a decent second hand value when you swap it out. So you write off less per mile too.
- easier to drive (no gears, engine fussing, etc.)
- sports car type performance due to high torque and lack of throttle lag. Even cheaper EVs can be quite sporty.
Some of these things might matter more to you than others. But since you mentioned money, that would be the #1 for you.
- car holds its value longer. You can expect a decent second hand value when you swap it out. So you write off less per mile too.
- easier to drive (no gears, engine fussing, etc.)
- sports car type performance due to high torque and lack of throttle lag. Even cheaper EVs can be quite sporty.
Some of these things might matter more to you than others. But since you mentioned money, that would be the #1 for you.
F150 entry is 34k
Just look at the amount of space, metal, volume you are buying
Now compare it with EVs, same with SUVs
People want to travel in luxury and comfort at non-nosebleed prices
Also people want to be able to use their car 24/7/365. Just look at what is happening with the storm right now.
Just look at the amount of space, metal, volume you are buying
Now compare it with EVs, same with SUVs
People want to travel in luxury and comfort at non-nosebleed prices
Also people want to be able to use their car 24/7/365. Just look at what is happening with the storm right now.
What's the second hand price after driving it for 5 years though? Compared to SUVs, I bet it loses a lot less of its value, while delivering more value to you while you own it. Any ICE vehicle you buy now, is worth a lot less the second you drive away from the dealer and a lot less still after you've worn out its engine and transmission for a few years. EVs just don't depreciate at the same rate.
If Teslas are any indication, F150s vehicles will still be super popular as second hand or third hand vehicles for a long time to come and retain a lot of their value. If you can afford one (or a loan for one), it's a nice car to own and a relatively cheap car to drive.
As for the storm, if the power is out, so are the fuel stations. Fuel pumps require electricity to run. And fuel supplies are getting limited when the roads are iced over as well. So, owning a gas guzzling SUV could get you stranded quite easily.
Electricity on the other hand is available in lots of places that you can still drive to. So charging an EV is going to be a lot less challenging than fueling your car. And I bet people are powering their house with those shiny new F150s while the power is out for days on end. Forget about doing that with an ICE vehicle.
Not bad for 34K; much of which you'll get back when you sell the vehicle.
If Teslas are any indication, F150s vehicles will still be super popular as second hand or third hand vehicles for a long time to come and retain a lot of their value. If you can afford one (or a loan for one), it's a nice car to own and a relatively cheap car to drive.
As for the storm, if the power is out, so are the fuel stations. Fuel pumps require electricity to run. And fuel supplies are getting limited when the roads are iced over as well. So, owning a gas guzzling SUV could get you stranded quite easily.
Electricity on the other hand is available in lots of places that you can still drive to. So charging an EV is going to be a lot less challenging than fueling your car. And I bet people are powering their house with those shiny new F150s while the power is out for days on end. Forget about doing that with an ICE vehicle.
Not bad for 34K; much of which you'll get back when you sell the vehicle.
The fuel is cheaper. The fueling station is in your house or at your office, and there's never a line. The acceleration is better. The heat pump puts out heat within seconds of turning on the car.
Cheap & convenient. I can buy a Bolt for $26K and fuel it for $200/year. And it's always fully charged in the morning so I never have to spend time at a gas station.
YMMV, of course, nobody ever promised that every single situation could benefit from the basic economics. Though starting next week if you live in Oregon and you're on a tight budget, a Bolt is a spectacular deal.
YMMV, of course, nobody ever promised that every single situation could benefit from the basic economics. Though starting next week if you live in Oregon and you're on a tight budget, a Bolt is a spectacular deal.
Toyota should invest in refillable batteries. New electrolytes look promising. Their bZ4X was underwhelming.
Hydrogene is a bit early but it is the future when compared to Li-ion batteries.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. There is no efficient way to make hydrogen. It's a lot more efficient and cheaper to put electricity straight into an EV than to convert it to hydrogen first.
I'm sure they will figure out easier, cheaper ways to make hydrogen but electricity will always be more efficient and cheaper because it's a fundamental force of the universe. Even hydrogen is made from the fundamental forces of the universe.
I'm sure they will figure out easier, cheaper ways to make hydrogen but electricity will always be more efficient and cheaper because it's a fundamental force of the universe. Even hydrogen is made from the fundamental forces of the universe.
Google and Facebook and Apple must be wishing they were so lucky that even after showing the undeniable success of their products their competitors still insist that it doesn’t work.
Google and Facebook are big ad-distribution-firm's, nothing else. And no one ever said Apple products will not work.
Umm, that’s my point?
Apple and Facebook’s competitors don’t just give the entire market to them insisting their products don’t work even after they’ve proved the business model.
They would be dreaming of competing in an industry where the competitors simply unilaterally disarm themselves, which is what the auto industry looks like.
And the most likely reason the auto industry looks like this is because the people who work in it, including the engineers, are largely auto heads who love the sound of a roaring engine, etc.
That’s why it took an outsider like Tesla to show them that people actually prefer silent cars, for example. And yet Tesla’s competitors are still unwilling to heed the evidence of their own eyes.
Apple and Facebook’s competitors don’t just give the entire market to them insisting their products don’t work even after they’ve proved the business model.
They would be dreaming of competing in an industry where the competitors simply unilaterally disarm themselves, which is what the auto industry looks like.
And the most likely reason the auto industry looks like this is because the people who work in it, including the engineers, are largely auto heads who love the sound of a roaring engine, etc.
That’s why it took an outsider like Tesla to show them that people actually prefer silent cars, for example. And yet Tesla’s competitors are still unwilling to heed the evidence of their own eyes.
[deleted]
In this case, it's transparently obvious that Toyota is regretting wasting the past 30 years foregoing battery research in favor of their hydrogen boondoggle.