While not completely wrong I believe this is still Toyota rationalizing the failure of Hydrogen fuel cells. They've found themselves lacking a competent BEV product and are arguing that it's...
While not completely wrong I believe this is still Toyota rationalizing the failure of Hydrogen fuel cells. They've found themselves lacking a competent BEV product and are arguing that it's purposeful because if trends continue we'll run out of key manufacturing components and infrastructure.
The mistake with that is that, is that trends will not continue. Despite constant battery headlines seemingly not going anywhere advancements are being made. One example is Graphene Manufacturing Group which is working on scaling up manufacturing for coin-cell and pouch pack aluminum ion batteries that are extremely competitive with Lithium ion without significant resource limitations.
Beyond that there are various working battery technologies moving from development to production. Which will take years, but will have a significant impact on battery cost and availability. Because of this I think you'll see other manufacturers capitalize on the transition away from lithium batteries while Toyota continues to offer hybrid vehicles with a lot of success as a lower cost option. But they will miss out on a substantial BEV market.
I don't think its a failure, its ahead of its time. The hard truth is that heavy workloads will never be battery powered. The energy density isn't there. There's always going to be a need for some...
the failure of Hydrogen fuel cell
I don't think its a failure, its ahead of its time.
The hard truth is that heavy workloads will never be battery powered. The energy density isn't there. There's always going to be a need for some sort of fuel.
Hydrogen has the long term potential to be green in a way many others do not. Hydrogen for trucking means infrastructure gets built on highways. Once that infrastructure is in place, someone pumping out a consumer vehicle on the back of it is only a matter of time.
Toyota has the added advantage of actually making good cars. The demand for their hybrid minivans is through the roof. Talking 12 month+ wait lists.
Do buses count as a heavy workload? There seem to be a fair number of US orders for electric school buses. (Though, it probably helps that they're only used a few times a day.) Meanwhile,...
Do buses count as a heavy workload? There seem to be a fair number of US orders for electric school buses. (Though, it probably helps that they're only used a few times a day.)
Not really, no. I'm thinking industry and freight primarily. A bus is large, but its cargo is relatively tiny. And its easy enough to have a few spare busses charging to hot-swap. Not as easy for...
Not really, no. I'm thinking industry and freight primarily. A bus is large, but its cargo is relatively tiny. And its easy enough to have a few spare busses charging to hot-swap.
We're rolling out electric ferries in Norway. Surely that counts? https://www.offshore-energy.biz/worlds-first-all-electric-fast-ferry-named-in-norway/ I think saying "never" is a bit bold....
We're rolling out electric ferries in Norway. Surely that counts?
I think saying "never" is a bit bold. Battery technology will change radically within 20 years. And yes, I'm old enough to know we've been saying that for the last 20 as well, (and they kind of have).
The energy loss of hydrogen fuel cells is between 40 and 60 percent. (This is getting better). Electricity production isn't keeping up with demand, especially as more and more fossil-fueled...
The energy loss of hydrogen fuel cells is between 40 and 60 percent. (This is getting better).
Electricity production isn't keeping up with demand, especially as more and more fossil-fueled activity transitions to grid-run.
This is something we can overcome, but it's a significant challenge with hydrogen that needs to be solved before things can work at scale.
Yeah, in the end Toyota isn’t some non profit eco organization with the charter to lower the worlds emissions. It’s a Japanese carmaker whose charter is to make profit by selling cars. Beyond any...
Yeah, in the end Toyota isn’t some non profit eco organization with the charter to lower the worlds emissions. It’s a Japanese carmaker whose charter is to make profit by selling cars.
Beyond any ecological benefits, consumers have a huge demand for EVs. They like how they drive, how they sound, for those who can, charging at home. EVs on the market have large markups, yet still are sold out. Toyota as a profit seeking company, which they are, missed the boat by missing on the EV train.
Any ecological arguments is just an aside at best.
This is a sales document for Toyota car dealerships. The arguments in it are what they think new car buyers will find convincing. I think it's pretty good for that purpose, but we should be...
This is a sales document for Toyota car dealerships. The arguments in it are what they think new car buyers will find convincing. I think it's pretty good for that purpose, but we should be skeptical.
According to the document, the cost of installing a charger at home is $1300. The real cost likely varies and electricity upgrades could go a lot higher in rural areas. You could also spend more on solar panels to go with it.
But consider the target market. Poor people don't buy new cars (or at least, they probably shouldn't), and compared to the car, it's not that much. Also, the charger is a durable improvement that maybe increases the value of the house?
It's a real one-time cost, but it's sort of like including the cost of parking. If you're buying a Prius, you might want to keep it in a garage due to catalytic converter theft. How expensive is that? Depends on if you already have a garage.
There's an argument at the end that I largely agree with. Most emissions reduction will come from replacing less-efficient cars with more-efficient cars, such as hybrids. That depends on what you use as a baseline, but I don't think people should feel bad about buying a hybrid if it's replacing a vehicle that's much less efficient.
Also, fuel efficiency matters more if you drive a lot. If you don't commute by car but still need one for other reasons, maybe it doesn't make sense to spend more on a more efficient vehicle?
I think these are comparisons people have to make on their own, since it depends on their circumstances. Generic arguments based on national or global averages don't tell you a whole lot about what you need.
Also to add to your point about charging, you don't have to install a charger. I installed a NEMA 14-50 plug, commonly used for dryers, on the outside of my house and it charges my Tesla just as...
Also to add to your point about charging, you don't have to install a charger. I installed a NEMA 14-50 plug, commonly used for dryers, on the outside of my house and it charges my Tesla just as well as a charger for half the price. I'm sure Toyota knows this but when trying to sell someone on why they should buy your non-EV, you present the highest cost option they are saving on. Sales 101.
This actually makes some sense. A major reason I dislike the laws mandating "zero-emissions" vehicles is because I do not see us getting the charging infrastructure up for it. And in states like...
This actually makes some sense. A major reason I dislike the laws mandating "zero-emissions" vehicles is because I do not see us getting the charging infrastructure up for it. And in states like California we could be doing slightly more important thinfs like trying to ensure housing for people. It's not a zero-sum game, necessarily, but unless most of the state can afford chargers at home, or landlords start outting them in, it's not something that will really help people relative to the required effort.
Toyota will need to make more PHEVs to keep pace in CA, but they will definitely be a bit behind the curve on pure EVs, which seems to be a calculated move for sustainability.
In a sense they're not letting perfect get in the way of good.
I think it's more along the lines of they, unlike all the politicians trying for short term headlines by banning ICE cars by [insert year here], did the math.
In a sense they're not letting perfect get in the way of good.
I think it's more along the lines of they, unlike all the politicians trying for short term headlines by banning ICE cars by [insert year here], did the math.
Your comment from March is dead on. Politicians and many auto makers can make as many deadlines and announcements they like about ending ICE cars in 7 years or 10 years but there is not nearly...
Your comment from March is dead on. Politicians and many auto makers can make as many deadlines and announcements they like about ending ICE cars in 7 years or 10 years but there is not nearly enough battery capacity to do that, and the scarcity is only going to cause demand and prices to go up.
And it just doesnt make sense to haul around 4000 lbs of batteries when your average commuter is only driving 20 miles a day. A hybrid is far more realistic - small battery for commuting, gas engine for long road trips.
(my little Fiat 500e has a 24 kWh battery and only 100 mile range in summer and its quite adequate for driving into town, doing our shopping and going home - and we live 15 miles out.)
I agreed with you in theory too, and had made a similar post years ago on the electric vehicles subreddit about PHEVs, but I don't think it cashes out, honestly. PHEVs aren't affordable, and I'm...
I agreed with you in theory too, and had made a similar post years ago on the electric vehicles subreddit about PHEVs, but I don't think it cashes out, honestly. PHEVs aren't affordable, and I'm not sure that is going to change, and I'm fairly doubtful new models of PHEVs that are as desirable as new BEVs are going to pop up. I have a 2015 C-Max PHEV, it's a pretty great car, but it was also the most expensive model by several thousands of dollars, and probably was also one of the least profitable. You can barely find a RAV4 prime or Prius prime because they seemingly only made enough for compliance. I think we'll see lower range, cheaper BEVs before we'll see a surge of PHEVs. If charging infrastructure catches up to demand, then lower range EVs will be a no brained for manufacturers. You'll start seeing an "eco" trim. With good charging, 75-150 miles would be more than enough.
While not completely wrong I believe this is still Toyota rationalizing the failure of Hydrogen fuel cells. They've found themselves lacking a competent BEV product and are arguing that it's purposeful because if trends continue we'll run out of key manufacturing components and infrastructure.
The mistake with that is that, is that trends will not continue. Despite constant battery headlines seemingly not going anywhere advancements are being made. One example is Graphene Manufacturing Group which is working on scaling up manufacturing for coin-cell and pouch pack aluminum ion batteries that are extremely competitive with Lithium ion without significant resource limitations.
Beyond that there are various working battery technologies moving from development to production. Which will take years, but will have a significant impact on battery cost and availability. Because of this I think you'll see other manufacturers capitalize on the transition away from lithium batteries while Toyota continues to offer hybrid vehicles with a lot of success as a lower cost option. But they will miss out on a substantial BEV market.
I don't think its a failure, its ahead of its time.
The hard truth is that heavy workloads will never be battery powered. The energy density isn't there. There's always going to be a need for some sort of fuel.
Hydrogen has the long term potential to be green in a way many others do not. Hydrogen for trucking means infrastructure gets built on highways. Once that infrastructure is in place, someone pumping out a consumer vehicle on the back of it is only a matter of time.
Toyota has the added advantage of actually making good cars. The demand for their hybrid minivans is through the roof. Talking 12 month+ wait lists.
Do buses count as a heavy workload? There seem to be a fair number of US orders for electric school buses. (Though, it probably helps that they're only used a few times a day.)
Meanwhile, apparently China subsidized electric buses and sold hundreds of thousands of them. Shenzhen has an all-electric fleet. But it was subsidized and other cities don't seem to be doing as well, particularly those with hills.
Not really, no. I'm thinking industry and freight primarily. A bus is large, but its cargo is relatively tiny. And its easy enough to have a few spare busses charging to hot-swap.
Not as easy for regional truck fleets.
We're rolling out electric ferries in Norway. Surely that counts?
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/worlds-first-all-electric-fast-ferry-named-in-norway/
I think saying "never" is a bit bold. Battery technology will change radically within 20 years. And yes, I'm old enough to know we've been saying that for the last 20 as well, (and they kind of have).
The energy loss of hydrogen fuel cells is between 40 and 60 percent. (This is getting better).
Electricity production isn't keeping up with demand, especially as more and more fossil-fueled activity transitions to grid-run.
This is something we can overcome, but it's a significant challenge with hydrogen that needs to be solved before things can work at scale.
Very true, I should have specified failure for consumer vehicles. There are a lot of applications for hydrogen fuel cells.
Yeah, in the end Toyota isn’t some non profit eco organization with the charter to lower the worlds emissions. It’s a Japanese carmaker whose charter is to make profit by selling cars.
Beyond any ecological benefits, consumers have a huge demand for EVs. They like how they drive, how they sound, for those who can, charging at home. EVs on the market have large markups, yet still are sold out. Toyota as a profit seeking company, which they are, missed the boat by missing on the EV train.
Any ecological arguments is just an aside at best.
This is a sales document for Toyota car dealerships. The arguments in it are what they think new car buyers will find convincing. I think it's pretty good for that purpose, but we should be skeptical.
According to the document, the cost of installing a charger at home is $1300. The real cost likely varies and electricity upgrades could go a lot higher in rural areas. You could also spend more on solar panels to go with it.
But consider the target market. Poor people don't buy new cars (or at least, they probably shouldn't), and compared to the car, it's not that much. Also, the charger is a durable improvement that maybe increases the value of the house?
It's a real one-time cost, but it's sort of like including the cost of parking. If you're buying a Prius, you might want to keep it in a garage due to catalytic converter theft. How expensive is that? Depends on if you already have a garage.
There's an argument at the end that I largely agree with. Most emissions reduction will come from replacing less-efficient cars with more-efficient cars, such as hybrids. That depends on what you use as a baseline, but I don't think people should feel bad about buying a hybrid if it's replacing a vehicle that's much less efficient.
Also, fuel efficiency matters more if you drive a lot. If you don't commute by car but still need one for other reasons, maybe it doesn't make sense to spend more on a more efficient vehicle?
I think these are comparisons people have to make on their own, since it depends on their circumstances. Generic arguments based on national or global averages don't tell you a whole lot about what you need.
Also to add to your point about charging, you don't have to install a charger. I installed a NEMA 14-50 plug, commonly used for dryers, on the outside of my house and it charges my Tesla just as well as a charger for half the price. I'm sure Toyota knows this but when trying to sell someone on why they should buy your non-EV, you present the highest cost option they are saving on. Sales 101.
This actually makes some sense. A major reason I dislike the laws mandating "zero-emissions" vehicles is because I do not see us getting the charging infrastructure up for it. And in states like California we could be doing slightly more important thinfs like trying to ensure housing for people. It's not a zero-sum game, necessarily, but unless most of the state can afford chargers at home, or landlords start outting them in, it's not something that will really help people relative to the required effort.
Toyota will need to make more PHEVs to keep pace in CA, but they will definitely be a bit behind the curve on pure EVs, which seems to be a calculated move for sustainability.
In a sense they're not letting perfect get in the way of good.
I think it's more along the lines of they, unlike all the politicians trying for short term headlines by banning ICE cars by [insert year here], did the math.
I meant Toyota. They crunched the numbers and figured out the way to do the best, both financially and for EVs, over an extended period.
Your comment from March is dead on. Politicians and many auto makers can make as many deadlines and announcements they like about ending ICE cars in 7 years or 10 years but there is not nearly enough battery capacity to do that, and the scarcity is only going to cause demand and prices to go up.
And it just doesnt make sense to haul around 4000 lbs of batteries when your average commuter is only driving 20 miles a day. A hybrid is far more realistic - small battery for commuting, gas engine for long road trips.
(my little Fiat 500e has a 24 kWh battery and only 100 mile range in summer and its quite adequate for driving into town, doing our shopping and going home - and we live 15 miles out.)
I agreed with you in theory too, and had made a similar post years ago on the electric vehicles subreddit about PHEVs, but I don't think it cashes out, honestly. PHEVs aren't affordable, and I'm not sure that is going to change, and I'm fairly doubtful new models of PHEVs that are as desirable as new BEVs are going to pop up. I have a 2015 C-Max PHEV, it's a pretty great car, but it was also the most expensive model by several thousands of dollars, and probably was also one of the least profitable. You can barely find a RAV4 prime or Prius prime because they seemingly only made enough for compliance. I think we'll see lower range, cheaper BEVs before we'll see a surge of PHEVs. If charging infrastructure catches up to demand, then lower range EVs will be a no brained for manufacturers. You'll start seeing an "eco" trim. With good charging, 75-150 miles would be more than enough.