How is this supposed to be believable from a company that has been bashing EVs for the last few years, doing everything they can to not make any, not promote them, and tell everyone that hybrids and ICE cars are better?
new CEO... new priorities. How is the top automaker on top? making good moves.
Toyota has been correct that hybrids have been the best setup for the past 10 and next 10 years. Charging infra is catching up but a major bottleneck. Range too.
And yet Tesla is making almost the same profit as Toyota while also building up a gigantic service, sales and charging network. And investing in its own battery research, battery cells and its own battery production equipment.
Clearly they would have preferred to make some of that profit instead.
90 HEV = 6 PHEV = 1 BEV, 90:6:1 is Toyota's opinion.
You get way more zero emission VMT using batteries in the HEV and PHEV role.
A lot of BEVs are second or third cars for wealthy people who keep some sort of ICE as well. Those cars don't generate lots of VMT so their batteries are effectively being wasted.
HEV are just slightly more efficient, they still use 100% fossil fuels and still produce harmful emissions right in places where humans breath it.
In terms of 6 PHEV to 1 EV. This math comes with a lot of issues. First, it only works if people actually plug in their PHEV constantly and evince shows that they don't. And if you don't a PHEV is just a ICE vehicle with a shitty engine.
Plus the issue with PHEV is that they are expensive and complex to produce. Most car companies don't really like them because its hard to make any money on them and unlike with BEV there isn't a path to making money on them in the future. Specially as the ICE supply chain increasingly goes away.
Also even if Toyota thinks PHEV are good, there clearly is a large demand for BEV and Toyota is large enough that they could have done both just fine. Had they just invested in BEV instead of Hydrogen maybe they could be a leading player in HEV, PHEV and BEV.
> Most of the energy for BEVs is produced from fossil fuels as well.
Globally yes, but in many places where there is lots of BEV takeup, this isn't the case.
Additionally you are ignoring that a vehicle with a 25 year lifetime will have improving carbon efficency.
You are also ignoring the single most important thing, pollution of case and coal plants are not produced right in cities where lots of people breath.
> Russia ... India
I'm not sure why you are expanding the discussion to these topics.
> If not, all the aggressive switching by the OECD nations is for naught.
This is a bad attitude. You can't just lose all hope and never do anything because India exists.
Proving green technology on large scale and driving down cost will have an impact on India and other nations too. EV cars are constitutionally simpler then ICE vehicles and have the potential to be cheaper eventually.
The emissions in city alone make switching worth it. The cars are also just straight better in terms of driving.
> Toyota believes the developing world will still want ICEs for a long time, and the oil nations will still want to sell it.
That's a straw man argument. I never said they should stop developing ICE or stop selling ICE in the developed world or even stop selling them in the West.
I said Toyota should stop bullshitting, pretending the EV isn't already a gigantic market and that lots costumers want EVs. Toyota basically claims EV currently are trash and nobody wants them (that is true for their own EVs).
Toyota clearly wanted to be innovative and focused on Hydrogen and it went nowhere (except for the government money going to their pocket). Toyota while claiming they are pro environment is pushing against all emissions regulation, wonder why that is.
What's the car company revenue in the modern west vs India and other developing nations? I'm sure the developing world will still want ICE vehicles, but is that really where the money is?
There are billions of people in the developing world, China, India, Africa. Their income is low per capita, but the combined numbers are so high.
Petroleum fuels are easy to store and transport in low infrastructure environments. Many areas don't have strong electric grids, they don't have 24hr electricity, and even if they do it's not reliable. They rely on inexpensive two and three wheeled vehicles extensively, much more than developed nations.
Mobility is needed for them to feed themselves and progress. It isn't a "nice-to-have", it's a necessity for life. This isn't going to change anytime soon.
Most of those countries don’t have access to their own oil reserves, so are at the mercy of importing, and unless they can get a deal an sanctioned Iranian or Russian oil, they have to pay the same as other countries. In contrast, they have many more ways to generate electricity, even locally off the grid, that don’t require imports. I’ve stayed in places in China that have electricity via a water wheel (not reliable for sure, but enough to charge a bike), and no gas station for hundreds of miles around given low population density.
FCEV "well to wheel" systemic efficiency is significantly lower than equivalent BEV systemic efficiency, and FCEVs are much more complex than BEVs. FCEV's only advantages over BEVs are faster charging times and moderately greater range, both of which are fast dwindling and will soon be gone. Hydrogen is a dead end, a decarbonization distraction being pushed by oil companies, policymakers engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, and those who would benefit financially from a widespread adoption of the tech.
Shame on all who continue to push hydrogen tech for selfish reasons.
This is a meaningless statement within the context of the FCEV vs BEV discussion. You keep saying it, so presumably you think it makes you sound clever? It doesn't. It has the opposite effect.
That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple. A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs. They will cost no more than conventional hybrid cars to build.
BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy. When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.
In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.
> That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple.
Funny how despite it being so simply all car companies still struggle to actually produce a fuel cell car at sane costs.
> A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs.
This is just factually wrong.
And in the cases its true its because the company selling them is actually losing absurd amounts of money per car. While on the other hand Tesla has a 20% margin on their BEVs.
Lets compare in the real world. I just checked, I can get a Long Range Tesla Model 3 for the same price as a Toyota Mirai and Tesla has far, far cheaper fuel costs and many extras not included in the Toyota.
Tesla live cycle cost are far lower, this isn't up for debate, its a simple fact.
> BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy.
Funny how there are many millions of BEV sold and Toyota can barley sell a few 1000s highly subsidies FCEVs.
And how every industry prediction is suggesting 50% growth over the next couple years for BEV and barley and growth for FCEV.
> When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.
You are a hilarious joker. Pretty much every car company in the world not in Japan is fully committed to transitioning to BEV and are investing 1000s of billion.
FCEV isn't even a rounding error. Tesla produces more Model Y per week then Toyota FCEV sales per year.
> In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.
Everybody knows that FCEVs are EV but FCEV are so irrelevant in the real world that nobody even considers talking about them. Its like saying Birds are dinosaurs, ok I guess that's strictly speaking true but its simply a irrelevant fact for 99.99999999% of the population.
FCEV for cars is dead. You sound like time traveler from early 2000s who has been left behind.
Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost. They cost around the same as regular luxury cars despite being made in tiny numbers.
The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make. Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars. Making it a far better economic choice.
Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion. It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s. Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.
FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea: A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery. That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.
> Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost.
I'm sorry but evaluating production cost when only a few 1000 are produced is pointless.
No independent company has done a public costing of these cars.
The sales price is not reflective of production cost on such low volumes.
> The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make.
You are just straight up disagreeing with every automotive engineer that I have seen talking about this topic.
It literally has every interface a BEV has plus a lot of very, very complex stuff on top of that.
> Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars.
Assertions without evidence.
> Making it a far better economic choice.
The fuel cost alone will make sure its never the economic choice.
> Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion.
The lithium ion battery is the innovation and that has been commercialized in 1991. Fuel cells have been commercialized for far, far, far longer.
> It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s.
Except you know, like totally different batteries, far more advanced electronics and so on.
Its just an utterly silly comparison. The range was the issue with BEV in 1900 and now we have better batteries. And as a bonus far better electronics.
> Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.
Exact that the fundamental weakness was that batteries back then were heavy, short range and slow charge. And now batteries are comparatively far lighter, have a range that is more then sufficent and charge rates have gone up by a gigantic amount.
So quite literally ever issue has been addressed.
And reality reflects this, as today millions of EV are sold every year.
> FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea
Yeah a revolution from 1960 rather then 1920. How advanced.
> A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery.
FCEV do need a battery. Jesus have you actually at how a FCEV works in the real world?
> how loudly you boast about the BEV
> That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.
I'm not 'boast', I'm just point out basic facts.
The real world and the real world has already decided. The technology race is over, you are like somebody advocating for Betamax in the late 1990s.
We are not even talking about a 10x difference, not 100x difference more like a 1000x difference in total sales. Pretty much ever car maker except those in Japan have made up their mind. Research in FHEV has essentially collapsed.
You are literally living in a delusional fantasy land you have constructed in your had that is just utterly devoid of reality.
FCVs are projected to be cheaper than BEVs by all the modeling in the literature.
Going with a lower pressure tank saves money at the cost of reduced range. The problem is booting a hydrogen station network big enough to support a low range FCV (< 200 miles).
But even building expensive carbon fiber high pressure tanks is going to eventually be much cheaper than huge batteries filled with semi-rare minerals that will increase in price as battery market demand increases. We should talk about what peak <Battery Mineral> will mean alongside Peak Oil.
Those compressed tanks are still expensive, comparable to a battery in cost. Right now power return is like 38% given electricity - hydrogen - compression - convert back to electricity costs.
Sure it can get better, so can BEVs. I don’t see hydrogen winning though, electricity is just so pervasive while the infrastructure for hydrogen would have to be built out, and people might not want to go back to the gas station model after they are used to just charging at home.
They might work out for truck transport given the weight savings, and easier deployment of hydrogen infrastructure at truck stops.
It's literally just a tank. It will be far cheaper than batteries, especially if you want real range.
Most of the arguments against hydrogen cars are just attempts to defend BEVs, not serious arguments against them. BEV advocates can't even acknowledge that millions of people live in apartments or condos, and will probably never have convenient access to charging systems. They pretty much require an alternative.
It’s really not just a tank, it has to be capable of very high pressure storage, at -240C, which is kind of cold. If it were just a tank, Hydrogen fuel cell cars wouldn’t be $50k+. Not only that, but you are now paying a per gallon cost for hydrogen that is similar, if not more, than what gasoline costs, given the infra needed to just hold the hydrogen and then send it into someone p’s tank, as well as deliver it.
Millions of people live in condos and apartments without access to even parking, they park on the street I guess in countries that allow that (many countries require that you show proof of parking spot before they’ll sell you a vehicle). Norway is already at 50%, it’s not going to be even a contest in most countries that don’t have America’s flaky parking arrangements.
It literally is a just a tank. Just a strong one. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this basic fact? And what did BEVs cost when they first came out?
These are just excuses that exist to defend BEVs. They are not serious arguments. It is ironically just a repeat of anti-BEVs arguments, just by BEV fans against the next big idea this time. I guess just like Reddit turning into the next Digg, history sometimes repeats like this.
A strong and cold tank, literally 90% of the reason the car costs more than $50k compared to the cheap fuel cell and basic EV drive train that they also put into the vehicle.
Hydrogen fuel cells are economically non-starters for all but a few niche applications. Toyota is just so sunk cost on it and behind on BEVs that they are desperate to make hydrogen happen even when it clear isn’t.
It only needs high pressure for high range. You could build cheaper FCVs that would cover commuter needs like basic BEVs do without high pressure tanks.
It would require a bit of space to do that. FCEVs already don’t have much storage space, I’m not sure what less compression (and less range) would lead to. Maybe a baluga car design like they did for hydrogen powered planes?
Hydrogen tanks are physically smaller than li-ion batteries. There will come a time when we will use small tanks that fit underneath the passenger compartment. At which point an FCEV has no packaging disadvantage compared to BEVs.
Yes, yes and so are vehicles running with flux capacitors and anti gravity devices and those have about the same relevance in the car market. Even the most pro hydrogen people have essentially given up on the car market. Hydrogen vehicles have failed so spectacularly in the market that anybody who still believes in them now is either straight up delusional or has some vested interest.
The hope remains alive in the heavy duty truck market but even there is not looking good and just like in cars they will get their ass kicked.
So my advice for the pro hydrogen crowed, is start claiming hydrogen is great for trucks for a few years and once that gig stops being credibly move on to ships.
Pff you are so devoid of real world knowlage is astonishing. Hydrogen cars have been on sale for decades. But lucky for the car companies that build them, nobody wants to buy that trash so they advertise them at below cost. These car don't even have real production lines, the volume is to low to actually invest in a serious production line.
Go and actually compare real world sales. Like actually go look at the real world. In the real world BEV sales are increasing 50% year over year and is already many millions every year.
Hydrogen car sales are a couple 1000 at best. And most of those are not even to real costumers but pilot programs and things like that.
Tesla produces about as many Model Y a week as global hydrogen car sales per year. Hydrogen cars are a totally irrelevant rounding error.
Why would anybody buy a car when there are almost no actual gas stations. Toyota is clearly not willing to build gas stations themselves on a large scale. What company in your mind will spend 10 to 100s of billions to out a hydrogen fueling infrastructure
A claim that is categorically false. The Mirai was the first commercially available FCEV, and that happened around 2014. Meanwhile, BEVs are older than internal combustion cars.
The whole argument could easily be a repeat of the argument in favor of diesel cars. There was a time when millions of them sold per year, and BEVs were just a round error at the time. But the facts don't change: diesel cars are unsustainable and had major fundamental limitations. The answer became the BEV, despite being sold in nearly no quantities at the time.
This time around, it is become clear that BEVs are also unsustainable, and have their own limitations. And it doesn't matter how many millions it sell. There need for something even better than the BEV still exists, and that will be the catalyst for FCEV sales.
One of the biggest upside is that they are in reality much simpler and lighter than BEVs. A FCEV will cost no more than internal combustion cars to build. And because it refuels so fast, it can easily be a car for everyone, and not just people with garages. As a result, it is a matter of when and not if it replaces BEVs.
Unless those wealthy people are keeping their second car an unusually long time, while basically never driving it, they'll still get driven enough to recoup the up front carbon by a second or third owner.
I think they are trying to drag out their EV strategy as long as the market will let them. Since it's nonexistent, that could be a while.
It isn't possible to leapfrog everyone in EVs when you've been trying hard to milk your existing factories and products instead of getting any experience actually building and selling them.
I owned a Prius when they were new and I fully expected Toyota to become the world leader in EVs. Had they done that, I would also believe this battery story. But not today.
On top of that we know that Toyota's EV strategy was heavily invested in R&D of Hydrogen fuel cells. They made some wrong bets and it continues to show.
If the article didn't specifically mention that their plans involved some new formulation of Lithium Iron Phosphate I'd have expected "solid state EVs" to just be fresh marketing hype of Hydrogen fuel cells, because of Toyota's recent history.
Toyota isn't hiding its stance on EV and environment. The are part of automotive lobbying groups preventing stricter emission standard. This isn't a conspiracy, just simple fact on what Toyota has been doing that. Everybody in the car industry knows this.
As with all future battery tech announcements, hope for the best but assume that it will be some combination of too expensive, too fragile, and too difficult to scale (if and when it even reaches the promised state).
Toyota has been talking about its amazing solid state battery tech since at least 2017 and back then they thought they would have them in 2022.
And now the commercialization of these batteries is still as far away as they were back then.
And Toyota also talk about them first being used in PHEV suggesting that they expect pretty low volume at first.
Even if (and that a very big if) Toyota can have some products, with this in 2027 it will take years and years to get to a serious volume that matters in the EV market.
The problem is Toyota is not credible, they have been talking for decades but have never had any independent verification of anything. If they were a startup they would be laughed out of the room.
Car batteries and EV batteries are quite different and have different specifications. However in general yes, if Toyota really had figured out solid state technology, it might also improve phones. But they are different, it would be a lot of work both for the battery and to build a manufacturing plant for smaller batteries. In general if you have something that can break into the gigantic BEV market you don't bother with phones, its just distraction, scaling 1 cell to maximum volume is the major focus.
There are already other innovations that help improve battery tech in phones, like silicon anodes (Sila for example) that is already going into consumer electronics.
Both for consumer electronics and for cars its questionable if Solid state will ever be the correct answer and if so then when it will be dominate.
They finally have a CEO who is happy to go in an EV direction instead of trying to do hydrogen. I suspect it will take a while to get things rolling again, but at least they aren't stalling anymore. They were first movers in this space with the Prius and it's been sad watching them squander that lead.
How many cycles? What is transferred power during 932 miles/10 minutes charge? Electric chargers today are not making money because electricity and especially connection fee allowing you more-less random high power draw is immensely expensive. So it is very nice to have potentially 923 miles / 10 minutes, but cost will be multiples of what equivalent in petrol would cost you. If you will find such a charger at a first place.
