[HN Gopher] Toyota is quietly pushing Congress to slow the shift...
___________________________________________________________________
Toyota is quietly pushing Congress to slow the shift to electric
vehicles
Author : hassanahmad
Score : 446 points
Date : 2021-07-26 16:39 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| garyrichardson wrote:
| I had a conspiracy theory level explanation for why Toyota is
| dragging their feet on EVs -- they need to have the inherit
| unreliability of ICE cars in order to make selling highly
| reliable Toyotas viable. Stay with me on this one.
|
| Toyota vehicles are already highly reliable. If you take Toyota
| level quality and apply it to already simplified EV cars the
| average lifespan of their cars would go from 15 years to 30 years
| (guestimates) since there's 1/100th of the moving parts (or
| less?) in an EV. You'd sell fewer cars and your parts division
| would sell fewer replacement parts. You can't be profitable on
| wiper fluid and tires.
|
| Toyota execs saw the end of their business if they ever adopted
| EVs so they need to ensure future vehicles were powered by
| explosions -- you still gotta have an entire ICE powertrain in a
| hybrid. They knew hydrogen was a dead end, but by the time
| everyone else figured it out it would be 30 years later.
| dartdartdart wrote:
| Toyota is greener than Tesla because it focuses on the impact a
| world society can make rather than on the individual level.
|
| Luxury EVs like Tesla are consuming too many limited battery
| resources. There were 300k EVs sold in North America, if these
| batteries went into hybrids, you could make 14 million hybrids,
| which would save 7900% more gasoline than the EVs [1].
|
| Not to mention that Toyota is bringing to market 4 types of
| electrification: Hybrid, Plug in Hybrid, Battery Electric, and
| Hydrogen Full Cell. Don't get me wrong, Tesla has pushed
| consumers and automakers in the right direction, similar to what
| happened in the advent of the Prius.
|
| Also remember that the average car sits idle for 90%+ of the
| time, and when they are being used, they aren't being used for
| the full range of the vehicle, which is why a Plug in Hybrid is a
| great option for those whose commute is less than say 50 miles.
|
| It's slowly shifting to electric vehicles not because it's anti-
| EV, but because the world's battery supply can be used much more
| efficiently in reducing the amount of gasoline consumed (79 times
| at that).
|
| [1]: https://youtu.be/8Fub8AdysmI?t=264
| gibolt wrote:
| A Prius will not last as long as an EV. Their lifecycle
| emissions are worse than an EV, even on a coal powered grid
| (which can only improve and isn't even that prevalent).
|
| Batteries can go on to have second lives replacing peaker
| plants. Scaling batteries for EVs means improving production
| efficiencies, lowering costs, and reducing the most contentious
| metals.
|
| Moving to hybrids does not improve things as much as a direct
| jump to electric.
|
| Toyota specifically is not helping by fighting for reduced
| emissions regulations, lies about 'self-charging' hybrids, and
| producing large quantities of non-hybrid cars, trucks, SUVs,
| and crossovers.
| dartdartdart wrote:
| I wish everyone can buy a Tesla model 3, but that's not the
| case right now, maybe with the 25k model coming, but
| certainly not right now. Toyota offers more hybrids than any
| other car manufacturer right now, and EV sales only account
| for 1.8% of the market in the US [1], so environmentally
| Toyota is right in their effort to reduce carbon emissions
| through hybridization in addition to their efforts in PHEV,
| EV, and Hydrogen vehicles.
|
| [1] https://insideevs.com/news/489525/us-electric-car-market-
| sha...!
| sokoloff wrote:
| > A Prius will not last as long as an EV.
|
| If I had to buy a car to drive 300K miles and pay for the
| purchase and maintenance on it, I'd buy a Prius long before
| buying any EV. (I daily drive an EV; I'm not anti-EV by any
| means, but the Toyota HSD is extremely well-proven and I
| think is likely to have a lower cost of ownership than any
| current EV.)
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Imagine DEC and IBM going to congress to try to pass laws against
| these "Micro-Computers" that are popping up on desks.
|
| Or BlackBerry back when it was still relevant trying to legislate
| that touch screen can't be bigger than X on phones...
| freedomben wrote:
| Yes, if the federal government were subsidizing "micro-
| computers" and DEC/IBM were asking the gov to prop them up a
| little bit less.
| shmerl wrote:
| Too bad for Toyota.
| kreetx wrote:
| Didn't Toyota own a substantial amount of Tesla stock?
|
| Edit: Come to think of it, they should be in a huge profit at the
| moment.
| xedeon wrote:
| Both Toyota and Daimler did and collaborated on tech actually.
| The Tesla stock they once owned would have been worth more than
| their current respective market caps.
|
| Tesla, Mercedes pair up to create a mainstream EV with 115-mile
| range (B-Class)
|
| https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/153888-tesla-mercedes-pa...
|
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/strategic-partnership-daimler-acq...
|
| Toyota Unveils 'RAV4 EV' Jointly Developed with Tesla
|
| https://global.toyota/en/detail/152289
| chuckSu wrote:
| I'm hoping the one advantage I have living in a third world
| country is that I get to drive petrol and diesel cars for a good
| few more years then the rest of the world.
| dalbasal wrote:
| It's hard to overstate how influential Toyota has been,
| historically, on legislatures and legislation. Trade agreements,
| for the past 40-ish years, have been the keystone piece of both
| trade and industrial policy.
|
| These agreements are designed around the auto industry, and its
| JIT, and global supply chain it necessitates. Auto manufacturing
| is basically the model industry. The auto industry of 90s onward,
| was basically modeled on Toyota and The Toyota Way. The
| classification of subindustries, the structure of tariffs... Most
| of it is directly or indirectly a product of decisions made at
| Toyota. For better or worse, they invented modern global
| manufacturing.
|
| It's sad to see them where they seem to be today.
| okareaman wrote:
| First they were continuing to donate money to congress members
| who wouldn't certify the presidential election until The Lincoln
| Project called them out and now this. I'm actually looking at
| purchasing a car. I'll keep Toyota off the my list.
| CommieBobDole wrote:
| The two are probably connected - these members of Congress were
| the ones they needed to target for for whatever reason, and
| somebody made a decision that this effort was worth the
| potential PR hit.
| TomMckenny wrote:
| They may lobby and campaign finance their way to some very
| inconvenient legislation but to consistently hurt EV they would
| need to turn it into a political shibboleth in the way the oil
| industry did with climate change.
|
| Naturally I hope this does not happen but it may not be much
| harder than gaining the sympathies of a few pundits with strong
| Nielsen ratings.
| jrsj wrote:
| If you only provide incentives as tax credits for buying new EVs,
| you're really only getting a small % of a wealthier segment of
| the population to buy them. And in many cases there are problems;
| look at GMs current predicament with the Bolt. They have to
| advise people not to charge overnight and to park outside because
| their batteries might catch on fire. The EV market sub $40k is
| still very weak. They're also impractical for anyone who doesn't
| park somewhere they can charge.
|
| Now look at hybrids and PHEVs. They can be as much as $15k
| cheaper out the door, but they still cost a bit more than a
| traditional ICE vehicle. If your goal is to reduce the emissions
| of new vehicles as quickly as possible, you should use a more
| "all of the above" strategy. Incentivize small hybrid vehicles &
| make them cheaper than similar non-hybrid vehicles, and suddenly
| the majority of cars priced under $30k being sold would be
| hybrids and you would cut emissions significantly.
|
| Ultimately if you want the market to solve this problem, you need
| to get the financial incentives aligned. Right now they just
| aren't, it's just pumping up EVs that are still niche & ignoring
| other more effective short term solutions.
|
| FWIW I'd love to see some kind of subsidy for used hybrids & EVs
| too, many people can't afford to buy new cars at all but they
| might consider at least switching to a hybrid if it's economical.
| elihu wrote:
| A subsidy on used sales is tricky, since then you'd just be
| subsidizing changes of ownership. Unless the seller pays back
| the subsidy when they sell, you'd have a situation where the
| optimal strategy is just to trade a car back and forth between
| two owners a hundred times. I suppose you could make the
| subsidy only be claimable once per tax-payer, but still the
| incentive would be to buy an EV and then sell it right away
| just to get the credit. There are probably workarounds to that
| too, but it's hard to craft the rules in a way that doesn't
| create perverse incentives.
|
| I think one good way to increase the number of EVs on the road
| would be to subsidize EV conversions. Converting a gas car to
| electric is generally expensive, labor intensive, and requires
| a lot of custom fabrication. If we had an EV conversion
| subsidy, it might encourage companies to start making low-cost
| well-engineered kits that are relatively straightforward for a
| mechanic to install.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| I don't think Toyota cares about Tesla so much, but they have to
| care about VW- the largest car manufacturer. VW's push into EVs
| must have them terrified.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I agree. VW is way ahead of Toyota in EVs.
| [deleted]
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| That's weird because Herbert Diess (CEO of VW) already said
| that they won't be able to overtake Tesla in EV but will fight
| for #2.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Well he's probably said a lot of things, I found this:
|
| "No, we haven't considered (that), we are going our own way,"
| he replied. "We want to get close and then overtake."
|
| "We think that we can - we need our own software stack, our
| own technology," he added.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/volkswagen-ceo-says-he-
| wants...
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Here he admits they won't overtake Tesla in the US https://
| twitter.com/Herbert_Diess/status/1416303359078936576
|
| Let's see how it goes in Europe (Berlin gigafactory is
| coming online soo...) and in China (not looking good
| https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-
| transportation/realit...)
| detaro wrote:
| Nr 2 long-term. Not Nr 2 behind Tesla necessarily.
| detaro wrote:
| > _"We think that we can - we need our own software stack,
| our own technology," he added._
|
| They've slept on that for a bit too long IMHO, and now are
| claiming they are going to scale their software org by
| thousands of employees in a few years, while already having
| issues with software in their younger releases. I'll be
| positively surprised if they pull that off well.
| slownews45 wrote:
| What's crazy is I absolutly thought Toyota would be the leaders
| here. The prius HAD a full electric drivetrain ALREADY. Regen etc
| etc. Neat dash display. They could have dropped the gas engine
| out and simplified things, increase battery size and they'd have
| been well on the way.
|
| Instead we have this hydrogen craziness. Billions here in CA have
| been spent on a "hydrogen superhighway". Meanwhile, for some
| reason the EV / Tesla charging network is getting built out
| naturally - I just did an EV plug at home for my relatives with
| electric cars -> no govt subsidy needed. If we get an EV (we want
| to) I will leave the house every day with a "full" tank.
|
| The conversion losses are a lot less with electric -> Hydrogen
| you start with electricity, make hydrogen, compress it, transport
| it, pump it, use to to make electricity again, run engine.
|
| Electricity you can also make locally (solar etc) and hopefully
| one day use as a battery backup to your house (100kW house
| battery would be great).
| djanogo wrote:
| Instead of everybody jumping on bandwagon and siding with every
| legislature to be PC, individuals and companies have right to
| challenge those laws or on how practical they are. These
| challenges will naturally yield better laws considering the huge
| wave already behind the electric vehicles.
|
| "Toyota's Indian subsidiary publicly criticized India's target
| for 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030, saying it was not
| practical.", the keyword being not practical, country which
| struggles with electricity during summer and rations farmers
| electricity is legislating 100% electric?
| eldaisfish wrote:
| that comment is spot on. India is a country that struggles with
| distributing electrical energy. EVs there are nothing but a
| pipe dream or a plaything for the rich.
|
| In the average western country where almost everyone has their
| electrical energy needs met, EVs do not have a technological
| limitation to adoption.
| Noos wrote:
| Not really sure, we have our needs met for now, but most
| people having EVS would be a huge constraint drain on the
| power. I honestly feel what will happen instead is just that
| cars become too expensive to drive period, with only a
| relatively few owning private vehicles. A lot of people are
| surviving on 20 year old cars mostly.
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| Not in the us. Most charging can take place at night, using
| unused capacity. The only real impediment to almost
| universal EV use in the us is lack of easy charging for
| those who park on the street.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Investing in EV will improve the grid, obviously (and
| charging during off peak hours will stabilize it, too).
|
| Betting on hydrogen (99% made from natural gas) does nothing
| to improve electricity generation and distribution in India.
| Jaepa wrote:
| Its a very much pie in the sky thought but EV theoretically
| could actually help the electrical infrastructure.
|
| Part of the issue is that supply & demand have to match, but
| demand for electrical systems is not static. You could
| theoretically use the EV batteries as reservoirs to store
| surplus energy during low demands periods, and supply energy
| during high demand periods. While I doubt it would flatten the
| duck curve, it could help to smooth it out some.
| fy20 wrote:
| This is already possible with some EVs:
|
| https://eepower.com/news/nissan-to-leaf-could-power-your-
| hom...
|
| https://youtu.be/kl9_cWF7fXo
| theshrike79 wrote:
| The Ford F-150 Lightning can power your house (if paired with
| a Ford charger connected to your home)
|
| The upcoming (this fall-ish) Hyundai Ioniq 5 has a vehicle-
| to-load capacity of 3.7 kW, enough to keep your fridge and
| freezer running during blackouts.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| It's already helping the grid https://www.tesla.com/support/e
| nergy/powerwall/own/californi...
| Zigurd wrote:
| Those laws won't be better if all this amounts to is special
| pleading to not obsolete Toyota's R&D and capex in gas engines.
| India also "struggles" with petroleum infrastructure, safe
| handling, pollution, etc.
| btgeekboy wrote:
| Sounds like they'll be able to leverage that legislation to
| encourage grid improvements.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Myabe they can hire Enron to build them more gas power plants
| to not use.
| Causality1 wrote:
| Just like Google Stadia made ISPs stop having data caps?
| standardUser wrote:
| And how practical is unmitigated climate change? These things
| aren't occurring in a vacuum, or just to "be PC". This is way
| beyond urgent and extreme action is necessary.
| rscoots wrote:
| PC is a poor descriptor, and yes urgent and extreme action is
| necessary. But why does that action have to include going
| _100%_ electric on an impractical timeline? Surely there are
| debateble aspects to this approach, and probably other
| sources of carbon emission that can be more easily reduced,
| thereby allowing for at least _some_ gas cars.
|
| Do you really believe the entire country of India will be
| selling no gas powered cars by 2030? Surely this is just an
| overly-aggressive starting point by governments that they can
| further bargain on?
| revscat wrote:
| Because the "practical" timeline was one started 30 years
| ago. But proposals were met _then_ with the exact same "now
| let's not be hasty" counterarguments. The more time that
| elapses, the more drastic actions are required, no matter
| how painful.
| rscoots wrote:
| >no matter how painful.
|
| Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a
| 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other
| initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make
| that 10% look like small peanuts in comparison?
|
| The answer is no one is gonna actually do this and this
| specific 100% number is just Govt and Businesses
| cynically trying to bargain.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I notice you are not listing any of these much easier to
| accomplish objectives. To be honest, I'm not very
| interested in your theory of public bargaining. Could you
| specify a few of the big ideas that you think will make a
| bigger difference over the next decade?
| rscoots wrote:
| There are obviously hundreds of initiatives to reduce
| carbon emissions, across many countries.
|
| It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd
| say, which is the whole point I'm making.
|
| Why not 99% for example?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Yes, but I don't have time to sort through hundreds of
| them. I'm asking which ones you think are the low hanging
| fruit. Just 3 or 4 examples would do.
| 1234nigger wrote:
| Shut the fuck up, dumb nigger.
| riboflavin123 wrote:
| Because 100% is not enough. We need to be carbon NEGATIVE
| to get back to the good place. (And, yes, we'll never be
| 100% non-emitting. We need to be NET negative.)
| Retric wrote:
| 100% of _new_ vehicles being EV in 9 years isn't that fast.
| Assuming the average vehicle lasts ~25 years that's a ~30+
| year transition that simply looks scary to start with.
|
| Also, EV's don't actually require that much energy 450w
| 24/7 powers a 4kW/mile EV for ~15,000 miles per year.
| People adding AC in India are a much larger load on the
| electric grid than EV's.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > 100% of new vehicles being EV in 9 years isn't that
| fast. Assuming the average vehicle lasts ~25 years that's
| a ~30+ year transition that simply looks scary to start
| with.
|
| I feel this distinction needs to be made every time
| there's talk about banning ICE.
|
| I have yet to see any proposed laws that _completely_ ban
| ICE. It 's always a ban on selling _new_ ICE. You 'll
| still be able to buy used ICE, and they will eventually
| fade away through attrition.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| > " _companies have right to challenge those laws or on how
| practical they are._ "
|
| Is it not practical for Toyota to only offer electric cars for
| sale in India by 2030? Is it not practical for Toyota to sell
| fewer vehicles in India in 2030? To pull out of selling in
| India entirely? I know the criticism is "it's not practical for
| India to switch to electric vehicles (and keep everything else
| the same)" but (a) why is that Toyota's "right to challenge"
| and (b) why assume everything else has to stay the same? Assume
| the Indian government democratically chose economic slowdown
| from reduced vehicle sales but still wants those vehicles which
| are sold to only be electric, citizens should have the right to
| challenge that but why should international companies have such
| a right?
| sbierwagen wrote:
| The number of cities crossing 50C during the summer is getting
| larger and larger. Is that practical?
|
| India had basically no cars at all in the recent past. The
| country would survive going back to that state. It would not
| survive months of lethal heat every year.
| WillDaSilva wrote:
| You're right that challenging legislature can improve it, but
| it would be naive to assume that Toyota has the goal of
| improving it for anyone/anything other than their bottom line.
| They are solely driven by their profit motive, and so it is
| safe to assume they are never participating in the legislative
| process in good faith, i.e. for the betterment of the public
| and the world. Instead they are only participating in the
| legislative process with the expectation that they can gain
| additional power and profit.
|
| Once we take that into consideration, it's hard to see their
| pushback against electric vehicles in a good light.
| djanogo wrote:
| Whole lot of assumptions of what Toyota is, we can replace
| "Toyota" in your comment with most of the companies in SPY
| and it would sound very similar, lot of people have similar
| or more assumptions about Tesla, current opinion set to
| current submarine location.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| At this point it is not Tesla vs the rest of the industry.
| The other two of the 3 biggest manufacturers, GM and VW,
| are both intensely invested in battery electric vehicles.
| Among the big players it is only Toyota playing this FUD
| game now (even Mazda who were panning BEVs for a long time
| seems to have decided to do some EV stuff, even if it looks
| a bit mediocre).
|
| Elon was smart to see the potential early on. But GM also
| started around the same time with the original Volt (which
| is still an awesome vehicle.)
| takeda wrote:
| I would argue it wasn't just that Elon was smart to see
| that potential, he created it. He showed that it was
| possible to have a fully electric call that is usable and
| attractive looking.
|
| Before Tesla, existing car manufacturers made cars with
| low range that were fugly looking, probably trying to
| show regulating bodies that no one would be interested in
| electric cars.
| this2shallPass wrote:
| > we can replace "Toyota" in your comment with most of the
| companies in SPY and it would sound very similar
|
| Yes. Does this make the previous comment any less true? I'd
| say it's likely neutral or might even make it more true.
| asplake wrote:
| Historically a fan of Toyota and I loved the RAV4 hybrid I had
| until a couple of years ago. Saw the writing on the wall though
| when they started their "self-charging hybrid" nonsense, like we
| don't all know a euphemism when we hear one
| PinguTS wrote:
| When will we realize that electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered
| fuel cells are the same?
|
| We differentiate between ICE and EV. An EV then can have
| different types of energy storage like supercaps, batteries, and
| hydrogen-powered fuel cells. All of which can be charged from
| electrical energy and all of them can be discharged. Supercaps
| can be charged and discharged very fast, so that they are used
| for very shortterm storage. I know railway application who use
| them to charge while braking and then discharge for acceleration.
| It is the most efficient way. The modern batteries can also be
| charged and discharged fast. They are more suited for a longer
| term of storage. Then there fuel cells. That can also be charged
| and discharged. While charging is a very slow process, it is
| easier not to do it in the car itself, but outside. It is still a
| process of charging.
|
| That way, we in Germany do not distinguish between the kind of
| storage when we say we want to support EV, at least from the
| legislative view. I know, there are lots of people who does not
| understand this.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Well, green hydrogen costs about 3-4x the kwh it takes to
| charge an EV battery for the same distance. At 3-4x the cost,
| it's just not worth doing it. Besides, the infrastructure is
| simply not there. If you run out of battery, there are
| gazillions of options for getting a charge. If you run out of
| hydrogen, you can probably count the number of fueling points
| within the maximum range of the vehicle on one hand.
|
| At that cost, hydrogen may never be worth the trouble. At least
| not for anything where battery is an option, which appears to
| be just about anything with wheels lately. The Tesla semi is
| about to hit production. 500 miles on a single battery for a
| heavy truck. Hard to argue spending 4x the energy on hydrogen
| for that. They are not the only truck manufacturer trying to
| target that market. At 4x the operational cost, the longer
| charging times are inconvenient but acceptable. And even those
| are coming down.
|
| Green hydrogen (as opposed to converting coal/methane into
| hydrogen) is a very small market as of yet. Long term it might
| prosper. But short term, the best applications are probably
| those where batteries are just not feasible. By short term, I
| mean the next 30 years or so. Heavy transport, shipping,
| aviation, industry, etc. Plenty of growth opportunities there
| before even trying to compete with normal EV road traffic;
| which is becoming routine and very cost effective right now.
| abeppu wrote:
| The article doesn't really touch on it but someone here will
| know: do we have any kind of projections on how long it would
| take us to shift to EVs (e.g. proportion of vehicles on the road
| which are electric over time) and how that compares to the rates
| at which charging and electrical infra can be improved/expanded?
| Does that second point hinge on the current infrastructure bill?
| totalZero wrote:
| Charging infrastructure buildout will no doubt influence new EV
| sales, but the timeline of a transition to EVs on the road (as
| opposed to the dealer's lot) is largely a function of the
| secondary (used) market. The secondary market, I think, will
| transition slowly because as EV take-up increases, the price of
| gasoline is likely to fall.
|
| Several manufacturers have already announced waypoints for
| their transition to EV. Audi is targeting 2026 for a full
| phase-out of ICE [0]. Among its light-duty products, GM aims to
| sell only ZEVs by 2035 [1]. Ford passenger vehicles sold in
| Europe will all be electric by 2030 [2]. I could list more, but
| the message is clear; it is an impending transition and
| automakers will likely use certain marques as a beachhead for
| going fully EV while keeping the ICE vehicles compartmentalized
| in other marques. A headline of "Jaguar plans to be all
| electric by 2025" is more compelling than "Tata Group plans to
| sell more electric cars by 2025," even though both headlines
| describe the same story. Similarly, automakers that have
| struggled for the past decade or two (eg, the American ones)
| seem to be taking this opportunity to redefine their role in
| the market as first-movers.
|
| Price and perceived cost of ownership (net maintenance and
| repairs) are a major part of consumer choices, too. As an
| extreme example, look at places like Ecuador where new vehicles
| are so heavily taxed that it's common to see forty-year-old
| cars on the road. The old cars hold value because few can
| afford the new ones. If EVs are not price competitive, perhaps
| there won't be so many customers willing to pay a premium for
| them.
|
| As far as I am aware [3], the current version of the
| infrastructure bill as negotiated does indeed include a hefty
| sum for EV charging stations. I for one believe this is an
| impactful decision given the long-known chicken and egg problem
| that EVs face. Ultimately, I think we are slowly reaching the
| point where the incentive for private businesses to install
| chargers is becoming clear. Tesla for one is opening its
| charging infrastructure to other brands [4].
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-
| transportation/audi-s...
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/business/gm-zero-
| emission...
|
| [2]
| http://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/en/news/2021/02/...
|
| [3] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-
| inf...
|
| [4] https://www.barrons.com/articles/elon-musk-tesla-charging-
| ne...
| acomjean wrote:
| I live in a city and don't have a dedicated space. I'm not sure
| how they're going to put in EV charging infrastructure for us.
| I'm not alone in this problem, so I"m not sure how an EV would
| work for me or a lot of us City dwellers..
|
| I guess they could make us go to a charging station for 30
| minutes every week, or put in charging stations along each
| street. Maybe battery swapping?
|
| The cities seem to have the most to gain from having cleaner
| air.
| abeppu wrote:
| I live in a city, and though I have a dedicated space, I
| cannot independently choose to put in EV charging
| infrastructure, so I also don't know how this will work out
| in my current place.
|
| But I'm more thinking like ... Texas had its giant power
| outage. California sometimes has rolling blackouts. If a
| large proportion of vehicles were electric, the current
| system couldn't handle it, right? And if a large power outage
| in turn has follow-on effects on transportation where it's
| suddenly harder for goods or people to leave, that seems even
| worse.
|
| So I hope _someone_ has a plan for how the power grid and
| energy storage and charging infrastructure all need to grow
| and become more robust at the right pace, in parallel with EV
| adoption. And that plan, I hope, includes projections on both
| EV adoption and charging infra availability and power grid
| capacity and resilience?
| thehappypm wrote:
| Luddites gonna Luddite. Too bad, really, since Toyota kicked off
| the hybrid revolution, now they're hitched to the wrong horse and
| being babies.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Yeah, this is an unfortunate transition considering Toyota has
| generally been the most technologically sophisticated
| mainstream car manufacturer. When I recently did some test
| driving, Toyotas were by far the most advanced vehicles I test
| drove, I'd expect them to have no difficulty competing in a
| post-combustion environment. I didn't end up purchasing a
| Toyota this time around, but only because the primary criteria
| to meet wasn't technological superiority.
| browningstreet wrote:
| Huh? They're very much not advanced. They're simpler cars
| than their rivals, which allows for higher dependability.
| That's the whole crux of their offering.
|
| (on my second Toyota, after years of driving Audi's)
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| For your base model Camry, sure. But on the higher trim
| levels, you'll see a lot of features and options other
| manufacturers don't even have.
|
| And a lot of companies have "a hybrid model" or "an
| electric model", but that's it. Bear in mind, the most
| common class of car today is the crossover or SUV. Toyota
| can sell you any model of its cars as a hybrid. Meanwhile,
| when I shop around other SUVs, and then ask if they sell it
| as a hybrid, they give me a dumbfounded look, like the idea
| of selling a car with a third row seat that has a hybrid
| engine is absolutely ludicrous.
| browningstreet wrote:
| ...instead of working on EVs, so now they find themselves
| behind in the changing market, so they lobby for higher
| emission standards.
|
| They may offer more hybrids across their product line-up,
| but their in-car/dash tech is far behind, and Lexus has
| been a laggard for many years.
| t0mbstone wrote:
| Oohh I see what you mean. I thought you were talking
| about their technology like automatic cruise control
| (with full stop-and-go) and lane keep assist.
|
| Subaru and Hyundai, for example, have both had those
| technologies in their cars since around 2013 or so, while
| Toyota literally only just recently released those
| features a year or so ago. And Toyota's lane keep assist
| is TERRIBLE.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I ended up buying a Kia (which shares it's DNA with a
| similar Hyundai model), and I can confirm that their
| automatic cruise control is stellar, FWIW.
| jrsj wrote:
| In a way being able to engineer and produce something
| simpler at a large scale very consistently with few defects
| is more advanced than having more advanced but unreliable
| technology you sell at a lower volume
| vsskanth wrote:
| Toyota aren't technologically sophisticated by design. They
| only use tried and tested technology which have been out for
| years. This is how they have stellar reliability.
|
| However I think they really innovated on hybrids.
|
| German OEMs have the most new mechanical tech followed by the
| Americans.
| delfinom wrote:
| No, the problem is domestically, the Japanese government wants
| Toyota to do fuel cells, not batteries. It's causing no doubt
| development problems for them to work on both.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Does Japan have some advantage with hydrogen I don't know
| about?
|
| EDIT: thanks, the possibility that they could create a local
| industry of manufacturing fuel cells instead of relying on
| foreign-manufactured batteries makes a lot of sense to me.
| ip26 wrote:
| They supposedly have significant offshore methane hydrate
| deposits, which can be used to manufacture blue hydrogen.
| smolder wrote:
| I don't think so. Fuel cells do have many advantages. If
| there are geopolitical reasons for not pursuing full EVs,
| it could have something to do with natural resources needed
| for battery production. I got the impression they just made
| a bet on fuel cells since it is theoretically cleaner/more
| sustainable than powering everything with lithium ion
| batteries.
| paulmd wrote:
| Japan generally has the population density to roll out new
| infrastructure very quickly, so while I have no idea if
| they have any existing infrastructure in that area, the
| feeling may be that hydrogen is a "better" solution and
| they would rather just roll that out instead of the
| "easier, worse" solution (which also requires an
| infrastructure roll out to a large degree - just not as
| much as hydrogen).
|
| I'm not saying hydrogen actually is better here, mind you,
| but if they think so, they may want to just go ahead and do
| it.
| thehappypm wrote:
| It's funny because the infrastructure for electric cars
| is just a supplement to existing grids, vs hydrogen which
| needs new pipelines/trucks/filling stations.
| paulmd wrote:
| that's what I'm saying, Japan is a small enough and dense
| enough country that rolling out a more complicated set of
| infrastructure is easier than it would be to do it in a
| place like the US. So maybe their thought is that
| electric is a half-measure and the "right" way is
| hydrogen, and they'll just roll it out and be done with
| it, because that's what Japan does.
|
| The kink in the plan being that the rest of the world is
| going the other way.
| clomond wrote:
| My understanding is the following.
|
| While BEVs are the clear technological winner based on
| "source to wheels" efficiency - you could make the case
| that, if looking at Hydrogen vehicles in isolation, that
| Japan would be one of the best places for it / the most
| likely place where it could have success. From high density
| metropolises (less expense for fueling stations than would
| be required elsewhere), a strong political interest to not
| use oil anymore (as Japan as to import almost all of their
| primary energy), to a desire to build out with less
| dependence on China based minerals and supply chains -
| building out a domestic supply chain of fuel cells and
| hydrolyzers is arguably easier than for BEVs (even though,
| some of the most experienced and respected li-ion cell
| developers are Japanese).
|
| The Japanese car market is also significantly more
| utilitarian than in other parts of the world (meaning
| performance matters less).
|
| Yes, the Japanese government would be wise to shift course.
| But from a Japanese national security perspective/energy
| independence perspective, as well as hypothetical roll out
| - if there is any place it _could_ work, it would be Japan.
| zoomablemind wrote:
| >... a strong political interest to not use oil anymore
| (as Japan as to import almost all of their primary
| energy), to a desire to build out with less dependence on
| China based minerals and supply chains ...
|
| Given the Toyota's scale and general scarcity of rare-
| earth minerals, betting fully on the li-ion tech would be
| indeed too risky without a viable plan B towards EV. Does
| the world economy need any more reasons to empower China?
| Can't see Japan's interest in that, given the recent
| developments in South China sea and environs.
|
| I hope Toyota's engineering efforts will again provide an
| alternative which would progress beyond the current
| trend.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| They are no rare-earth minerals in Li-Ion batteries!
|
| There may be some in electric motors, but 1) hydrogen
| vehicles need those motors too and 2) it is not required
| (some EV have zero rare-earth mineral already).
| coolspot wrote:
| Most of efficient Li-Ion batteries use cobalt mined by
| slaves in Congo. Tesla promises to reduce cobalt content
| but they didn't yet.
| Hypx_ wrote:
| These problems are also true for nearly every country
| except China and a few others. UK, Germany, etc., also
| import huge amounts of energy and they too will need a
| way of importing energy in the future. Furthermore, none
| of these countries have any meaningful supply of battery
| related minerals nor any substantial battery
| manufacturing capacity.
| mullingitover wrote:
| The problem with fuel cell vehicles is _they still need
| batteries_. Not as big of a battery, but they still a
| battery of some kind because the fuel cell can 't deliver
| burstable power the way a battery can. So the FCV is
| really the worst of all possible worlds - all the
| complexity of a fuel cell, plus all the rare earth needs
| of a BEV.
|
| I also can't believe that the production and distribution
| network for hydrogen could be anywhere near as efficient
| as direct distribution of electrons. This whole idea
| seems like a nation-scale Rube Goldberg machine.
| Hypx_ wrote:
| There's a world of difference between a 1.5 kWh battery
| and an 80 kWh battery.
| drewda wrote:
| Side note: This Verge piece looks like a rewrite/gloss of recent
| New York Times reporting:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-h...
| timidiceball wrote:
| In Norway, sales of new gasoline and diesel cars ends in 2025. No
| exceptions for hybrids, plug-in or otherwise. Norway is a
| microscopic market but it still is astounding to me that Toyota
| will likely be shut out of the country in four years as they have
| almost nothing in the pipeline except an as-yet nameless
| crossover using some GM EV platform.
|
| Must be weird to be a dealer in Oslo now, considering the RAV-4
| and Yaris hybrids still sell in ok numbers.
| rglover wrote:
| > Toyota's top executives, including billionaire CEO Akio Toyoda,
| have been on the record calling the trend toward electric
| vehicles "overhyped" in part because of emissions associated with
| power plants -- which is a favorite talking point used by the oil
| and gas industry.
|
| How is this just brushed off as NBD? Where do people think the
| energy is going to come from for these electric vehicles
| (especially if everyone drives one/fossil fueled vehicles are
| restricted)?
| xedeon wrote:
| Renewables already surpassed coal power since 2019, at least in
| the U.S. This is a trend that will continue over the next few
| years. Also, a good number of EV drivers already have solar.
|
| "U.S. renewable energy consumption surpasses coal for the first
| time in over 130 years"
|
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895
| brezelnbitte wrote:
| Excellent article and visualization explaining how EVs have
| less lifetime impact than ICEs.
|
| https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better...
| tw04 wrote:
| Producing clean electricity is NBD. Distribution is where the
| real problem has a potential to arise. But that is literally
| just a political problem. Infrastructure investment and
| subsidies for home solar panels will fix that issue.
|
| The only thing government will really need to get creative on
| is road taxes. Today you pay via gas, at some point they're
| going to need a non-intrusive way to do it via your odometer I
| suppose.
| jmoss20 wrote:
| It's easier to build solar farms than solar cars.
|
| (wind farms than wind powered cars, nuclear plants than nuclear
| powered cars...)
| ryeights wrote:
| Switching to electric vehicles is a necessary but not
| sufficient condition to eliminate fossil fuel emissions.
| exhilaration wrote:
| But Toyota is pushing hydrogen as a superior alternative, which
| isn't any cleaner. Most hydrogen is made from steam-methane
| reforming using equally vast amounts of natural gas.
|
| Source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-
| production-na...
| kalleboo wrote:
| Isn't this the same argument Toyota is making? With
| electricity depending on where you live you could say "Most
| electricity is made from coal! So an electric car is way
| worse for the environment!"
| dubcanada wrote:
| Who says it's a "NBD"?
|
| Do you think we should stop selling electric cars because
| electricity is dirty? Someone has to start, and it's not
| exactly easy to convert every power grid, it's a lot easier to
| start using it more and more and new power sources are green
| and older dirty is phased out slowly.
| rglover wrote:
| In context of the article it was implied.
| zelos wrote:
| Because it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact
| that the carbon intensity of EVs is _already_ significantly
| lower than ICE vehicles, and the gap is only going to widen as
| more renewables (and possibly nuclear) come online.
| rglover wrote:
| You don't need to be snarky.
|
| My point isn't the vehicles themselves, it's the energy
| required to power those vehicles.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The power plants are already there. They are already
| polluting however they are polluting. So are ICE vehicles.
| If you remove the ICE vehicles, that pollution goes away.
| Why is this hard?
| rglover wrote:
| Why do you need to be snarky? It's hard because every
| time I ask questions or challenge the narrative, I get
| the same passive aggressive bullshit response (especially
| so on HN).
|
| Your comment is a veiled "you're an idiot," which
| immediately makes me disregard what you're saying.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It wasn't meant as snark. I honestly want to know why
| people disregard the effect that removing ICE pollution
| would have. We have seen direct evidence of this when the
| pandemic lockdown went into effect. People in LA could
| see the sky again. Similar stories from all over like
| this. Stop driving polluting cars, and the air gets
| cleaner. I was shocked at just how fast, but mother
| nature is impressive.
|
| I think your snark meter could use some recalibrating. I
| read the parent comment you also claimed being snarky,
| yet I'm not reading any snark in it. Also, I've never met
| you, so I'd never call you an idiot or anyone I don't
| know.
| rglover wrote:
| If I said "why is this hard?" or "it's pretty easy to use
| google and look up the fact" to you in person, you'd
| think I was a dick. The calibration is fine, you just got
| called out.
|
| More to your point, it's not a question of whether or not
| it could be an environmental benefit, it's about grid
| capacity. Is it realistic/feasible for the grid to handle
| the increased load for more EVs (assuming we expect no
| interruption in current standard of living while
| simultaneously meeting Paris Accord goals in 2030)?
| Texas, California, and New York are asking people to
| conserve energy due to grid instability _before_ there 's
| a mass of EVs on the road.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >If I said "why is this hard?" or "it's pretty easy to
| use google and look up the fact" to you in person, you'd
| think I was a dick.
|
| Thanks for letting me know how I'd feel, but this is not
| what I would think. We'll just put it down to I just have
| thick skin. I'd just accept the challenge and continue
| on. <shrug>
|
| Yes, Texas power grid is run by a bunch of people
| unconcerned about what they are charged with doing. ERCOT
| has proven itself unable to see the future. It's not that
| the grid as installed can't handle demands, it's their
| managment of power generation that is totally off base.
| "Let's plan downtime when it's getting hot where we know
| (at least should know) people will put a higher demand on
| the system" was the most recent. Can't speak to
| CA,NY,etc. CA was definitely hampered by things like
| being managed by Enron. So essentially, it seems to be
| coming down to incompetent/corrupt management.
| mahogany wrote:
| Honestly, your opener "Where do people think the energy
| is going to come from for these electric vehicles?" could
| be interpreted as being just as snarky. That statement
| also has an implied "these people are idiots".
| zelos wrote:
| Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky. It's just that it's a
| weird argument for the head of a car company to make, as
| the alternative to EVs currently is no cars at all. That
| seems pretty bad from a profit perspective.
| josh2600 wrote:
| One of my favorite facts of recent note is the rapid decrease
| in the price of solar.
|
| This article by Ramez Naam puts the whole thing into
| perspective: https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-
| is-insanely-c...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Major power stations are far more efficient than a million
| individual engines. Even if the power stations literally ran
| off petrol we'd still be in a better position than before.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Not sure this is right. Coal plants are at best 40%
| efficient, combined-cycle natural gas 60%. Then you have
| transmission losses (2-13%), and then inefficiency in EV
| chargers. Atkinson-cycle engines (often used in hybrids like
| the Prius) can reach 40% efficiency. Seems like a wash to me
| in terms of efficiency. On the other hand, if using solar or
| wind, efficiency becomes a little less interesting because
| the fuel is "free".
| zelos wrote:
| There's also a significant amount of emissions from the
| production and transportation of petrol/diesel for use in
| vehicles you have to factor in.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I meant in terms of emissions, rather than simple
| mechanical efficiency. Power stations at scale can have
| complex emissions management. Car engine's don't.
| positr0n wrote:
| Because it is misinformation. An electric car on dirty power
| still produces less pollution than an ICE car. Power plants are
| very efficient.
|
| And even if they weren't the case it would still be a good
| strategy to tackle both problems simultaneously instead of
| waiting until one problem is solved until you start solving the
| other one.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| So, the issue is that, as a talking point, it's silly, because
| we're simultaneously pushing for greener power plants. And
| economies of scale presumably can make even dirty power plants
| more efficient than little power plants packed in cars and sold
| as cheap as humanly possible. From a human health standpoint,
| it's probably also better to concentrate our environmental
| impact in places we can directly combat it, rather than emit
| garbage all over the place right next to where humans live and
| work and inhale.
|
| It's absolutely true that buying an electric car may not reduce
| your carbon footprint today. (It may actually increase it, if
| your old car was still working just fine, because the carbon
| cost of car production is very high.) But it's an important
| step on the path forward.
| jliptzin wrote:
| ICE cars will always burn fossil fuels. Electric cars can
| consume any kind of energy as long as it is converted to
| electricity to first charge its battery. Maybe right now most
| electricity is generated via fossil fuels but you have to be
| really unimaginative to see how in the future that might not be
| the case and we're going to be very happy with our cars being
| electrified instead of still burning oil.
| rglover wrote:
| The conflict I see is the aversion to the greener tech that
| will actually make that possible (nuclear). It's a question
| of capacity. Assuming EV production becomes the rule rather
| than the exception over say, the next 10 years (the timeline
| for many of the climate initiatives), it's not crazy to think
| that, okay, that means we're going to need _more_ energy, not
| less, and the only thing capable of producing consistent
| electricity on that timeline is fossil fuels (or nuclear).
|
| I'm not saying that it won't be possible eventually (that'd
| be naive), but do the timelines align? If not, is the
| hysteria/doomerism around climate change warranted? That's
| what I'm getting at.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Seriously how hard is it to make an electric car? These guys are
| acting like they never heard of the sunk cost fallacy. It should
| be a piece of cake to retool Toyota for electrics, they are
| already a huge consumer of batteries and make plug-in hybrids.
| dartdartdart wrote:
| They have already made an EV in the past in 2014 with the Rav4
| EV. They certainly can do it, but they are more concerned about
| the efficiency of which the world is using battery materials.
| xedeon wrote:
| AFAIK, Tesla designed and produced the battery pack and
| electric powertrain for the RAV4 EV. It's around the time
| Toyota also held a substantial amount of Tesla stock.
|
| It's a shame they discontinued it. A lot of people loved
| them.
|
| https://global.toyota/en/detail/152289
|
| https://pressroom.toyota.com/all-electric-toyota-rav4-ev-
| fir...
| gibolt wrote:
| Hard. Batteries are unavailable in required quantities, and
| extremely expensive to spool up. Doing so would make most of
| their existing factories and tooling worthless assets. (They
| will be anyway, just unwilling to make the transition
| proactively, and likely be a tiny shadow of their former
| selves)
| xedeon wrote:
| Most people don't realize this. Even Panasonic, which is the
| most experienced and produce most of the Li-ion batteries
| today is still struggling to expand their GWh capacity.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The global lithium-ion battery market is expanding at a
| CAGR > 25%. Hardly a struggle.
| gibolt wrote:
| That is the fastest they can go, while EV vehicle demand
| growth exceeds that CAGR. When the 3 industry titans can
| only together drive ~15-20% annual growth, it is most
| definitely a struggle.
| xedeon wrote:
| Not all li-ion batteries are the same. They have to be a
| certain chemistry and form factor.
|
| With cylindrical (18650) being the most common that
| Panasonic manufactures. Because they can be produced
| quickly, hence the lower cost per kWh. They are also a
| Tier 1 lithium-ion battery producer. Meaning they produce
| the highest-quality lithium-ion batteries, for automotive
| use.
|
| Samsung and LG Chem are also Tier 1. But Panasonic is
| certainly more mature and have more experience (but more
| conservative like Toyota). Which I already mentioned
| earlier.
| joghues wrote:
| I can't see why Toyota, one of the auto giants, is struggling
| with electric vehicles. I hope that they will allocate funds
| sufficient for EV research and development to become competent
| enough to stay in the space. They should avoid what Nokia did as
| it falls to its demise in the rise of touchscreens and the
| smartphone revolution.
| jrsj wrote:
| I think the idea that they're struggling isn't exactly
| accurate. It's mostly a matter of scaling up manufacturing
| capacity and they don't want to do it for a market that's the
| size that it currently is. They also know demand for ICE &
| hybrid vehicles isn't going to go anywhere when you can't buy a
| decent EV for less than $40k, so that's where their focus is in
| the short term. This is just them asking for their hybrids and
| PHEVs to get similar treatment as EVs and get a subsidy because
| it would both benefit them and further lower emissions vs only
| subsidizing EVs
| chrisseaton wrote:
| They're a huge dinosaur. Obviously they cannot turn around
| quickly.
| browningstreet wrote:
| They're struggling with EVs because, in the past, they came out
| against them. So, because they didn't want to not-struggle with
| them.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I read that Toyota went all in on hydrogen fuel cells instead
| of the battery tech everyone else uses. Apparently it didn't
| work so they had to redesign the car which caused the delay.
| thinkling wrote:
| I believe access to battery supply is one of the bottlenecks in
| changing course. Globally, batteries are in high demand and
| forecast supply is spoken for. Others like VW have been
| investing to ensure sufficient supply for their EV production.
| So my guess is that Toyota is unable to change direction
| quickly enough to meet proposed deadlines for full
| electrification.
|
| It seems to me that there's a medium-term role for (plug-in)
| hybrids and that Toyota could serve that niche well if the
| legal structure allowed them to get "partial EV" credit for
| those cars.
| danhor wrote:
| The issue with hybrids is that they're often used as a
| regular non-EV car, resulting in very little reduction of
| emissions. Combined with more energy-intensive production,
| this makes them pretty useless when looking at their
| environmental impact (especially when considering long
| ranges, people aren't going to charge every ~40km).
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| They know how to optimize, not innovate.
| Zigurd wrote:
| If you look at how amazingly reliable car engines and
| transmissions are now, you can see why stranding that investment
| is going to be hard for car makers to swallow. Nevertheless, it
| should be done. A gas car is like a perfected minimally harmful
| cigarette. Still something that should go away.
| space_rock wrote:
| 30% efficiency is where combustion engines maxed out. No doubt
| the legacy manufacturers got every inch out of them but it's
| still not the best technology
| hacknat wrote:
| Toyota might be smart enough to realize that Tesla has a supply
| chain that will be difficult to beat. It's going to be a shit-
| show among the remaining contenders once all of their hands are
| forced.
| evgen wrote:
| Toyota ships more vehicles every quarter than Tesla has shipped
| over its entire existence. The idea that it has some sort of
| supply chain that others envy is laughable. What is going to be
| fun to watch over the rest of the decade is how quickly Tesla
| fades into the background as the rest of the industry slowly
| pivots to EV. Once three or four of the major manufacturers
| reach the point that more than 50% of their sales are EV I
| expect Tesla to quietly disappear in a merger with some EV
| also-ran that needs to play catch-up (the name may stick
| around, but the company will be absorbed by the acquirer.)
| bob33212 wrote:
| I have been hearing this since 2014. What is the holdup? Why
| is Toyota not going to sell 1M electric cars in 2022 if they
| have such a great company?
| evgen wrote:
| Probably because neither the market nor the real supply
| chain was ready. Ford sells more F-150s per year than Tesla
| sells across all models. When the F-150 Lightning takes off
| and ramps up production you can expect the consequences to
| be felt across the entire Ford lineup and for things to
| start moving quickly. (As others have noted, Toyota bought
| into hydrogen and its hybrids so it is not going to be an
| EV leader any time soon, but other majors are moving fast
| and will soon leave Tesla behind.)
| bob33212 wrote:
| Let's circle back to this topic in 2 years when you can
| explain that Ford just needs another year to catch up.
| nixass wrote:
| When there will be money and the profit in BEV, be sure
| they will be part of it. By the way Toyota has advanced the
| research with solid state batteries the most
| woeirua wrote:
| Because the "best" electric car company in the world is
| barely eeking out a profit from selling a million cars a
| year, and even then only through regulatory credits,
| Bitcoin shenanigans, and outright fraud with FSD.
|
| That said, I am bullish long term on EVs and hope to
| convert my primary car to an EV next year.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I once had a private conversation with a Ford exec who was
| basically in-charge of the EV team. He thought it will be
| hard for them to ever catch up to Telsa, if at all.
|
| They just have so much damn money because of their stock is
| so inflated.
|
| Telsa will have to majorly mess up to lose its head start on
| the other companies.
|
| The biggest bottle neck that is getting batteries made.
| evgen wrote:
| Tesla's inflated stock makes it easy to acquire companies,
| but Tesla lacks cash flow so it is hard to acquire debt and
| enter into long-term contracts. Few companies are going to
| accept $150M in today's Tesla stock as collateral for an
| agreement to purchase $30M in parts every year for five
| years unless you give them the stock today so they can
| unload it. The idea that Tesla has some magic beans when it
| comes to batteries seems to be driven more by Tesla fanboys
| than by people in the biz (quick reality check: Tesla's
| batteries are made by Panasonic and not Tesla, oh and last
| month Panasonic dumped the entire hoard of Tesla stock they
| had been holding.) Tesla has some useful long-term
| agreements with Panasonic but they seem to have far less
| battery IP than you are suggesting.
|
| Yes, batteries are a limiting factor, but there are a lot
| of companies out there not named Tesla that know a hell of
| a lot about lithium battery cells and unlike Tesla some of
| these companies actually produce batteries.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I'm no fanboy.
|
| The reality is other automakers can't put out EVs right
| this minute, even if they wanted to. There aren't enough
| batteries.
|
| Tesla will likely continue to ramp up production while
| the other automakers struggle to get any going on the
| scale they need or want.
|
| And the Telsa battery packs that they use (Panasonic or
| not) are way more advanced than many other companies can
| produce at scale right now, or likely in 2-3 years from
| now.
| DanTheManPR wrote:
| I wondered about the claim in the first sentence, but it is
| true. Toyota and it's subsidiaries produced ~9.5million
| vehicles in 2020, or ~2.4million per quarter. Tesla's total
| vehicle sales since it's foundation are ~1.4million. To be
| fair to Tesla, they have expanded quite a bit in the last few
| years, producing 0.5million vehicles in 2020. Even with that
| expansion, their rate of output is only 5% of Toyota's.
| hacknat wrote:
| I meant the battery supply chain, which no one can touch
| Tesla on. Tesla already owns mining rights on a lot of
| lithium. Other car companies are going to have to go to Tesla
| for some of their EV needs.
|
| When people make the mistake of analyzing Tesla as a car
| company it always makes me smile, because it leaves me
| feeling secure that my (albeit small) position on Tesla is
| sound.
|
| It's been said by others ad nauseum, but I'll say it again:
|
| Tesla is a battery company with a car division.
| Daishiman wrote:
| Tesla has, to put it lightly, a horribly crappy manufacturing
| process. Toyota's by comparison is the pinnacle of iterative
| industrial manufacturing.
| mullen wrote:
| But Toyota has build quality that Tesla can't touch. Toyota
| won't be starting from scratch, they will starting from the
| point of making great high quality ICE vehicles and converting
| those to EV. Tesla build quality is not that great but they
| have better tech and understanding of their EV customers than
| Toyota does.
| karmicthreat wrote:
| Toyota isn't the shining star it once was. Cost cutting has
| pulled Toyota vehicles much closer to the industry average.
| As well as the general quality level of American and korean
| automakers improving over the last 10 years.
|
| Notable exceptions being the Prius and some of the Lexus
| lineup.
| nixass wrote:
| Well if Toyota is "bad" then Tesla is at best on par with
| some eastern European manufacturers.
| slaw wrote:
| Are there any Eastern European manufactures left?
| jrsj wrote:
| To an extent yes but American companies have cut costs more
| aggressively in assembly (Toyota and Honda are more
| American made in parts & labor than Ford & GM these days)
| which has caused issues & their approach to fuel efficiency
| of small turbocharged GDI engines has negative implications
| for reliability that really can't be overcome with any
| amount of engineering. In terms of reliability of
| powertrains, yes it's much better than it was in the past
| but shit that blows up in the 200k-300k mile range
| frequently is still far from ideal
|
| Look at the new Bronco Sport as an example. It's fairly
| small, but a 1.5L turbo 3? That's not something that's
| built to last 20 years without any major complications.
| irrational wrote:
| I remember being in the market for a minivan years ago and
| thinking that maybe I should wait a year or so until Toyota comes
| out with an electric Sienna. Ha ha ha ha!
| reaperducer wrote:
| Here's the original journalism, instead of The Verge's rewrite of
| someone else's work.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-h...
| adamc wrote:
| Thanks for the link. I'm grateful for the verge link too,
| though, because the NYT paywall reduces the effect of sharing
| NYT links. (I'm an NYT subscriber, but lots of people aren't.)
| darwinwhy wrote:
| Appreciated, but paywalled.
| nindalf wrote:
| @dang, could you replace the original link?
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm really optimistic and hopeful for the future of electric
| vehicles, but that article was incredibly slanted. It seems to
| start with the premise that electric is better in every way and
| anyone arguing otherwise is only doing so to protect their
| profits.
|
| What TFA fails to articulate is that Toyota is NOT pushing
| congress to slow the shift to electric by interfering in the
| market to prevent a natural disruption. They're asking them to
| interfere _LESS_ so that there 's more time for the market to
| adjust naturally rather than respond to artificial pressure that
| makes electric more competitive than it is without special
| favors. It's presented as lobbying, but it more like lobbying
| against lobbying.
|
| Presentational digs like this don't inspire me to think the
| author is politically neutral:
|
| > _Toyota, which sided with the Trump administration in its
| battle with California_
|
| I am glad that they at least mentioned that there is some merit
| to hydrogen cells too. There are people who live in very remote
| places where electric is not possible, and in some cases
| extremely dangerous. If the people who live in the big city make
| it economically infeasible to have anything that's not electric,
| it's going to devastate some people's way of life.
| xoa wrote:
| > _What TFA fails to articulate is that Toyota is NOT pushing
| congress to slow the shift to electric by interfering in the
| market to prevent a natural disruption. They 're asking them to
| interfere LESS so that there's more time for the market to
| adjust naturally rather than respond to artificial pressure
| that makes electric more competitive than it is without special
| favors. It's presented as lobbying, but it more like lobbying
| against lobbying._
|
| Complete, utter bullshit from you. The ICE market is horribly,
| fantastically warped and subsidized by lack of carbon cost
| internalization. Actually there are lots of flat out fossil
| fuel subsidies/tax breaks on top of that too, but massive
| externalities trump even that. Your "interference" is just the
| barest most minimal effort to start to right that. If all
| fossil fuels were made by law carbon neutral (by pricing in the
| cost of emitting a ton of CO2 at a competitive bid on the price
| of rapid industrial removal of a ton of CO2), along with any
| other externalities, _then_ we could talk about stopping other
| interference to let the Free Market properly work.
|
| Toyota is absolutely seeking to slow the shift here and
| preserve their existing subsidized profits. And they are wrong
| to do so.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _Complete, utter bullshit from you._
|
| While you were accusing me of spewing bullshit, you went
| ahead and read stuff that isn't there. Please, point to me
| where it is that I advocated that we let the "Free Market
| work properly." All I did was attempt to present Toyota's
| argument in a way that they would be more likely to
| recognize. I haven't made any value judgments on subsidies,
| or taken any of the positions you are arguing against. If you
| think that's a constructive way to have dialogue though, by
| all means continue. You stand very little chance of changing
| my mind when you don't even take the time to understand what
| I'm saying before you call it bullshit.
| danhor wrote:
| > There are people who live in very remote places where
| electric is not possible, and in some cases extremely
| dangerous.
|
| Not sure where that comes from. Modern EVs have > 400km of real
| range, which is already more than what you'd regularly want to
| drive in a day. Charging is fast enough for longer journeys and
| if you don't drive the full range every day, regular at-home
| charging should suffice. (The obvious factor is the price,
| which hopefully shouldn't be an issue by then, since EVs are
| currently coming down in price fast)
|
| The more interesting thing is that for people in the big city,
| EVs are maybe also not so great. You aren't gonna take a 15 min
| break while quickly charging on a few minute shopping trip and
| charging for street parking doesn't look like it's coming soon.
| Additionally, (at least here in germany) charging stations are
| way more expensive than at-home charging.
|
| > If the people who live in the big city make it economically
| infeasible to have anything that's not electric,
|
| I known this doesn't help, but regarding climate change: It's
| economically infeasible to have anything non electric already.
| The cost is simply deferred to the future. The additional
| question is if simply switching to EVs is enough, but there's
| not a lot of certainty in either direction.
| freedomben wrote:
| When I lived in Alaska, there were villages that were
| hundreds of miles apart. Enough so that you had to bring
| extra gas with you in addition to your full tank. Until EVs
| can handle that range while keeping you warm at the same
| time, they're not going to work. For those people. And
| running out of charge could be deadly in -50 deg where
| there's little chance of people coming by to rescue you.
|
| Unless we want to have the government build of recharge
| stations in the middle of nowhere, those people will be
| entirely left behind.
|
| Perhaps in 5 years we'll be there. I hope so! But pretending
| those people don't exist won't make them disappear (I'm not
| suggesting that is what you are doing for the record, I'm
| speaking generally).
| danhor wrote:
| Oh wow, thats quite a bit more remote than I imagined and
| goes far beyond the typical urban/rural spectrum, there's
| probably nothing that extreme in the EU. Since this is a
| very niche issue, I fear that will be a hard problem to
| solve.
|
| EVs will kill regular gasoline vehicles and AFAICT hydrogen
| cars won't work out at all (the latter regardless of any
| co2 related regulations, mostly due to low efficiency and
| high, not easily optimizable, costs) over the medium term.
|
| That area of concern will probably simply get "googled"
| (ignored since too niche) by the car manufacturers, so I'm
| not quite sure what will happen, but I can imagine a couple
| outcomes:
|
| 1. Tough luck, simply not workable with equipment
| affordable by "regular people". The "these people disappear
| [to somewhere else]" solution, locally unpopular but
| probably not significant enough to get a lot of attention
| from the federal government
|
| 2. Retaining old gasoline vehicles, with high taxes due to
| carbon emissions and high costs, due to gas stations and
| repair expertise disappearing. Would probably work for a
| couple decades, since I imagine that gasoline will still
| get produced for quite some time for niche legacy stuff
| with the issue being "how do you get it?", but very
| expensive and not sustainable due to vehicles dying
|
| 3. Recharge stations in the middle of nowhere: probably not
| in sufficient quantities, niche interest & very expensive
| with lots of them needed due to the large distances & high
| power demand when in use. Maybe something PV & battery
| based if traffic is low enough? Would still mean that they
| need a satellite connection and you'd probably need to
| "reserve" the charge beforehand, so no one gets stranded at
| one. Also probably not easy with very low temperatures.
|
| 4. Something conceptually to a modern power bank but
| hydrogen powered? Maybe a roof rack with some hydrogen &
| electrically connected to the charging socket. Would
| probably be cheaper than a special car & more feasible in
| lower quantities.
|
| I feel like retaining production for this is not gonna work
| out and there won't be a single solution, but a combination
| of them. In the worst case, it might be a combination of 1.
| & 2., with batteries having improved enough to retain a
| charge > 1000km while heating when 2. comes to an end.
| freedomben wrote:
| Very interesting analysis, thanks! I fully agree with
| your hypotheses about the future. I think that's the most
| likely outcome as well, barring some technological upset
| that changes the game somehow (unlikely, but possible).
|
| The hydrogen on the roof-top to charge a battery or power
| a motor is a fascinating idea. As you say, it won't be
| cheap but it does seem feasible/possible in a world where
| gas is rare and expensive.
|
| I do think many people will do what I did and move to a
| less rural area. There are a lot of native tribes up
| there who have been there as long as they've had history.
| It will no doubt be heart wrenching, but they'll have to
| move.
|
| A hundred years later perhaps our ancestors will be
| looking back at our time and apologizing for the cruelty
| of forcing them away from their ancestral homes, but it
| won't change anything now.
| dqpb wrote:
| How embarrassing to work for a company that is trying to
| undermine progress because they are too incompetent to be part of
| the progress.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Christ, what assholes. Really nothing good about Toyota in this
| article.
| tim333 wrote:
| >Toyota was the largest corporate donor by far this year to
| Republicans in Congress who disputed the 2020 presidential
| election result.
|
| I'm saddened as a long time fan of Toyota that part of the
| company seems to be moving to the dark side as it were.
| lsllc wrote:
| I'm not really a fan of big government or over-arching government
| regulation -- in fact I consider myself a (little-l) libertarian
| of sorts.
|
| However: This is EXACTLY the role (and responsibility) of
| government. Capitalism cannot be left to drive this, the
| externalities here are far to great and critical to the future of
| this planet -- if we leave it to the car companies we'll still be
| driving cars with I/C engine in 100 years (assuming we haven't
| choked to death on the CO2).
|
| We need BIG incentives for ordinary people to be able to buy and
| use EVs, and for companies to develop EVs and produce them. As
| much as Tesla has pushed the curve, the 30% tax credit we had for
| a $120K car isn't going to help anyone but the wealthy. Although
| the Model 3 is much more affordable it's still out of reach for
| most median income families (esp. after paying $3-5K for a
| charger to be installed).
|
| Companies like Toyota are doing this because they dropped the
| ball on their own EV development and should be called out and
| admonished for hindering this.
| ffggvv wrote:
| > The executive, Chris Reynolds, has argued that hybrids, like
| the Toyota Prius, as well as hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles
| should also be in the mix.
|
| I don't see whats wrong with this. The media always just twists
| things.
|
| It sounds like they are advocating that the government shouldn't
| just choose the winner as EV's already when maybe the future
| could be hydrogen. Whats the problem with subsidizing both EV and
| hydrogen, not just choosing EV as the winner?
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Because hydrogen for cars makes no sense.
|
| It's all made from natural gas (and if we produce it from
| water, it would take at least thrice more energy than what's
| needed to charge the same energy in a battery... at best), it's
| more expensive, it's far more dangerous, the infrastructure is
| not there (and never will, you can't put a hydrogen station in
| every garage), etc.
|
| It only makes sense for chemicals, stell production,
| fertilizers, seasonal energy storage, and long distance
| transportation (search images for "hydrogen ladder").
|
| But the O&G industry bet big on hydrogen a long time ago, and
| got a few auto giants like Toyota to jump in. It was a bad
| choice (but who could oppose the energy leaders back then?) and
| it's too late now.
| ffggvv wrote:
| that's not really for you to decide by fiat.
|
| toyota clearly believes in it and they have billions at
| stake. it wouldn't be that hard for them to pivot to fully
| electric.
|
| only time will bear it out, not just arbitrarily saying stuff
| like that and locking us into one approach
|
| >> you can't put a hydrogen station in every garage
|
| i assume we'd just have gas stations which already exist?
|
| i've heard equally compelling arguments against electric
| abakker wrote:
| The reality is that Toyota has an antique model of amortizing an
| engine design over too long. the CAFE regulations put them in a
| tough spot because the overall fleet has to reach a certain MPG.
| For a long time they made it work with the prius bring the
| average high so the 5.7L v8 in the Tundra, Land Cruiser, and
| sequoia, and the 4.6L in the 4Runner, Tacoma, and FJ Cruiser
| could continue to get very low specific power output / liter and
| very poor mileage.
|
| They reacted to the regulations by creating 1 very effective
| vehicle, and letting all the others suck.
| jrsj wrote:
| They sell very few Tundras & Sequoias, I'm not so sure about
| the other vehicles. Hybridized trucks and body on frame SUVs
| are coming within this year though. They simply invest less
| into vehicles they sell fewer of.
|
| The Corolla and Camry get excellent gas mileage even for not
| being hybrids though. Part of the issue here is a shift in
| consumer preference towards SUVs, in particular vehicles like
| the RAV4 and Highlander which get much worse gas mileage even
| if the powertrains are more efficient.
| nvahalik wrote:
| You say "suck" but Toyota vehicles are some of the best and
| longest-lasting vehicles out there. The resale value stays high
| for new models and old models just keep running. I've only had
| one non-Toyota
|
| So, "suck" in terms of MPG, but in terms of long term value,
| they are great cars and trucks.
| abakker wrote:
| yes - they are well engineered, and part of this is large
| engines with low specific output. If you design an engine
| that can easily make 500hp with a tune, but instead configure
| it to make 300, it will last a long time.
|
| Net of the emissions to manufacture a truck, I wonder if
| longer lasting drive train is actually better for the
| environment than marginally lower emissions? I suspect not,
| because I suspect that peers in the industry achieve lower
| emissions and similar lifespans with just a few more repairs.
|
| Source: I have owned many Toyotas: LX470, Tundra, camry,
| Rx440h. All of them were reliable. All of them were
| unimpressive from an engine POV. the 13mpg on my tundra makes
| me sad.
| nvahalik wrote:
| > the 13mpg on my tundra makes me sad.
|
| Yeah. Me too. I can get to 17/18 on the highway if I drive
| it right, but it almost seems like I can literally watch
| the gauge go down as I travel a longer distance.
| arh68 wrote:
| It's a 4.0L in the 4Runner (still 17 MPG), and now a 3.5L
| Atkinson cycle in the Tacoma. The majority of their sales are
| neither Priuses nor Tacomas, though (efficiency outliers be
| sales outliers, too). CAFE factors are going to be weighted by
| production numbers (right?), so as long as they sell 10x as
| many Corollas & Camrys as Land Cruisers the spot's not so
| tight.
|
| I definitely agree the 5.7L in the Tundra/Sequoia gets horrible
| mileage and that's why I see many times more F-150s near me.
| blinkingled wrote:
| I get what Toyota is doing here. Going full EV isn't a fully
| thought out or well planned approach. The lack of charging
| infrastructure for one.
|
| Most of the world and as Texas has shown even the US sometimes
| lacks reliable and clean electricity supply. With warming related
| increase in demand things will get even worse. Then there's the
| question of how world's electricity is generated and how that
| contributes to pollution.
|
| Besides, Toyota is doing the right thing with their suppliers in
| not saying screw you no more ICE - they're taking a more humane
| approach by doing a longer transition from ICE to hybrid to EV or
| hydrogen. There is a reason they can still find enough chips when
| almost all of their competitors are struggling - good supplier
| relations and investment.
|
| This also gives them time to work with say Panasonic to improve
| battery tech to their standards. In the meanwhile if their
| hybrids offer great mileage and prime offers 40 mile full EV
| range that's much greener already.
| jrsj wrote:
| Subsidizing hybrids and PHEVs in addition to EVs absolutely
| makes sense and would make a bigger impact in short term
| emission reductions.
|
| Other companies aren't lobbying for this because they sell very
| few hybrids (and often don't even have a decent viable hybrid
| platform) & are betting big on EVs and want to recoup some of
| that investment as quickly as possible. And without a big tax
| credit attached to it, nobody wants to buy their EVs at the
| prices they can sell them at.
|
| A lot of manufacturers chose to improve their fleet fuel
| efficiency ratings by just making engines smaller and adding
| GDI, turbocharging, and more complex transmissions instead of
| investing more seriously in hybrid technology. So they don't
| even make vehicles at an affordable price point that can get
| anywhere near the efficiency of what a hybrid can get.
|
| Toyota isn't really the bad guy here and in terms of improving
| the fuel economy of their entire lineup they've done quite
| well.
| webwielder2 wrote:
| Society 5.0.
| aseerdbnarng wrote:
| Bad company who scared of the future and cant innovate, partners
| with bad people to halt the march of the progressive and
| virtuous. I believe this to be lazy clickbaity reporting
|
| Remove the pearl-clutching and all Toyota is doing is trying to
| get the government to extend government subsidies beyond BEVs
| using the very same system of lobbying major companies use. Their
| methods are the same as every other company and their aim seems
| perfectly sensible
| slg wrote:
| It is moves like this which show the tremendous impact of Tesla.
| The old automakers were never going to be the ones to push the
| switch to greener tech themselves. Even the companies that we may
| have thought were forward looking a decade ago like Toyota are
| now showing that they had no plans to embrace cleaner vehicles as
| an overall company strategy. The industry needed an outsider to
| threaten the incumbents into actually changing.
| bin_bash wrote:
| I wonder if Ford manages to get their sales numbers up if they
| may become a force like Tesla
| vel0city wrote:
| As someone who was recently on the hunt for a Mach E, they
| need to get _production_ numbers up. Mach E Premiums are 24
| _weeks_ backordered, dealerships often only have a mannequin
| to look at. I called around to several dealerships in my area
| to even find _one_ to test drive, and I 'm in a pretty
| massive metro area.
|
| Its still pretty early numbers-wise, but to me it seems they
| can't build them fast enough to satiate the already existing
| demand.
| fossuser wrote:
| Toyota was still going on about how EVs were not viable and
| hydrogen fuel cells were the future while anyone who looked
| outside their window would see EVs all over the place. Elon's
| early responses to this remain true (grid already exists,
| people can charge at home, easier to build EV infrastructure,
| etc.) - there's been nearly zero progress in hydrogen fuel
| cells.
|
| Hybrids were a mediocre half-measure and hydrogen was a worse
| solution to the problem. Tesla proved this model despite
| constant criticism even after wild success.
|
| It's not a huge surprise Toyota is throwing their weight around
| to try to cheat out some legislative relevance rather than
| compete on product. Many companies being disrupted do that (see
| recent viasat story, US car dealerships, etc.)
|
| I hope they lose, imo they deserve it.
| philwelch wrote:
| > Hybrids were a mediocre half-measure
|
| The US currently has just one million EV's and over 5.8
| million hybrids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-
| in_electric_vehicles_in_t...) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
| Hybrid_electric_vehicles_in_th...).
|
| I think it's a lot more fair to say that hybrids are a
| transitional solution. They came out in the 90's and still
| outnumber EV's on the road over 5-1 today, so I'd say we're
| in the midst of a 30-50 year transition.
| antattack wrote:
| Toyota made a bet that they will leap over current EV teach
| with their, "soon to come", solid state batteries.
|
| With all battery production capacity already spoken for,
| Toyota has to slow down EV adoption, convince us that hybrids
| are still a thing. If unsuccessful, they stand to loose
| market share soon.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| By the time solid state battery are thing, Tesla will be
| much bigger (and moving faster) in the EV space, so it's
| highly probable that the industry (including cell
| manufacturers) will line up to support Tesla rather than
| Toyota. Also, Tesla's margins are improving to a point
| where they'll soon be more profitable than Toyota and be
| able to pay a better price for any cell production capacity
| available (solid state or not). It's getting really late
| for the Japanese giant and they're still in denial (a good
| friend of mine is responsible for the deployment of Mirai
| in Europe and he's well aware that).
| cma wrote:
| As long as we are limited on battery production capacity,
| plugin hybrids save a lot more carbon emissions (you can make
| several of them for every full electric).
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Only if you ignore all the carbon emissions going into
| constructing internal combustion engines, plus all the oils
| and oil derivatives used to lubricate them, plus all the
| carbon emissions of actually using the ICE part of a
| hybrid.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Elon's early responses to this remain true (grid already
| exists, people can charge at home, easier to build EV
| infrastructure, etc.)
|
| And Battery tech is "good enough" for most (99%) trips.
| freedomben wrote:
| and if we destroy any market that isn't electric by
| punishing gas/hydrogen/etc, what does that do to the 1%?
| Sorry you're out of luck, just move to the city and change
| careers/lifestyle? Also note that a lot of that 1% are the
| trucks that bring goods into the city.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| Who is talking about punishing hydrogen? And what about
| the fact that gas is currently massively subsidised, is
| removing subsidy a "punishment"? And what about the fact
| that we all need this air to breathe and we're all
| collectively subsidising this lifestyle with our health?
| Also note that trucks bringing goods into a city could
| still be subsidised separately from other things if we
| chose, and that bulk goods distribution have more options
| for on-premises fuel tanks than people's homes do, things
| don't have to be binary.
| freedomben wrote:
| When you subsidize competitors to hydrogen (such as
| electricity), it punishes hydrogen. Toyota et al are
| asking to reduce these subsidies.
|
| I don't know whether gas is subsidized or not, but if it
| is, I agree, remove the subsidy!
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| ha yes. Gas is wildly subsidized so consumers have cheap
| fuel prices to support the car based economy.
|
| Same as corn, dairy, etc...
| freedomben wrote:
| Ah yes, good point about corn. That's heavily subsidized
| and will only become more so since every politician wants
| to win Iowa early in the primary
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| At current gas price there are many places where EVs are
| already cheaper to operate.
|
| It's unrealistic to switch everyone to EVs right now. But
| many two car households could reasonable have one EV and
| one ICE car. The Chevrolet Volt was pretty much perfect
| for the current situation: most commuting would happen on
| the battery but the extra long trips would switch over to
| gas.
| freedomben wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but I'm wondering about the
| 1%? For example I lived in Alaska for a few years. There
| are places up there when you have hundred of miles
| between stops, and if you run out of fuel the situation
| can be potentially deadly. Everyone carries extra fuel
| with them to protect against this situation.
|
| What happens to those people when the cost of gas is sky
| high because economies of scale are completely gone and
| it's a niche product?
| relaxing wrote:
| Obviously, Alaska will be outlawed as part of the bill
| that ends fossil fuel production and criminalizes the
| possession of ICE cars.
|
| (Serious answer: gas will be subsidized, just like
| everything else up there.)
| natch wrote:
| Two EVs is way easier to manage than an ICE car and an
| EV.
|
| If you have no charging at home but a walkable charger
| nearby, with two EVs, you can drive the second one to
| your vehicle that is already at a charge station, and
| trade off, driving the first one home and leaving the
| second one to charge. Then trade off again later. With an
| ICE car as the second car, you would either do more
| walking (nothing wrong with that, sure, but it takes
| time) or you need a second driver.
|
| You're possibly falling into the trap of thinking EVs are
| hard to use for long distance road trips. Depends on
| which EV though. Not true for at least one brand.
| bluGill wrote:
| If you don't have a second driver why do you have two
| cars in the first place?
| natch wrote:
| That's not what I meant.
|
| I see a lot of ICE drivers giving an EV driver a ride to
| the charger. For example, husband wife couples.
|
| If they had two EVs in their (multi person, ok?)
| household, then the ICE driving person would not have to
| spend their time being a chauffeur, because the EV driver
| could just drive the second EV to the charger and leave
| it there charging.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Charging still takes a long time and has relatively low
| mileage. Hydrogen doesn't have that problem and in the end
| accounting for lithium mining destroying the environment I
| still don't think it's that clear cut. EV just has more
| adoption because it's easier at this point and perks don't
| want to fall behind against Tesla.
|
| I also don't see how Toyota "deserves" to lose. When you take
| into consideration their longevity and fairly good track
| record on gas mileage...they are better than a lot of
| manufacturers that are now pushing hard for electric. People
| tend to forget that manufacturing a car and replacing a car
| wears on the environment just as much as driving it.
| usaar333 wrote:
| > Charging still takes a long time
|
| Barring roadtrips, charging at home costs about 30s. Even
| factoring the longer time supercharging on roadtrips
| (relative to gas), I'm confident I spend far less total
| time charging my EV than filling my gas tank.
| bluGill wrote:
| 30 seconds per day times 30 days is 900 seconds or about
| 15 minutes per month spent charging. How much time do you
| spend filling gas per month?
| usaar333 wrote:
| You don't need to charge an EV every day...
|
| On a model 3 range, you maybe change 3x as often as fill
| up.
|
| Gas is a 10 minute overhead generally. So 90s vs 10
| minutes per 400 miles or so.
| [deleted]
| beerandt wrote:
| Not only that but counting fill up time against gas,
| while not counting all charging time against EV is hardly
| apples to apples.
|
| If the justification is doing something productive with
| that time, then washing your windshield or going into the
| C-store to get a snack and a drink shouldn't count as gas
| up time.
|
| I get that progress is being made, but the contortions
| required to prove that the status quo is "good enough"
| are frustrating, at best.
|
| The best way to get a person to commit to an ice vehicle
| for life is to mislead them into committing to an EV
| before it or the infrastructure suits their needs.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| >Hydrogen doesn't have that problem and in the end
| accounting for lithium mining destroying the environment I
| still don't think it's that clear cut.
|
| 99% of the hydrogen currently produced come from natural
| gas. Of course, it could be made from water but lithium can
| also be extracted cleanly from clay with with table salt.
|
| Besides, making hydrogen from water uses over 3 times the
| energy required to make and charging a battery (the well-
| to-wheel efficiency of hydrogen vehicles is that low).
|
| So for now and the foreseeable future, hydrogen is far
| worst for the environment than Li-Ion batteries.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Moreover, room-temperature fuel cells require platinum-
| group metal catalysts and this is the main reason that
| has prevented the introduction of vehicles with fuel
| cells.
|
| High-temperature fuel cells do not need expensive
| catalysts, but it seems that nobody succeeded to reach
| acceptable lifetimes for them.
| Mirioron wrote:
| On the other hand, if the fuel cells contain expensive
| materials then we're more likely to actually recycle
| them.
| voidfunc wrote:
| How are urban car owners with street parking going to
| charge EV's is also a great question. There's zero
| infrastructure in place for that and it will be expensive
| when it does come.
| mlonkibjuyhv wrote:
| Well the infrastructure certainly needs to be built, but
| the solution is straight forward. You just place slow
| charging stations where the cars are parked overnight.
| notJim wrote:
| They're doing pilots in my city where there are just
| chargers next to some of the street parking spaces. They
| use one of the major EV networks, so you can use the app
| to get an alert when it's free, and people cycle through.
| natch wrote:
| You have an odd way of using the word zero. I see plenty
| of infrastructure including both charging stations, as
| well as the undeniably real electric grid infrastructure
| which is a huge start on solving the problem.
| klyrs wrote:
| I think you're missing your parent's point here. Folks
| who have street parking don't have a way to charge their
| cars at home. Folks are currently doing ad-hoc solutions
| draping wires overhead or underfoot, which is seen as a
| nuisance. If every residential block had a single
| charger, it would be both hugely expensive for a
| municipality and inadequate to the point of conflict
| among neighbors sharing that block.
| natch wrote:
| No I got the point but the point is misinformed.
|
| We have many blocks (roughly 10x10 blocks, so 100 square
| blocks) sharing a single charger site now and for the
| last 3 years with only two plugs in a high EV density
| area and we don't have any conflicts that I know of.
|
| Most of these objections are just imagined problems
| coming from the minds of people without actual experience
| of owning an EV.
|
| That being said, some EVs, once bought, are an easier
| ownership experience than others, but that's getting off
| track.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Most of these objections are just imagined problems
| coming from the minds of people without actual experience
| of owning an EV.
|
| Hi, previous EV owner here, had to get rid of it because
| there was too much range anxiety thanks to the lack of
| chargers near my house and inability to use my house's
| power thanks to street parking. Saw multiple conflicts at
| congested chargers, mostly passive, some aggressive,
| because the infrastructure was insufficient to meet the
| demand.
| natch wrote:
| Most EVs do it poorly though. This may be the fallacy of
| judging an entire product category based on a poor
| implementation. Very common amongst people who bought
| cheaper EVs. In any case both EVs, and charging options,
| are only getting better.
| klyrs wrote:
| Most EVs do _what_ poorly? Get charged from a 120V cable
| stretched across a sidewalk? Last I looked, it would take
| a several days to fill a Tesla 's battery like that.
| That's not because somebody cheaped out on the Tesla.
| nextweek2 wrote:
| Last year I saw a charge point added to a public curb
| parking area near me.
|
| It's about half the height of a parking meter. The power
| is right there under the pavement. Probably cost PS800 to
| install, which could generate PS200 in revenue each year.
|
| Not every charger needs to be a super charger.
|
| Getting lots of 11kw chargers in every parking bay would
| be a higher priority than everywhere having super
| chargers. Most people could keep topped up and those
| doing long trips use the faster charging points.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| If you live somewhere so dense that there is no off-road
| parking then why do you have a car in the first place?
| asdff wrote:
| It's not density that makes this happen in the U.S., but
| age. Old streetcar era suburbs didn't have driveways or
| garages. I've lived in neighborhoods entirely made of
| single family homes with hardly any off street parking.
| It was terrible coming home after 6pm. Ironically, if you
| live in a dense area of the U.S., your building probably
| has a parking spot for you in the garage as most
| apartment builds since the 60s included parking.
| iamphilrae wrote:
| As an urban car owner with a car that has a 300 mile
| range, when I am running low on "energy", I will drive
| the car to a dedicate place where more "energy" is put
| into the car. ICE or EV, it makes no difference to me,
| energy goes in at an external place.
|
| What EV has over ICE is that these energy-giving places
| can be located anywhere - my work, the supermarket, a
| town car park, a mate's house, an extension cable pit my
| window in absolute emergencies, etc. I really don't see
| why this is a good argument against EV. Yes I can't fill
| up outside my house, but I can't do that with a petrol
| car either.
| com2kid wrote:
| I was wondering this same thing, then I found out that in
| many cities home owners can have a high speed charging
| port installed at the front of their property line and
| run a cord across the side walk to their car.
|
| Of course this doesn't work well if your neighbors park
| right in front of your house, oops. (In most American
| cities, AFAIK, home owners have no claim over the parking
| space directly in front of their home)
|
| Not sure what to do in "real" dense cities, Chicago row
| houses and such.
|
| Honestly making them public infrastructure where people
| pay a monthly fee subscription fee to the city might just
| work. (And generate revenue for the city!)
| acdha wrote:
| 1. Many owners run a cord from their house -- this can be
| solved with a modest update to city codes and maybe a
| trenching service to help run lines under sidewalks. 2.
| Street lights have power lines and it seems like that
| infrastructure can be reused:
| https://metroenergy.org/programs/current-
| projects/streetligh... 3. We should be doing everything
| possible to discourage urban car ownership -- EVs still
| make the city more expensive for everyone else, hurt
| people, pollute (tire, brake, sound), and require far
| more space than any other form of transportation.
| beardyw wrote:
| Yes, in the UK it will be a massive problem. But
| practical issues seem to be irrelevant to those making
| policies.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| 1300 street lights already converted as chargers:
| https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-
| energies/europe/analysis/...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Seems like there's a lot less street lights than cars.
|
| Really, people should just have fewer cars.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Charging still takes a long time and has relatively low
| mileage. Hydrogen doesn't have that problem
|
| Hydrogen has SO MANY other problems though it's not even
| funny.
|
| It's incredibly hard to store. We literally have devised no
| containers that can hold it long term, as the molecules are
| so small they seep through. As they do so, they embrittle
| said containers, which need to be then replaced.
|
| It's not energy dense. So we either have to compress it
| (wasting energy) or liquefy it(not viable for cars, without
| even accounting for boil off).
|
| Then you need the whole 'manufacturing' (as there's no free
| hydrogen on Earth) - probably from fossil fuels. You need
| to transport it to where it's going to be used. And you
| need to create and entire new fuel infrastructure. The
| current fossil fuel industry likes this for obvious
| reasons.
|
| For all the talk on the lack of EV charging infrastructure,
| up to level 2 all we need are glorified relays. Electricity
| is available even in places we have no gas infrastructure.
|
| And then, what are we doing with hydrogen? Using it on fuel
| cells... to produce electricity.
|
| Just skip the middle man and charge batteries directly.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Even liquid hydrogen with all its added problems due to
| the ultra low temperatures needed has very low density -
| that's why all hydrogen powered rockets are so massive.
| Even in liquid form the hydrogen tank is massive with a
| tiny liquid oxygen tank next to it (Delta IV, Ariane V, H
| II, Shuttle external tank). The extra tankage weight and
| added aerodynamic drag remove quite some of the
| adventages of the otherwise good specific impulse
| hydrolox has.
| deelowe wrote:
| > relatively low mileage
|
| You can get a base model 3 today with 263 to 353 miles of
| range. That's upwards of 3-4 hours of driving with no
| breaks. Stop to take a break at a super charger for 30
| minutes and you can do another 3-4 hours.
|
| How is this still no practical especially combined with all
| the time and money they save not having to do most routine
| maintenance.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Because there's not a supercharger across from every
| McDonalds and at every exit.
|
| I don't want to stop for food, order, wait, eat, get in
| the car, drive to who knows where for a charger, and
| _then_ start charging for 30 minutes.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Well, give it time. As combustion vehicles are outlawed
| [1] and billions of dollars are poured into charging
| stations [2], early adopters will pave the path to get to
| the future you want. I've driven over 50k miles cross
| country in the US on Superchargers [3], and it's a
| pleasant experience using them and works for us (most of
| the time the car is done charging before we're done with
| our pit stop or grocery shopping). Happy to help drive
| forward innovation as a consumer (being the squeaky wheel
| demanding charging infra from any business I interact
| with that'll listen). See you in the future!
|
| (i am also advocating with policy makers to outlaw new
| petroleum filling station permits/infrastructure, but
| that is a topic for another thread. i am applying YC
| startup school lessons to public policy efforts. please
| excuse the dust while the electrification of
| transportation ramps)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-
| out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
|
| [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
| releases...
|
| [3] https://supercharge.info/map
| nemothekid wrote:
| I think the charging situation is incredibly overrated.
| This really only matters for long trips. If you are
| someone driving 200-300 miles daily, it might be an
| issue, but at at the same time I can't imagine driving
| that long to stop for 30 minutes.
|
| If you commute like most Americans (26 minutes), then you
| just charge at home and _never think about it_. I don 't
| think people realize that most Telsa owners don't use
| public chargers.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Umm, a quite few McDonalds in Finland have 350kW
| chargers. [0]
|
| Your car is done charging before you get your Big Mac and
| eat it.
|
| [0] https://kempower.com/information-
| center/news/kempowers-leadi...
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Basically all superchargers are placed next to food and
| the major highways.
|
| It's not "who knows where". Your car knows where and its
| right off the interstate in a parking lot next to a lot
| of places to eat. Better than most gas stations actually.
|
| You want to eat while you charge? Get food next to your
| charger. They have already thought of all this when they
| were spending billions of dollars on building out
| charging infrastructure
| skywhopper wrote:
| Where do you live that this is the case?
| dagmx wrote:
| At least in California, on our road trips, ever
| supercharger has been near a place where we could get
| food.
|
| All the ones we stopped at in Canada were near food as
| well
| notJim wrote:
| IME, superchargers have not been located very
| conveniently, unfortunately. Mostly doing trips around
| Oregon.
| deelowe wrote:
| > I don't want to stop for food, order, wait, eat, get in
| the car, drive to who knows where for a charger, and then
| start charging for 30 minutes.
|
| That's not what you do... You stop at the charger and
| then go get food or take a break at the store that's
| right next to it.
|
| Don't you also have to stop, eat, and then drive
| somewhere to get gas?.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Which is no problem, if it only takes 5 minutes to fill
| up. But when I use a route calculator from Tesla, it
| schedules two charges (one 45 minutes the other 20
| minutes), to get to my in-laws. At places where I don't
| want to stop. There are, apparently no super-chargers
| between Cincinnati and Indianapolis. Do you know how many
| gas stations there are on that route?
|
| Right now I can choose what I want to eat, find one of
| those restaurants and fill up there. You can't pretend as
| if the opposite (planning around where my car wants to
| go, and eating what happens to be there) is the same
| thing.
|
| Nor can you pretend that it is just as convenient to
| spend an hour and 5 minutes waiting for my car to charge
| when I normally spend 10 minutes max filling it up.
| notJim wrote:
| I just compared, and that's a route where having the long
| range Tesla makes a big difference. With the long range,
| the charging is reduced by around 30 minutes, so it only
| adds 30 compared to the ICE car, and only requires one
| charging stop.
|
| Do you normally go through Bloomington? Both Google Maps
| and the A Better Route Planner say it's faster to go
| through Indianapolis.
| kingnothing wrote:
| Model 3 owner here. In practice, I stop every 1.5 to 2
| hours on road trips for a 10-20 minute charge. You're
| never going to realistically charge to 100% and drive to
| 0%. Staying in the 20% to 80% range is ideal for fast
| charging purposes and some breathing room in case of
| emergency.
| notJim wrote:
| 2 hours is only like 100 miles of driving. Wouldn't it
| make more sense to run the battery down further, since
| charging is faster at a lower state of charge?
| deelowe wrote:
| Standard or long range? To me, this seems pretty close to
| being practical. Driving for 2 hours and then stopping
| for 10-20 minutes is about where I'd prefer to be on long
| trips.
| guerby wrote:
| My TM3 SR+ (USA made in 2019) latest supercharge was 10
| minutes to add 17 kWh going from just under 20% to 54%.
|
| Charge started a 143 kW (on a 150 kW unshared charger)
| and I ended it 10 minutes later while it was at 80 kW.
| This was enough to drive 130km to home (non highway) with
| about 20% battery left so 130 Wh/km.
|
| When I travel on highway I stop at all superchargers,
| they're usually 1h to 2h of highway driving apart in my
| country (France), so similar experience.
| kingnothing wrote:
| Mine's long range and I find it to be pretty practical. I
| definitely stop more often than I did in my ICE cars but
| it doesn't bother me to be forced to stretch my legs, use
| the restroom, and watch a bit of Netflix in the car or
| play on my phone.
|
| Edit: On the plus side, charging at home at night every
| evening is really nice compared to a weekly gas station
| visit.
| partiallypro wrote:
| That also depends on passenger weight, or if you're
| hauling something. The new electric trucks plummet on
| mileage if they are carrying weight. I understand that
| gasoline vehicles do the same thing, but not at such a
| steep rate.
|
| I don't think a lot of commenters here have much
| experience living in rural environments.
|
| This doesn't even begin to touch on the ability to repair
| the vehicles.
| deelowe wrote:
| I live and have lived in a "rural" environment for most
| of my life.
| jclardy wrote:
| > The new electric trucks plummet on mileage if they are
| carrying weight.
|
| Source? Supposedly the F-150 Lightning numbers are
| including 1000 lbs of cargo. So a full cabin of people
| still supposedly getting the stated 300 miles on a full
| charge (For the extended range.)
| roflchoppa wrote:
| Ohhh there was this YouTube video (from Motortend?)
| showing a model X in tow that had a drastic reduction in
| range when towing a trailer.
|
| Now compare that to the LandCruiser that we haul race
| cars with... the LC always gets 14 mpg, we have filled it
| with 6 adults going to Tahoe, same MPG. Haul a 2700lbs
| sports car. Doesn't change at all.
|
| Honestly an EV would be nice for hauling stuff to the
| track, hopefully with the race car, and equipment it can
| make it to Willows on a single charge, at least the track
| has RV hookup points, can charge while you race.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Now compare that to the LandCruiser that we haul race
| cars with... the LC always gets 14 mpg, we have filled it
| with 6 adults going to Tahoe, same MPG. Haul a 2700lbs
| sports car. Doesn't change at all.
|
| This is physically impossible unless the LandCruiser is
| just throwing energy away when empty.
|
| What's more likely is that this estimate is not very
| precise.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Considering the LandCruiser is pretty much a box with
| maximal air resistance, it might actually get more
| aerodynamic by adding the trailer to it :p. So the
| difference while trailing would be much smaller than
| adding a trailer to an aerodynamic car. Energy
| consumption when trailing with constant speed is mostly
| about aerodynamics.
| bluGill wrote:
| It is believable. Towing is more about wind resistance
| than about mass. A car on a trailer is probably sitting
| mostly in the slipstream of the LC (they are not very
| aerodynamically shaped) and so not contributing much to
| the total wind load. Also engines to a point become more
| efficient under load. All told, there probably isn't a
| noticeable difference.
|
| Of course we are talking about towing a light sports car
| here. Tow a different type off trailer, or a very heavy
| load and the losses will start to catch up.
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| All vehicles plummet in range pulling heavy loads at high
| speed. You notice it more in a vehicle with careful range
| estimation, and slower refuling. If you need to drive 600
| miles a day pulling a heavy trailer, EVs don't work for
| you right now. Similarly my wife's Toyota Camry does not
| work for that either.
| chillwaves wrote:
| I'm not trying to take sides, but electric cars seem
| vastly simpler from a mechanical perspective.
|
| I'm sure they have complicated electronics, but most
| modern cars do as well and those aren't components people
| typically work on.
|
| Just consider the electric vehicle has no transmission,
| no drive train, no oil. It doesn't have most of what cars
| have under the hood.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| EVs have less than 20 moving parts in their drivetrain.
| Scheduled maintenance is brake fluid every few years (as
| it absorbs moisture over time), cabin air filter every
| 2-3 years, and tire rotations (~7k miles) and
| replacements (as needed). Brake pads and rotors under
| normal duty cycles should last the life of the vehicle
| due to aggressive regenerative braking (at least that's
| what Tesla is seeing).
| drewzero1 wrote:
| Mechanically simpler, but (at least in Tesla's case) can
| be harder to get replacement parts for. Obviously their
| repair network isn't going to be as complete as a more
| established brand, but it doesn't really sound like
| they're prioritizing repairability at all.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It's hard to get replacement parts for Teslas because
| every single part they make is put into a new car and
| sold.
|
| There is no extra capacity producing spare parts to sit
| on shelves.
| nicoburns wrote:
| That's true, but it seems to be an issue with Tesla as a
| company rather than electric vehicles as a product.
| mbgerring wrote:
| > "lithium mining destroying the environment"
|
| 1. Any environmental impact from lithium mining needs to be
| weighed against the impact of continued extraction and
| burning of fossil fuels
|
| 2. Lithium is recyclable
| (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5) and
| there is room for a lot of process improvement in lithium
| extraction (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/general-
| motors-looks-to...)
|
| 3. Studies of the lifecycle emissions (emissions including
| manufacturing) of electric cars consistently find that EVs
| beat ICE vehicles, and future lifecycle emissions must be
| considered as a curve, as the percentage of renewables on
| the electric grid increases and industrial process
| eventually move away from fossil fuels
| (https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-
| vehicles-...)
| eisa01 wrote:
| In fact, an ICCT study shows that hydrogen tank
| manufacture is as CO2 intensive as batteries... if that
| is true, my mind is blown
|
| https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-
| cars-j...
|
| https://twitter.com/colinmckerrache/status/14193077299995
| 115...
| [deleted]
| root_axis wrote:
| > _Any environmental impact from lithium mining needs to
| be weighed against the impact of continued extraction and
| burning of fossil fuels_
|
| There's also the costs and externalities of shipping fuel
| to fueling stations all over the country in perpetuity,
| there's no additional cost to "ship" electricity to homes
| or charging stations.
| Mirioron wrote:
| > _1. Any environmental impact from lithium mining needs
| to be weighed against the impact of continued extraction
| and burning of fossil fuels_
|
| Why? If we're comparing EVs and hydrogen powered cars
| then we shouldn't. We should compare lithium usage to
| what hydrogen powered cars need.
|
| > _2. Lithium is recyclable_
|
| But do we actually recycle lithium in enough quantities?
|
| >Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed
| figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are
| recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%,"
| says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's
| considerably less."
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56574779
|
| Lithium-ion batteries can be the most recyclable thing in
| the world, but if we don't actually recycle them then it
| makes no difference.
| eloff wrote:
| Except hydrogen fuel cell vehicles lost already. There's
| no point comparing to them because we don't live in a
| reality where they're going to become a thing. If you
| want to play the "what if" game, that has its merits, but
| it has nothing to do with the world we presently live in
| or the proximate future.
| mbgerring wrote:
| If you want to consider lithium against hydrogen, that's
| fine: What's the environmental impact of hydrogen
| electrolysis, transportation, and construction of
| infrastructure to support it at a scale large enough to
| replace the ICE vehicle fleet? What kinds of materials
| need to be extracted to produce hydrogen fuel cells, and
| at what scale? How do those compare to the inputs for
| lithium ion batteries?
| N1H1L wrote:
| The sobering answer is that fuel cells also need a lot of
| problematic minerals too for catalysts. The most widely
| used H2 fuel cell catalyst is PtCo - so you still have
| the same cobalt problem there too.
| loufe wrote:
| There are quite a few stories about companies and
| research groups gunning for increasingly high lithium
| extraction from spent batteries. We're not there yet, but
| leave it to an open market to extract something of value
| as efficiently as possible from an effectively free
| resource.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| > We're not there yet, but leave it to an open market to
| extract something of value as efficiently as possible
| from an effectively free resource.
|
| Recycling can never be free or even close. There's a lot
| of processing that goes from dismantling a battery, to
| segregating the lithium, to putting it back in a new
| battery. Recycle is last of the 3 Rs for a reason.
| rplst8 wrote:
| We're not even recycling "recyclables" at very impressive
| rates. Our local waste management program here in
| Maryland has a Facebook page that talks about how there
| are a very very limited number and types of plastics that
| are even accepted at recycling facilities - and the
| market for recyclables is starting to dry up. Largely
| because a lot of the foreign countries that were taking
| it in by the container ship load have stopped doing so.
| lazerpants wrote:
| The market for industrial metal and chemical recycling is
| completely different than consumer plastics. Metals are
| often recycled because there is significant money in it.
| Recycling plastic is not profitable and frequently not
| even possible.
| Retric wrote:
| As long as we are talking hypothetically and pilot
| projects, unlike hydrogen you can charge EV's at highway
| speeds for unlimited range.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_road
|
| As to the current infrastructure, plugging in nightly works
| for most people most of the time. Spending an extra 15
| minutes charging for long trips is hardly a big deal.
| People tend to go inside for drinks walk around etc which
| eats into the time lost.
| adventured wrote:
| Adding to that, it's also worth noting that the battery
| segment of all-electric EVs has improved considerably
| over the past 20 years. The charging times per mile of
| distance will drop further and the range of the vehicles
| will continue to improve. The Toyota hydrogen arguments
| often intentionally ignore that the current approach to
| EV batteries is an improving target, despite that it's
| already good enough to take over the market as is.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Range and recharging speed of electric cars are pretty
| close to what hydrogen cars offer. But there is a catch:
| you don't have to go to fuel stations to charge your
| electric car. Anywhere where there is electricity, e.g. at
| home or at any business, it is trivially easy to add
| chargers, starting at a few hundred dollars. Which means,
| most electric cars will have to go to charging stations
| only on road trips. With hydrogen, you have to stop at a
| fuel station for every single refill.
|
| (Not to mention that "green" hydrogen requires at least 3x
| as much energy as plain electric cars)
| cameldrv wrote:
| This is becoming less true every year. Tesla now has 250kW
| superchargers, and there are even 350kW CCS chargers
| starting to be installed. In practice, for a Model 3, this
| means that you can charge the battery up to about half in
| 15 minutes.
|
| For a long day of driving, say, 700 miles, assuming
| charging available at both ends, this means two charging
| stops of 15 minutes each instead of one gas stop of 5
| minutes.
|
| IMO while this can always be improved, this is now at the
| "good enough" point for long distance driving. Obviously to
| make this a true reality, there needs to be widespread
| charging available in parking lots, and more 250kW
| Superchargers, but progress towards this is rapid.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| That is IF the charger is available when you want it and
| you don't need to wait 15-30 minutes for the car that's
| ahead of you to charge. Maybe rare now, but unless
| chargers keep building out at or greater than the pace of
| EV sales, it will become a bottleneck. It happens now
| with gas stations at busy interchanges, but generally a
| car can fill up and move in < 5 minutes.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Hydrogen absolutely does have this problem. A fast hydrogen
| fill requires the hydrogen to be at super high pressure, a
| typical hydrogen station can only do three fast fills per
| hour. Not to mention the time you take driving way out of
| your road to get to the very limited number of stations, if
| there are any.
| Clubber wrote:
| You can swap out hydrogen tanks a lot more easily than
| you can swap out batteries. Something to consider.
|
| Lol. All the downvotes. It's like I said something bad
| about Apple 10 years ago. All hail Elon, dear leader.
| fossuser wrote:
| Not what you were going for, but the people talking
| negatively about Apple's strategy ten years ago were
| similarly extremely wrong.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Or extremely right, considering we now live in a world of
| walled gardens and user choice and repair-ability has
| diminished in large part because of Apple.
|
| I think he/she means that Tesla, like Apple, has a cult
| following in which people can't see the company doing any
| wrong or facing any criticism when it comes to its
| products or repercussions for what it will do to the
| industry down the line.
| diordiderot wrote:
| Video from this week on battery swapping tech / companies
|
| https://youtu.be/2-xWYScsvts
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Theoretically you can swap anything easily.
|
| I wouldn't want my container on high pressure explosive
| gas be swapped from some DIY dudes car.
| Clubber wrote:
| Like a gas grill I would suspect. The issue with swapping
| out batteries is they are friggin' heavy when they are
| that big.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| It helps to fully understand the drawbacks of what you're
| advocating in order to have a coherent argument.
|
| That's why people have issue with your statement on
| "easily" swapping hydrogen tanks, as it's anything but
| "easy".
|
| https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-
| chall...
| mdorazio wrote:
| No, you really can't. In order to make high-pressure
| hydrogen tanks in passenger vehicles safe in crashes they
| are embedded deeply inside the chassis and are much
| bigger and more difficult to access than you seem to be
| thinking. There is absolutely no way to swap the tank on
| a Toyota Mirai, for example, without taking the car
| mostly apart. Take a look at [1] to see where the tanks
| are actually placed.
|
| [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/37872/now-with-three-
| hydrogen-...
| Clubber wrote:
| Why couldn't you put an access panel right next to them,
| or even a slide out tray? They both seem to be near the
| outside of the car in that diagram.
| outworlder wrote:
| Hydrogen is already terrible enough as it is to contain.
| So now you want to add a bunch of connect/disconnect
| cycles to a high pressure tank?!
| Clubber wrote:
| I mean we've known how to store flammable gas for quite a
| while now. Welding tanks, oxygen tanks, propane tanks.
| Why would it be different from swapping out a propane
| tank in my gas grill?
|
| I mean don't EV's have issues? Lithium is expensive to
| mine, electricity is usually produced by burning coal,
| and can our current grid even handle 100% electric
| vehicles? I mean it's better than gas, but it's not the
| end of the road of vehicle power is it?
| [deleted]
| N1H1L wrote:
| The answer is also because hydrogen is insanely light. A
| propane molecule is much bigger in size than a H2
| molecule - which makes hydrogen storage and handling
| uniquely difficult
| outworlder wrote:
| > Why would it be different from swapping out a propane
| tank in my gas grill?
|
| Because we are not talking about propane. We are talking
| about a tank storing highly pressurized hydrogen, which
| is way more difficult to handle than propane. In a moving
| vehicle, not a grill.
|
| > Lithium is expensive to mine
|
| Yes. It can be mined once and then reuse countless times,
| however. Hydrogen is expensive to manufacture too, and
| it's "burned" so you always need more.
|
| Expect prices to go down as more infrastructure to mine
| and refine is put into place. This is even ignoring
| technological advancements in extraction - which tend to
| happen once there's demand.
|
| > electricity is usually produced by burning coal
|
| This is highly location-dependent. True for some places,
| not true at all for others. That's also becoming less
| true by the day.
|
| _Even_ in the case where 100% of the grid power worldwide
| came from coal, EVs would still be a win. The generator
| on a huge power plant is far more efficient than any car
| engine. And the pollution is concentrated on a few places
| - places we can improve. Additionally, there are no
| emissions on population centers, meaning an enormous
| improvement on quality of life and a decrease on deaths
| due to respiratory illnesses.
|
| Then, once you upgrade the power plants, the entire
| vehicle fleet gets an instant upgrade.
|
| If it's in your means (essentially, if you own your
| property) you can generate power from renewables on site
| and power your vehicle that way. Try doing that with
| hydrogen.
|
| > and can our current grid even handle 100% electric
| vehicles
|
| Yes according to the US Department of Energy.
|
| > I mean it's better than gas, but it's not the end of
| the road of vehicle power is it
|
| Just until we find something better, then we'll _easily_
| change our vehicles to store electric energy using the
| new storage device. That's the good thing about electric
| motors, they don't care where the power comes from.
| robocat wrote:
| >> electricity is usually produced by burning coal
|
| > This is highly location-dependent.
|
| It really isn't. Electricity moves through a network: for
| example using more electricity in France might cause a
| coal power station to be started in Poland. The same
| occurs for any network.
|
| Additionally, when you add an EXTRA kWh of load, what
| really matters is where that extra kWh is generated.
| Think of it that all the electricity on the network is
| already being used (all the green electricity is
| virtually guaranteed to be used).
|
| When you add one marginal kWh of usage, that kWh is often
| genersted 100% from gas or coal.
|
| Obviously there are a lot of different situations where
| the above points are not relevant, and where an efficient
| coal station might be better than an ICE. I am just
| saying that many people are ignorant of how the
| electricity networks work.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Propane is a vastly different substance with different
| properties. I'm not sure why you are so insistent that
| they should be similar.
|
| Sure, EVs and hydrogen each have their pros and cons. But
| that is meaningless without numbers. So far, it seems
| like the numbers work out a lot better for EVs.
|
| Maybe someone comes up with a great idea and hydrogen
| becomes the future of cars. But there is zero evidence of
| that today.
| com2kid wrote:
| Pressurized explosive gases are dangerous. Your propane
| task isn't part of a multi-ton vehicle traveling at high
| speeds that may be subject to a high speed crash at any
| random point in time.
|
| A hydrogen tank that is part of your car, however, may be
| subject to a high speed crash coming in at a random
| angle.
|
| BBQ grill propane tanks can explode, but they are
| typically stored on porches, an environment where they
| are not often hit by SUVs.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| Storing pressurized hydrogen safely & efficiently is much
| harder to do than storing propane.
|
| Pressure for propane tanks, 100-200 psi.
|
| Pressure for hydrogen tanks, 5000-10000 psi.
|
| It's not the same.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _cheat out some legislative relevance rather than compete
| on product. Many companies being disrupted do that (see
| recent viasat story, US car dealerships, etc.)_
|
| Or all the recent hullabaloo against Apple's App Store
| weaksauce wrote:
| until there are chargers for the masses or some kind of new
| tech comes along that can charge as fast as filling up the
| tank or the batteries can hold way more range than they do it
| is not going to work for the majority of people with cars.
| too many people can't plug in overnight to charge. electrics
| are superior for the people that they are superior for.
| derbOac wrote:
| My wife and I recently purchased a new car. We have
| strongly been considering an EV, but went with a hybrid
| because even though EVs were well within our price range,
| we couldn't depend on one. The infrastructure just isn't
| there, nor is the range. Maybe when we replace our other
| car it will make sense as that one is driven much shorter
| distances and we'd have the other one for longer distances
| (both are hybrids). This isn't even getting into issues
| with having to upgrade our electrical box and wiring to
| handle car charging in our garage.
|
| I would never buy a Tesla because I see better options in
| the EV space, but I do give them a lot of credit and thanks
| for introducing competition in the area and turning EVs
| into a product to covet. To me that's always been the best
| way to handle these sorts of things, to introduce
| competition and win people over. Lightbulbs were the same
| way -- the arguments died when quality affordable LEDs came
| on the market and took away any argument for anything else.
| When there's big range, reliable and affordable EVs with
| quick ubiquitous charging, people will flock to EVs.
|
| Sometimes I feel like these discussions are in a bubble, to
| be honest. When I think of the people I know, and what's in
| the parking lot, getting them to migrate to a hybrid is
| really where there would be any movement. Maybe someday
| they'll just jump to an EV and skip hybrids but at the
| moment there's lots of people who won't even consider
| anything but a full combustion system.
|
| I also don't really fault Toyota for pursuing hydrogen and
| would really like to see that continue at least as a
| research focus. It is much more energy dense and solves a
| lot of problems. I realize it's not as fully there yet as
| EVs, but EVs aren't either if anyone is being completely
| honest. The article casts Toyota in a nefarious light, but
| in some ways I feel like if the government is going to get
| involved and start playing favorites, they should do so in
| a competitive and diversified way. Otherwise maybe they
| should get out of the way and just incentivize competition
| per se. In fact, if the EV market is so healthy, maybe the
| government should be subsidizing alternatives like
| hydrogen?
| evanrich wrote:
| > I would never buy a Tesla because I see better options
| in the EV space Out of curiosity, who do you see as a
| better option and why?
| fossuser wrote:
| I'm also curious - I looked at a lot of EVs (maybe all
| that were available?) before getting the Model 3 (and had
| a Fiat 500e prior to that).
|
| None of them really came close in features and most were
| not competitive on cost either.
| [deleted]
| notJim wrote:
| I don't see how this could be true, Tesla is way ahead of
| everyone in terms of charging infrastructure. The Mach-E
| and Id.4 both look like good cars, but Electrify America
| is still smaller, and having some growing pains. I think
| Tesla may have real competitors in the very short term,
| but not quite yet. The only thing is that some people may
| not care about fast charging, because you really don't
| need it most of the time, especially if you have another
| ICE car for road trips.
| nickik wrote:
| > I would never buy a Tesla because I see better options
| in the EV space
|
| Tesla might not be your taste, but every test and
| comparison shows that Tesla is at the top or at least
| incredible competitive.
|
| > To me that's always been the best way to handle these
| sorts of things, to introduce competition and win people
| over.
|
| That's exactly what has happened already.
|
| > I also don't really fault Toyota for pursuing hydrogen
|
| You mean talking about hydrogen while trying to prevent
| cleaner fuel laws and zero emission vehicles. Yeah you
| really can't blame gigantic cooperation from lobbying
| against the environment. Where would we be if cooperation
| could be criticized like that.
|
| > I realize it's not as fully there yet as EVs, but EVs
| aren't either
|
| EV are going totally gang busters and are on a massive
| growth curve. They are on an incredibly fast adoption
| curve, as faster then many expected and its going faster.
| They are there, but it still needs time.
|
| > In fact, if the EV market is so healthy, maybe the
| government should be subsidizing alternatives like
| hydrogen?
|
| Why? Why would you dumb money in a technology stack that
| has gotten government money for 50 years and has shown
| absolutely no success what so ever and is worse for the
| environment by far. What is the logic in that.
|
| Seems much more important to replace ICE vehicles then to
| fight EV with FCV. Wouldn't you say?
| notJim wrote:
| If you're in the US, this comment really makes no sense
| to me, unless you live in or visit rural areas very
| frequently. Teslas are practical EVs right now for those
| who can afford them. Most charging happens at home, and
| there are plenty of superchargers along major highways.
| Additionally, many cities have level 2 charging, so if
| you're going to be in a city for even an afternoon you
| can charge up quite a bit even if there's no
| supercharging.
|
| If it's only an occasional trip where charging is not
| available, you could rent a car.
|
| > I would never buy a Tesla because I see better options
| in the EV space
|
| Tesla has by far the best charging network, so if you
| ruled them out right away, then I could understand your
| comment. Electrify America is growing rapidly, and I'm
| pretty bullish on their network over the next couple of
| years.
|
| > When I think of the people I know, and what's in the
| parking lot, getting them to migrate to a hybrid is
| really where there would be any movement. Maybe someday
| they'll just jump to an EV and skip hybrids but at the
| moment there's lots of people who won't even consider
| anything but a full combustion system.
|
| I don't really see why. EVs are a bit of a mindset shift
| (charging at home...), but I don't see the major
| practical hurdles you do.
| antattack wrote:
| > I would never buy a Tesla because I see better options
| in the EV space,
|
| Only Tesla EVs have range over 300miles EPA and cost less
| than 50k.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I'm worried there's a reason they're so cheap - they
| don't seem to have good build quality.
| notJim wrote:
| Not true, Ford Mach-E is $42k at 305 EPA. $36k after tax
| credit, so even cheaper.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| They already have chargers for the masses. Superchargers
| are all over the place and charge nearly as fast as filling
| up a tank.
|
| Most people wildly underestimate how much time they spend
| at a gas station filling up gas anyway.
|
| Range is not really an issue either. Unless you're
| regularly road tripping 400+ miles, an EV will handle the
| trip just fine.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > Superchargers are all over the place and charge nearly
| as fast as filling up a tank.
|
| This is not at all true. Filling up even a larger 25
| gallon gas tank can be done within 10 minutes. Even the
| newest Tesla Model S Plaid on the fastest supercharger
| takes 52 minutes to go from 5% to 95%
| (https://insideevs.com/news/515641/tesla-models-plaid-
| chargin...).
|
| > Range is not really an issue either. Unless you're
| regularly road tripping 400+ miles, an EV will handle the
| trip just fine.
|
| Range can be an issue for numerous reasons. Your range
| changes based on load, temperature, and the road. If
| you're driving in cold conditions, uphill, with
| passengers and cargo, your range isn't 400 miles - it
| might be half that. Plus even the longest range Tesla
| currently gets only 396 miles under the ideal conditions
| of the EPA cycle. Unlike with gas cars, you can't just
| carry an extra can of electric charge to cover yourself
| for a rare longer journey.
| nickik wrote:
| > Even the newest Tesla Model S Plaid on the fastest
| supercharger takes 52 minutes to go from 5% to 95%
|
| The thing is, you don't actually do that in practice. Go
| and actually listen to the insideev podcast. The Tesla
| will tell you where to stop for how long. Typically on a
| road-trip you actually make a few more stops and only
| charge from 5% to 60%.
|
| Unless you are a really extreme road tripper, peeing and
| getting a quick snake is more then enough. The guys on
| insideev actually do a huge amount of road tripping (with
| all kinds of cars) and they prefer EV to ICE for almost
| all trips. And in most cases the charging doesn't hold
| you up much at all.
|
| Also guess what, if you drive uphill with cargo in
| extreme temperatures you also use more gas and your car
| doesn't get its normal mileage.
|
| With an EV you actually get much of that energy back when
| going down the mountain on the other side.
|
| Also, this is probably less then 0.1% of all miles
| driven. So it really doesn't work as an argument and
| doesn't apply to 95% of the people. And for another 3% it
| likely doesn't apply for more then 1-2 a year.
|
| Nobody is saying that EV are literally perfect for every
| single case ever. But as a practical matter, they are
| simply better for the majority of people already.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > Also guess what, if you drive uphill with cargo in
| extreme temperatures you also use more gas and your car
| doesn't get its normal mileage.
|
| Yes, but gas vehicles still have higher max range and
| they have easily extensible range. An SUV can literally
| carry the equivalent of a second tank of fuel in gas cans
| and still have tons of space for people and cargo.
|
| > Also, this is probably less then 0.1% of all miles
| driven. So it really doesn't work as an argument and
| doesn't apply to 95% of the people. And for another 3% it
| likely doesn't apply for more then 1-2 a year.
|
| I disagree. Those trips may be a small percentage of all
| miles driven but an overwhelming majority of car owners
| still take those trips and want their vehicle to be
| capable of supporting those trips. Most people who own a
| car take trips with increased load or increased mileage
| frequently _enough_ that it is an important use case for
| their vehicle. The percentage of total miles driven is
| not really an important metric in considering a vehicle.
| It is critical for me to be able to take extended day
| trips with my family and friends even if I do it only
| once a month. EVs are better for the majority of road
| miles driven, but not for the majority of people.
| natch wrote:
| We owned two Teslas for two years with no place to plug in
| at home. But we did have local charging options. You would
| be surprised how easy it can be, if you live in the right
| place. However, I'll be the first to admit that this is a
| big if.
|
| Now we manage to keep two Teslas charged with one single
| 110 outlet. It's plenty for around town. We even have
| nights where we go to bed without plugging in either car,
| because they are both already 80% full, which is a good
| place to stop for battery health.
| cronix wrote:
| I kind of like what Nio is doing with batteries in their
| cars - quickly swap them out and be on your way instead of
| sitting there for an hour+ charging. It obviously wouldn't
| work everywhere as it requires a substantial infrastructure
| compared to a charging station (so economical in dense
| populated areas). But it's essentially as fast as filling
| up with regular gasoline. Pull in, battery gets swapped in
| minutes, pull out. BaaS (Batteries as a Service). It also
| lowers the price of the car up front since you don't pay
| for the massive battery, which is the largest cost portion
| of an electric vehicle.
|
| https://www.nio.com/blog/nio-completes-2000000-battery-
| swaps
| bruceb wrote:
| Maybe battery swaping will work this time.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place_%28company%29
| Animats wrote:
| Even things that used to do battery swapping, such as
| forklifts, are moving away from that. Now that battery
| forklifts can get through a workday on one charge, it's
| easier to just recharge during off hours.
| woeirua wrote:
| The overwhelming majority of households use their cars such
| that one essentially is used only for commuting and running
| errands on the weekend. The second car, can quite easily be
| electric given the state of today's technology, and that's
| the sweet spot for it right now. Once prices come down I
| would be surprised to see people _not_ have at least one
| electric car in their garage.
|
| Gas hybrids are vastly superior though for long distance
| traveling. The infrastructure just isnt there yet, and
| charging for an hour sucks.
| natch wrote:
| Two EVs are way easier to manage than one EV and one ICE
| car. Because you can trade them off at a distant charger.
| Server6 wrote:
| Most people can charge at home overnight. According the US
| census 65% of adults own their own home. Sure
| infrastructure needs built out for the remaining 35% of
| renters. However the demand won't be there for a while
| since most renters are likely younger and/or lower income
| and not the current target market for EVs.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Owning a home does not imply the ability to charge a car.
| It is common for homeowners to park cars on the street
| out of necessity.
| natch wrote:
| Some apartment renters can charge at home too. Just
| depends on the setup. But sure some can't.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Some of those 65% (condo and rowhouse owners and places
| where on-street parking is prevalent) will also need some
| amount of shared/public charging infrastructure.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| It's easy to do. There are electric cables everywhere
| (every street lamp, for example).
|
| Also, I'm old enough to remember when one had to pay for
| wifi at hotels and restaurants. I bet we won't pay for
| charging a car at some point and/or at some time of the
| day (plugging your car will help the grid due to the
| share of renewables, you may even be paid for the
| service). See https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerw
| all/own/californi...
| akudha wrote:
| A woman was saying (on Reddit, I think) that she is not
| comfortable sitting for an hour at the charging station. If
| I hadn't read that, I would've never thought of the safety
| angle for female EV owners.
|
| I hope EVs surpass gas guzzlers, but there are some issues
| to fix before that can happen.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| Honest question: is there any evidence a woman sitting in
| a car is more likely to be attacked than a man sitting in
| a car?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This is where Tesla Coils come in. Just play Red Alert 2.
| natch wrote:
| People draw a lot of scary conclusions based on what they
| know about bad EV choices.
|
| It all depends on what car you choose.
|
| With Teslas at least, you don't sit for an hour, since
| they have fast chargers all over the place. In other
| cars, yes.
|
| Some of our charges are 5-10 minutes. On a road trip most
| are 20-30 minutes. The longest charge is if you need to
| get to a place that is near the edge of your range, which
| is exceedingly rare, even on long road trips. In those
| highly unusual cases you might have to charge for 45-50
| minutes for that one leg of the trip, if you didn't
| arrive with half a charge already. Again this is with a
| supercharger. Other cars... yes, scary charge times. (You
| will hear about how some cars... Porsche... can charge at
| a faster rate, but the chargers to support this are rare,
| so their fast rate is often not possible and they are
| stuck at a slow charger for hours.)
|
| Also with other cars you are sitting there alone often at
| a single plug station. With Tesla chargers you are
| generally not alone, you are with other Tesla owners who
| have your back if anything suspicious starts happening
| around the area.
| fattire wrote:
| Leaving aside "sitting for an hour" (?), isn't it much
| safer to charge 99% of the time in your own garage and
| never have to regularly step out of your car alone at a
| dark gas station on the corner?
|
| Even on a long drive you leave home with a "full tank"
| without having that first stop to gas up.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah - plus superchargers are typically in busy public
| areas often with security (unlike many gas stations).
|
| It feels fairly contrived, I'm skeptical it's not just
| anti-ev motivated reasoning.
| natch wrote:
| No need for security, Tesla owners watch out for each
| other.
| natch wrote:
| To put it another way, people charging EVs tend to look
| out for each other and help each other. At Tesla
| chargers, since they have multiple plugs in one spot,
| there are often other friendly people there charging so
| you feel safer and more secure. So even without security
| guards it is a good setup for leaving your car or for
| being there in a strange parking lot.
| spullara wrote:
| Almost no one sits in their car while charging. This is
| just FUD.
| slg wrote:
| >a Model 3 Long Range operating at peak efficiency can
| recover up to 75 miles of charge in 5 minutes and charge at
| rates of up to 1,000 miles per hour.[1]
|
| I agree we need more public chargers, but I don't think
| "chargers are too slow" is really a valid forward looking
| argument anymore.
|
| [1] -
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-v3-supercharging
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > I don't think "chargers are too slow" is really a valid
| forward looking argument anymore.
|
| The problem is how many cars can be serviced by a single
| charging center in a given amount of time. Think about a
| weekend with good weather, or holiday weekends, when many
| people are taking trips on the same days. Normally,
| because filling a gas tank takes 5-10 minutes, cars can
| cycle in and out of ubiquitous gas stations very quickly.
| The same isn't true for charging, at least with the
| current footprint of chargers out there, especially with
| differences in charging architectures.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Faster charger are coming, too. Tesla already announced
| 300 kW https://electrek.co/2021/07/15/tesla-upgrading-
| supercharger-... and Ionity is already offering 350 kW
| https://ionity.eu/en/design-and-tech.html
|
| But the most important thing is the curve, not the peak
| rate. It's improving fast
| https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-s-plaid-
| charging... and will improve further with the 4680 cells
| next year.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I say this as a Tesla owner.
|
| Chargers are still too slow to appease a LOT of people. A
| 15-30 minute charge every 2-3 hours is unacceptable to
| people who expect a 5 minute gas-up every 3-4 hours. And
| while the supercharger network is expanding, the fact is,
| for a road trip, you'll still likely want to plan your
| charging stops ahead of time, and many people don't want
| to do this. With a gas car, you can easily just wing it
| with zero planning since no matter where you are, there's
| a gas station within 15 miles.
|
| The "charge rates up to 1,000 miles per hour" is only
| accurate when your battery is under what, 30%? IIRC,
| charging speed falls off almost linearly with state of
| charge.
| ygjb wrote:
| Is this just your opinion, or do you actually have data to
| back up your claims here?
|
| I ask because there was a 5 year old study that illustrated
| that in 2016 87% of trips were within range for an electric
| vehicle with overnight charging.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016112
|
| Range anxiety is a real thing, but we settled on a PHEV SUV
| with a 40km range last year due to not finding the right
| mix of towing capacity and range in an electric vehicle (we
| need to routinely use a trailer that can haul >1500 lbs for
| business reasons). That 40km range covers approximately 3/4
| quarters (74.38) of our routine driving (I actually have
| this data, we were surprised that it came out to such a
| round number!)
|
| We expect to sell our current vehicle and switch to a full
| electric SUV with similar capabilities once they are
| available in 2021/2022.
| nradov wrote:
| Range isn't the problem, lack of charging stations is.
| Drive around any city at night and look how many cars are
| parked overnight on streets and in parking lots with no
| chargers anywhere near. That infrastructure can be built
| but it will take decades.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| That's okay if it takes decades because the average age
| of vehicles on the road today is 12 years. It's going to
| take a LONG time to convert everyone over.
| fattire wrote:
| Why would it take decades?
| nradov wrote:
| Equipment costs, limited city budgets, permit process,
| labor availability, local transformer capacity, etc.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| A charging station costs an order of magnitude less than
| a petrol station
|
| Why would cities need to pay a dime for charging
| infrastructure? There are commercial vendors doing just
| fine.
|
| Which do you think is the hardest to get a permit for? 1)
| underground tank for thousands of gallons of explosive
| liquid that's bad for the environment if it leaks 2)
| overground tank of pressurised explosive gas known for
| its ability to leak out of every container 3) a big-ass
| electric socket
|
| As for labor, you need an electrician with a high voltage
| certificate. Not a exactly rare, hard to train,
| commodity. Maybe a dude with a backhoe to dig the wires.
|
| Local transformer capacity is highly variable, some areas
| might have issues, others might not. A charging station
| can bring stability to unstable networks if paired with a
| battery bank to offset the load. (And maybe even make $$
| by charging it during low load and feed back during peak
| hours).
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Not true. You don't need to charge everywhere you park.
| One can park at home, at the office or at the mall. One
| is enough, and once a week, too. So that's already less
| than 7%. And since the vast majority of households have a
| plug at home, you can probably divide that by 3.
| fredophile wrote:
| I disagree. You're overlooking the psychological aspects.
| Range anxiety is real. You might not need to charge up
| more than once a week but if you're down to 1 day or less
| of range do you really want to count on the fact that
| there is a free charger available when you get to your
| destination? I live in a condo so charging at home isn't
| an option. If I had an EV I'd probably start to get
| anxious when it gets down to somewhere around 1/3 of the
| charge left.
| philwelch wrote:
| The vast majority of _detached houses_ can charge an EV
| at home, assuming you either own it or have a landlord
| willing to let you install the charging equipment.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| The issues I see are that EVs can't charge quickly,
| charging stations can't cycle cars quickly, EV range
| varies on additional conditions like temperature, and you
| can't self-sufficiently extend an EV's range. To clarify
| that last issue, you could fill a gas can with additional
| gallons of fuel to extend your range, cover yourself for
| an emergency situation, etc. But you cannot do this with
| EVs. You can't just carry a jug of extra charge or
| operate without the grid being nearby, online, and
| available. I understand that there is always some level
| of dependency we have on large infrastructure, but gas
| vehicles let you have a longer period of reliable self-
| sufficiency compared to EVs.
|
| I am confident the vast majority of daily trips can be
| covered by an EV. But I still need a gas car to do things
| on the weekend, to go places on holidays, to feel secure
| in my ability to transport myself or loved ones at will,
| etc. When hauling people and gear, can I really rely on
| the stated range of an electric SUV to go offroad to a
| campsite and come back? I'd feel better if they let me
| carry an additional battery pack in the trunk/bed to
| extend range but that seems to not be a focus right now.
| So EVs basically seem like they preclude certain use
| cases entirely. In a multi-car household, I still see the
| need for at least one gas vehicle, and don't agree with
| bans that try to phase them out entirely as a result.
| ygjb wrote:
| Your concerns are basically straight up range anxiety.
| Anecdotally speaking, my previous vehicle was the only
| one out of 4 vehicles on camping trips for several years
| that had mechanical issues.
|
| The simple reality is that in most of North America you
| are less than 2 hours away from help in case of
| mechanical defect. Inside the United States, with few
| exceptions, it's must closer. You are just as vulnerable
| to mechanical failure with a gas vehicle as you are with
| an electric vehicle.
|
| That said, it's currently a consumer choice, but as a tax
| payer and a consumer I desperately want my (Canadian)
| government to end _all_ subsidies for fossil fuel
| industries, and introduce additional taxes with a direct
| path to those taxes being used to subsidize and invest in
| electric alternatives.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| What is the breakdown of electrical power generation in
| your area of Canada? Your EV may still be mostly/entirely
| fossil-fueled.
| fredophile wrote:
| I drive a mazda 3. Sometimes I need to move things that
| don't fit in it. When that happens I rent or borrow a
| bigger vehicle. What's wrong with using an EV for daily
| driving and renting a gas vehicle for the rare trips that
| really need the extra range?
|
| I'm also going to point out that the mileage I saw on my
| car at the dealer does not match the gas mileage I get in
| practice. That isn't something that is unique to EVs.
| After driving their car for a while most people will have
| a good idea of what their gas mileage is for their usual
| routes and won't be accidentally running out of gas or
| charge.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > What's wrong with using an EV for daily driving and
| renting a gas vehicle for the rare trips that really need
| the extra range?
|
| Well right now, legislation is being discussed that
| _bans_ gas vehicles outright, rather than leaving them as
| an option, so even your rental suggestion is precluded. I
| 'm not a fan of bans on consumer products in general - I
| would rather price in externalities. Additionally, this
| rental model doesn't work when everyone has the same
| holiday weekends when they want to go out with the
| family, or the same great weather conditions they want to
| take advantage of (for example to go skiing). The surge
| in demand won't match up to a limited supply of rental
| vehicles.
|
| > I'm also going to point out that the mileage I saw on
| my car at the dealer does not match the gas mileage I get
| in practice. That isn't something that is unique to EVs.
|
| Sure, but with EVs there are more variables at play like
| temperature. The max range on gas vehicles is also still
| a lot higher than EVs - for example I can easily get over
| 500 miles in my SUV on a single tank even driving
| aggressively. Plus the range is less of an issue when I
| can just carry an extra can of gas or fill up in an
| unplanned manner virtually anywhere in the country. If we
| don't have portable battery packs, or battery packs that
| can be swapped, it's simply not an equivalent substitute.
| bluGill wrote:
| > 87% of trips were within range for an electric vehicle
| with overnight charging
|
| That is the wrong number. The real number in question is
| what % of cars never do any other trip. 90% of my trips
| might be within range of an overnight charge, but my
| parent's house isn't on that list, so there will be
| several times per year that I will make a trip that isn't
| within range of an overnight charge. (My parent's are too
| close to making flying a reasonable choice)
| luma wrote:
| I suspect the point was more centered around access to
| charging facilities. Range is less of a problem if you
| have access to a charging point overnight. For those that
| park on-street or in public garages without charging
| available, range is far more of a problem unless you plan
| to take a few hours out of your day to hang out at a
| charging facility. That group of people would include a
| pretty substantial portion of those living in dense urban
| environments.
| fossuser wrote:
| I'd bet against you.
|
| The majority of people with cars can use EVs today fine.
|
| There are some exceptional outlier cases and even those
| people can rely on super chargers or charging stations
| (which are expanding rapidly).
| derbOac wrote:
| The majority of people I know who have cars would not be
| ok with EVs because they just don't have the range. The
| people I do know who are fine with EVs almost don't even
| need vehicles at all to be honest -- they could be using
| public transportation or biking or walking instead (I
| don't mean to suggest they shouldn't be using an EV, only
| that their alternatives often aren't combustion
| vehicles). I do think there are a lot of people who could
| be happily using EVs, but I don't think it's a majority.
|
| As for charging stations, I think many people who are
| still using combustion engines want to see a charging
| station at every gas station, or of equivalent geographic
| density. Distribution could be there but it's far from
| that now.
| fossuser wrote:
| Many people are afraid of the range, but don't actually
| drive anywhere near it day to day.
|
| EV range is also continuing to improve.
|
| I suspect/predict we'll see adoption continue to
| accelerate. I think a lot of the resistance is just
| status quo bias.
| eptcyka wrote:
| I covered 6000km last month. If I didn't have a petrol
| car, I'd not have a car at all, possibly renting one
| whenever I needed one. I only use my car for leisure, and
| if I can't reach remote locations with ease, then I don't
| need it.
|
| How many chargers do you need to equal the bandwidth of a
| petrol station with 6 pumps?
| wumpus wrote:
| How many petrol stations do you need to equal the
| bandwidth of almost all charging happening at home/work?
| eptcyka wrote:
| I refuelled my car 3 times a day when I was driving
| through Europe, I can only assume I would have to charge
| an EV as many (if not more) times.
| derbOac wrote:
| FWIW, I think eventually EVs will dominate the market.
| It's a matter of when, not if (unless hydrogen makes a
| splash somehow).
|
| The issue with trips is yes, many people don't drive
| anywhere near that range on a daily per-trip basis.
| However, people don't buy cars on a trip-by-trip basis,
| they buy a car to handle the range of regularly
| encountered transportation scenarios they encounter. So
| even if people only make, say, 7% of their trips outside
| the range of an EV, they don't want to go and rent a car
| to do that if they already own a car. They want to have a
| car that will do that, plus the one or two trips per week
| that go well outside that range. They don't want to rent
| another car every week or two to do that. Add to that a
| conservative 50% reduction in range in the winter (per
| Consumer Reports), range is currently a concern.
|
| I guess I just think the range-per-trip metric can be
| misleading, because that can equate to a relatively large
| number of trips per time, especially given the expense of
| a car, regardless of technology.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| All over the world countries are banning ICE. The US
| won't because of "muh freedom" but economically it's
| impossible to keep making them. When China and the EU
| switch to EV the world will follow.
| bluGill wrote:
| The US is large enough on its own to keep petro cars
| running. There won't be as many advances without other
| markets to subsidize development, but there are enough
| people to keep things going. What will kill gas in the US
| is when there is enough charging infrastructure that
| people believe those 7% trips where you don't charge at
| home are reasonable, and so they switch their next car.
|
| Once that happens petro will be left to things where
| nothing else will do. Things like farming, or heavy
| construction where you are using a lot more energy than
| batteries can supply: these are already diesel. And a few
| collectors, but the 1957 Chevrolet is something you only
| drive in parades anyway.
| fossuser wrote:
| I pretty often make the drive from SF to Tahoe which
| requires a supercharger stop for ~40min.
|
| For this distance it's really not an issue. People
| typically stop once for bathroom or food anyway. The
| tradeoff of low cost fuel is also a factor.
|
| All the other times an EV is a strictly better experience
| (not having to go to gas stations, pay gas costs,
| cleaner, better performance, etc.)
|
| Longer trips outside of that kind of thing are
| exceedingly rare for the vast majority of drivers (iirc
| the data correctly).
|
| I don't think it's about renting a car, I just think the
| supercharger network is at a point where things are good
| enough today for that kind of use case.
| natch wrote:
| Kinda miss the panhandlers though, right? /s
| nradov wrote:
| Most of the lower cost hotels in the Tahoe area still
| don't have charging stations.
| fossuser wrote:
| There are a few superchargers there, destination chargers
| aren't that important.
|
| I think non-Tesla EVs are a lot less viable an option for
| this reason.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Are most of the people you know driving 300+ miles
| regularly?
|
| Even if they are, this is a problem solved by fast charge
| stations.
| space_rock wrote:
| We need some sort of infrastructure that delivers
| electricity around a country and only then will this work
| mlinhares wrote:
| I see what you did here :D
| space_rock wrote:
| It always amazes me people use the infrastructure
| argument against EV adoption. Electricity infrastructure
| is nearly universal worldwide and clearly more available
| than gasoline. Also recharge times on new Teslas is very
| impressive of not irrelevant to most of the population
| that can recharge at home
| theshrike79 wrote:
| And even if they admit that the infrastructure exist,
| they vastly overestimate the amount of power needed to
| charge an EV at home.
|
| People actually believe you need a 150kW+ charger at
| home, when reality is that if you have a socket that can
| handle an electric kettle, you can charge an EV from it.
| RangerScience wrote:
| Until the demand for chargers hits a tipping point and
| starts replacing corner gas stations...
|
| Yes, you do still have the charge time issue, but that's
| why chargers get paired up with places. Right now there's
| two (slow) charging stalls at my mid-tier local grocery-
| store-etc mall (Albertsons), and (ofc) none at the low-tier
| (Big Saver). There's plenty of room for more, and while
| _my_ local grocery mall doesn 't have a gas station in it,
| most do. Replace those with charging infrastructure, and
| we'll get past that tipping point.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| In Finland the largest charger networks are owned by the
| two largest ... grocery chains.
|
| Their locations are already next to traffic hubs, stores
| already have a beefy electrical hook up and a car full of
| people stopping for 15-45 minutes to charge is excellent
| for business.
| RangerScience wrote:
| Yup! Because Tesla charges waaay more for time at a
| charger not charging, I'm starting to like the slower
| chargers since it gives more time for whatever I'm up to
| at the location. 30m is enough to pop into Trader Joe's,
| but not enough for a restaurant (as an example)
| echelon wrote:
| There are a number of problems with EVs that ICEs handle
| much better.
|
| Trucking and logistics is very time dependent, so stopping
| to recharge imposes severe logistical constraints. You
| can't have every truck stay at the same pit stop. There
| isn't enough space or time.
|
| Large apartment complexes are plentiful. A 1,000-resident
| building complex full of EVs will draw a lot of power. Can
| the grid handle it? What happens when the power goes out?
|
| How will residents of states that snow over in the winter
| will fare? Do they have to stop using their vehicles?
|
| Long trips by car suddenly become more painful, which will
| likely shift more traffic to air travel.
|
| ------ Edit -----
|
| I have a "bad contributor" flag on my account [1]. I had a
| response to this comment [2] that I wanted to make but
| can't. I'll include it here for lack of an ability to post
| on HN:
|
| I just looked at my coke zero can (bad habit), and it's
| using potassium citrate as an acid buffer.
|
| Inflammation is a tax on the immune system and puts it in a
| state that is mainly intended for dealing with pathogen and
| cancer clearance. Over time, endothelial and genetic damage
| can accrue, resulting in hastened aging and system
| dysfunction. Increased cell population recruitment from the
| thymus also diminishes the organ's size in age, reducing
| immune system capacity to deal with these threats.
|
| Not news I wanted today, but something I needed to hear.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27959642
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27963171
| ygjb wrote:
| No one is arguing any of these points. The problem is
| that currently the increased efficiency of ICEs are
| externalized from the people who are profiting from it.
|
| Pollution, noise, power distribution (fuel vs electric)
| and the toll on public infrastructure are all
| externalized costs for these businesses.
|
| The detail that is really exciting is that as EV
| technology is improving and people are becoming more
| aware of the realities of climate change and our complete
| inability to practically affect change as individuals,
| more and more people are starting to look to sustainable
| choices, and ICEs based on fossil fuels simply aren't one
| of them. AFAIK hydrogen fuel cells still aren't simply
| because the cheapest source of hydrogen is still fossil
| fuels, by a long shot (unless there is a more recent
| study that shows otherwise).
| fossuser wrote:
| Trucking has tradeoffs in both directions - EVs are
| cheaper, and easier to maintain, trucks are huge and can
| have a lot of battery capacity. I think what's better
| depends on specific circumstance.
|
| For large apartment complexes there will probably need to
| be some load balancing, but seems manageable. Power going
| out doesn't seem like that big of a deal, more likely to
| have some charge in the car and it's more likely to find
| power than gas in a crisis (long lines at gas stations
| etc.)
|
| Long trips by car via super charger are pretty easy for
| everything except 700+mi trips which are very rare for
| vast majority. Unlikely to shift anything to air travel,
| if anything lower EV fuel costs could shift other
| direction.
|
| For snow my parents have had only EVs in Buffalo and have
| been fine. They also drive down the east coast to
| Florida.
| Animats wrote:
| While electric sports cars and the electric Ford F-150
| gets most of the attention, the boring Ford Transit,
| America's work van, is about to come out in electric.[1]
| In a few years, most businesses where all the vans spend
| the night in the fenced company parking lot will probably
| be going electric, just to save on fuel cost.
|
| The electric version is still US$7K more than the
| gasoline version. When that price differential
| disappears, it's all over for the IC engine.
|
| [1] https://www.ford.com/commercial-
| trucks/e-transit/2022/
| crooked-v wrote:
| People talk about battery fires in cars, but boy, are the
| willies I get from the thought of driving around with a
| pressurized hydrogen tank about a thousand times worse than
| whatever small chance of having a battery ignite.
| AmVess wrote:
| Hydrogen for vehicles is very nearly fully developed. Honda
| says their upcoming generation is no more expensive to
| manufacture than an ICE vehicle.
|
| The problem isn't with hydrogen vehicles, it is with the
| production of hydrogen itself. Once (IF) humanity licks the
| generation of electricity problem, hydrogen vehicles will be
| the mode of transportation for nearly everyone.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| > Honda says their upcoming generation is no more expensive
| to manufacture than an ICE vehicle.
|
| A hydrogen vehicle from Honda (or Toyota) is an EV
| (electric motor, lithium ion battery) with an expensive
| fuel cell ("weird battery") and expensive fuel tank tacked
| on (and maybe missing an electric plug). An admission that
| they've got the cost of Hydrogen cars down to the same
| costs an ICE vehicle is an underhanded admission that _they
| can build EV cars cheaper than ICE_.
|
| (The problem _is_ with hydrogen vehicles. It 's a funny red
| herring to just producing good cheap EVs.)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > A hydrogen vehicle from Honda (or Toyota) is an EV
|
| Yes, FCEVs are EVs, just like BEVs are.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > anyone who looked outside their window would see EVs all
| over the place
|
| Not where I am. They are rare enough that it's still
| something of a novelty to see one (I'm talking about pure EVs
| like a Tesla, not hybrids).
|
| Toyota may be seeing that EVs will be a mass-market fiasco in
| many parts of the country where charging infrastructure is
| sparse, winters are cold, and even 200+ mile range can be a
| real limit and want to be able to continue to sell hybrids
| and ICE vehicles to those customers who prefer/require them.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > and even 200+ mile range can be a real limit
|
| If your daily commute is 200 miles, your lifestyle is
| unsustainable anyway. Fuel consumption, greenhouse gas and
| particulate matter emissions, and even with electric
| vehicles you're _still_ losing 3 hours of your life in
| traffic.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Just because you only drive to the office and back does
| not mean that's the only place anyone might ever want to
| drive to.
| leesalminen wrote:
| I don't think they're talking about people driving 200+
| miles to an office every day. Think more along the lines
| of service technicians (plumbers, electricians, etc),
| home builders (working on multiple projects at a time),
| and on and on. There's millions of people who's office is
| the job site wherever that may be.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| People in some service jobs, many independent
| contractors, tradespeople, etc. have to drive from place
| to place, sometimes many places per day, to do their
| jobs. I agree that for people with well-defined commute
| and shopping patterns an EV may be perfectly acceptable.
| taxicabjesus wrote:
| A good 12-hour shift in the taxi for me was 200+ miles,
| with hopefully 1/2 of those paid miles.
|
| I don't know what percentage of paid miles rideshare
| drivers can get. My friend recently took a 60+-mile ride
| share trip. That driver certainly had to drive most of
| the way back empty.
| Lammy wrote:
| "I strip away the old debris, that hides a shining car.
|
| A brilliant red Barchetta, from a better, vanished time.
|
| Fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar!
|
| Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime..."
| wumpus wrote:
| That song is an excellent example of Libertarian fiction
| that didn't happen, but it still regarded to be a
| cautionary tale. Which brings me to the joke about Lord
| of the Rings and The Fountainhead...
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| A lot of people think this song is about driving an
| illegal gas engine, but its really about driving a car
| with illegally low safety features. Honestly the cyber
| truck feels like what the source material was
| envisioning, but not due to the electric part
| rplst8 wrote:
| Yes, there needs to be support for ICE vehicles in certain
| areas for quite some time to come. Until EV technology can
| support those that rely on gasoline or diesel powered cars
| in remote places.
|
| Once the fossil fuel infrastructure starts to lose
| mainstream use, folks that require larger range, better
| cold weather reliability, etc. will pay through the nose to
| be able to move freely using their existing cars.
|
| It will be a slow transition until it's not, and then you
| have a bunch of useless piles of steel, glass, and rubber
| lying around.
|
| I wonder how they will handle emergency and military
| vehicles in the future. For any of them to use it it has to
| just work, and work quickly.
| glogla wrote:
| > Hybrids were a mediocre half-measure and hydrogen was a
| worse solution to the problem.
|
| I believe it is more sinister - most of hydrogen currently
| available is made "almost free" from natural gas. So behind
| hydrogen, I would expect current Oil and Gas companies that
| are trying to stay relevant - and hydrogen is perfect for
| greenwashing, since it could in theory be made from green
| electricity and thus zero emission - but that will never be
| price competitive with hydrogen from natural gas, unless we
| start counting externalities.
| SrslyJosh wrote:
| > Elon's early responses to this remain true (grid already
| exists, people can charge at home, easier to build EV
| infrastructure, etc.) - there's been nearly zero progress in
| hydrogen fuel cells.
|
| Reminder that Elon bought his way into Tesla. I'm sure those
| are all things that Tesla's founders pointed out when they
| pitched the investment to him. =)
| Animats wrote:
| Toyota is still trying to sell their hydrogen-powered
| Mirai.[1] After six years, they're selling a few hundred a
| month, all in California because that's where there are some
| hydrogen stations.
|
| The hydrogen station situation is a joke.[2] Not only are
| there few of them, most of them are offline.[2] Right now,
| not one hydrogen station in the South Bay is working.
|
| [1] https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
|
| [2] https://cafcp.org/stationmap
| jdavis703 wrote:
| You can't buy a Mirai, you can only lease them. And they're
| only sold in CA because they're a so called "compliance
| car" designed to appease regulators.
|
| Personal story, when I tried to lease one they wanted me to
| share my social media info because they only wanted to
| lease them to "influencers." Seemed like a bizarre way to
| run a business, and since I'm not an influencer I looked
| elsewhere.
| coolspot wrote:
| Maybe it was true at some point, but not anymore - you
| absolutely can buy a Mirai.
|
| https://www.toyota.com/search-
| inventory/page/results/year/20...
| mikewave wrote:
| There are a few hydrogen power stations up here in
| Vancouver, but still not enough to make a Mirai practical
| for many people. I've seen a few driving around but I
| suspect they're all demo cars...
|
| Hydrogen fuel cells make way more sense for semi-trucks and
| I'd love to see the whole Trans-Canada Highway done up with
| regularly spaced stations, but whether it makes sense in
| the city is a harder sell. It's a matter of infrastructure
| being required before users - "if you build it, they will
| come". I'd drive a Mirai no problem, but not if I'm worried
| about running out of H.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| I was reading the math on semi-trucks and charging times
| line up so well with union mandated breaks (at least one
| stop every so many hours of at least 30 minutes), I've
| got a feeling pure electric is going to work out well
| with semi-trucks (and maybe even something the unions
| will think a great overall win because it adds vehicular
| enforcement of union rules).
|
| I still think hydrogen makes way more sense for ships at
| sea, maybe for planes (maybe not for dirigibles, though,
| hah), and probably as one of many "grid shifting" tools
| in the tool bag (converting excess wind/solar to hydrogen
| when it is cheap, and then reusing it at times of
| scarcity/grid outages/off-grid-festivals).
|
| Though something was pointed out to me that while far
| down on the list of immediate greenhouse gas concerns,
| vastly expanding our production of Hydrogen and the
| amount that leaks into the atmosphere (and Hydrogen is so
| small we have no real good way to make a truly leak-proof
| container; long term storage of "hydrogen fuel" is a
| problem), it will have a lot of indirect impacts on
| greenhouse gases (including interrupting the chain
| process that converts most atmospheric methane to less
| harsh chemicals) and it's easy to forget that there are
| other greenhouse gas problems to worry about with respect
| to climate change beyond just "carbon footprint" and I
| know some scientists are increasingly of the angry
| opinion that Hydrogen was always a dangerous red herring
| distraction especially because while it reduces overall
| carbon output has enough secondary effects to worry about
| if it was a more common "fuel".
| natch wrote:
| Also they've had a few explosions.
|
| Usually hydrogen delivery trucks, but they list them as
| explosions "at the plant" in what I guess is a trick to
| hide the fact that these trucks that are driving around
| city streets can explode. Then also some at retail filling
| stations.
| FreakyT wrote:
| The key difference between Toyota's approach and Tesla's
| was simple: Tesla built out their own charging
| infrastructure.
|
| Just like with battery-electric-vehicles, there's a chicken
| and egg problem: no one will buy a car if there's nowhere
| to charge/fuel it, but no one will build fueling/charging
| stations if no one has that type of car. If Toyota was
| serious about hydrogen, they should have done what Tesla
| did, and built a countrywide network of hydrogen stations.
| fossuser wrote:
| Part of the difficulty was that when starting off early
| EV adopters already had charging infrastructure in their
| homes the same isn't true for hydrogen. Tesla later was
| able to build and expand superchargers, but initially
| people just charged at home (and still mostly do except
| for longer trips).
|
| There isn't a path for hydrogen to build out like that -
| you need the entire infrastructure at once, there isn't a
| real path to success there. Failure was obvious imo based
| on this alone (there are other issues too).
|
| I'm not even sure Toyota really expected anything other
| than failure? Based on the attention they gave it, it
| mostly seemed like something they could point to for
| marketing and then ignore with some justification that
| their own failure is evidence people don't want non-
| gasoline alternatives.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| > The key difference between Toyota's approach and
| Tesla's was simple: Tesla built out their own charging
| infrastructure.
|
| No. The vast majority of Tesla charging sessions are done
| at home (and it cost little to charge at night, for most
| people). Toyota cannot compete with that if they continue
| to sell hydrogen (which they promote it as being green
| while 99% is produced from natural gas). They just don't
| competition and one of the two is dead on arrival.
| Hydrogen may have a future, but certainly not on the
| road.
| notJim wrote:
| > (which they promote it as being green while 99% is
| produced from natural gas)
|
| If the carbon-containing part of the production was
| sequestered, it could reduce the carbon intensity of the
| fuel greatly, couldn't it? Still has to be extracted and
| stuff of course.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Remember that Tesla is still a small company in terms of
| sales, business units, number of models, certainly only
| recently are they making a big numbers splash.
|
| And they have a charging infrastructure.
|
| Big Auto has:
|
| - locations to put chargers (dealerships that are often
| in busy commercial areas close to highways)
|
| - lobbying power (to get buildout incentives)
|
| - a lot of money, at least right now
|
| - lawyers and negotiating power
|
| Remember, the grid already exists. A "charging
| infrastructure" is some last mile wiring and plopping
| down charger ports, ok, and maybe some
| review/planning/negotiation with the local power
| companies.
|
| As soon as major companies are all-in (GM, VW currently),
| then Electrify America won't be able to get away with
| their crappy service, will build out, and the dealerships
| will provide a lot of expansion.
|
| I believe GM could make a usable near-worldwide charging
| network in less than a year with their dealerships. I
| know the dealerships have been a massive foot dragging
| barrier for EV adoption outside of Tesla, but GM does
| have some power with them, and the writing should be on
| the wall.
|
| You move to EV, or you are a shady used car lot.
| fossuser wrote:
| Dealerships suck and they dislike EVs (for political
| reasons, and for low maintenance cost service reasons) -
| I'm bearish on their ability to roll out charging via
| dealerships.
|
| I suspect they'll fail to adapt the same way most large
| companies fail to adapt when a startup disrupts their
| existing customer base.
|
| In this case, there's the added element that car
| manufacturers are also harmed by their legacy dealership
| relationships.
| nickik wrote:
| > The key difference between Toyota's approach and
| Tesla's was simple: Tesla built out their own charging
| infrastructure.
|
| No it isn't. The key difference is that Telsa picked the
| right technology and Toyota didn't.
|
| Tesla could build its own infrastructure because the grid
| exists already and building chargers is not that hard.
|
| Toyota couldn't because building hydrogen infrastructure
| is insanely incredibly stupidly expensive. Even had they
| tried, it would have been a gigantic money shredder.
|
| Building fuel-cell cars is really expensive, in addition
| the the infrastructure they are also losing money on each
| car.
|
| So basically, your asking Toyota to spend billions to
| build infrastructure that loses money, and more billions
| to build cars that lose money.
|
| The right technology choice matters!
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| > throwing their weight around to try to cheat out some
| legislative relevance rather than compete on product
|
| So well said and - a market economy cannot really coexist
| with an environment allowing buying legislation.
| golemiprague wrote:
| When you say "look around" you mean in an American suburb?
| Toyota sells cars all over the world where many people don't
| have a garage with access to electricity for their cars to
| charge. So they still need to build the infrastructure,
| whether it is privately in apartment building outside parking
| or in the streets or in petrol stations, which takes time to
| charge.
|
| Many countries also don't have resources like the US and
| therefore producing electricity means import of some fuel.
| Hydrogen can be produced anywhere and that's why for many
| countries it could be much more attractive. Not to mention
| the environmental cost of creating batteries. So altogether
| Toyota has pretty good reasons to think what they think.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| >Hybrids were a mediocre half-measure
|
| That is not true. Hybrids can be greener than an full EV. To
| make EVs palatable, automakers realized they need to use huge
| batteries with 400+ miles of range. But the average daily
| commute is much much less than that.
|
| The result of which is that you waste a lot of money and CO2
| emissions to produce a battery that is 3x too big.
|
| A hybrid with a range extender and 1/3 of the battery, can
| better accommodate the needs of daily commuters while
| actually being cleaner than an EV since the CO2 emissions
| from EV manufacturing is almost entirely due to the battery
| and it takes years (two to three depending on your commute)
| to offset those emission even against a new ICE car.
| Forbo wrote:
| Average age of a car as of 2016 was 11.6 years and
| climbing, so it seems like the vast majority of those in
| operation would easily hit the offset threshold.
| majormajor wrote:
| The more important number would be "average age of a car
| when it goes out of operation," but yeah, I highly doubt
| it's that much lower, if any. It should be similarly
| climbing.
| irrational wrote:
| Yeah, I have one car that is 21 years old and the other
| is 17 years old. They still drive great and have no
| issues. I truly don't understand people that get new cars
| every 2-3 years. Not having a car payment for decades is
| great. Plus our insurance is super cheap.
| Infinitesimus wrote:
| 2-3 years is leasing territory (which some people do
| because they enjoy changing vehicles often.)
|
| Car safety is much much better now than they were 5+
| years ago however so it is not unreasonable for someone
| to change cars that often. I'd certainly not want to be
| in a 10yr old car in a highway accident if I could help
| it.
|
| (Also, some newer cars are just nicer to drive with
| creature comforts people care about)
| lumost wrote:
| This assumes the engine, fuel infrastructure, and weight of
| the ICE engine is free. It also assumes that the electric
| infrastructure cannot be fully converted to carbon neutral
| sources. Lastly it assumes that battery technology will
| improve at a comparable rate to ICE technology which has
| been extremely wrong in the last 10 years.
| N1H1L wrote:
| Yes. I have a lot of problems with the assertion ab ove
| you. It takes carbon to produce a ICE car too
| beerandt wrote:
| Not one that's already on the road.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Well, the fuel infrastructure already exists, and the
| weight of the ICE engine is at least partially offset by
| the smaller battery.
|
| I'm extremely skeptical of any claim that hybrids are
| better for the environment than EVs in aggregate, but for
| specific use cases over certain timeframes the difference
| may be small.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| This assumes that a hybrid has to have a smaller battery
| to fit the ICE engine and/or that the ICE engine has
| equivalent weight/density.
|
| On the one hand, volume versus weight an ICE engine is
| generally "lighter" than if that equivalent space were
| tightly packed with battery cells.
|
| But on the other hand a car is _not_ going to tightly
| pack the equivalent volume, most modern EV designs are a
| "skateboard" layout with all the batteries on the floor
| of the car. The front hood of the car is typically at
| that point unused space and many modern electrics place
| there now a "frunk" ("front trunk" or "froot"/"front
| boot" if you prefer Britishisms) for "bonus" cargo space.
|
| From that perspective, a hybrid has "free" space for a
| gas generator by taking "back" the frunk space, but they
| have to shrink the battery _because_ of the added weight
| of the gas generator. (The skateboard has the physical
| space either way, it shrinks to keep the overall car
| weight below an aerodynamic threshold, not to yield space
| for the gas generator.)
| glogla wrote:
| Only when you take for granted the whole infrastructure of
| mining millions of years old ferns, shipping them around
| world in pipelines and ships and trucks to burn them in
| tiny explosions many times a second to get wheels to turn.
|
| Which, taking a step back, if franky ridiculous.
|
| Why not use a battery and the planet-wide instant power
| delivery system we built and are using for most of
| everything else?
| fossuser wrote:
| I think people get blinded by status quo bias.
|
| Imagine we were operating with 100% EVs today, would
| people be advocating for adding in gasoline tech as
| hybrids?
| rdtwo wrote:
| Why not can you imagine having the freedom to change your
| car nearly instantly and go wherever you want. No range
| anxiety
| glogla wrote:
| That's why I like this (10 years old, wow!) Nissan Leaf
| ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn__9hLJKAk
|
| It is obviously ridiculously over the top, but I think it
| paints interesting analogy.
| notJim wrote:
| > Hybrids can be greener than an full EV
|
| Any cite for this? It's not totally implausible to me, at
| least given current power generation.
| Forge36 wrote:
| My entire commute is covered by a 22 mile battery. I've
| put 600 miles on the battery this current tank of gas.
| I've not used gas yet.
|
| While perhaps not typical, the compromise can be a
| massive improvement.
| gambiting wrote:
| Same here. Got a Volvo XC60 T8, last time I filled up
| with fuel was in March. Almost all my local journeys are
| covered in EV mode entirely and I drive pretty much
| daily. And last year I was able to do a cross-continent
| journey without worrying where to charge on the way.
|
| Having said all of the above - even according to Volvo's
| own stats, something absolutely stupid like 60% of all
| buyers never ever plug these in, it's just a tax dodge
| scam for a lot of people. But if you are one of the
| people who do, it works fantastically well.
| epmaybe wrote:
| I think that you're assuming that the hybrid in mind has
| plug in, otherwise you're not really making the case for
| using gas to inevitably charge the battery (regenerative
| braking still requires having had some speed generated by
| gas). As far as I know, the vast majority of hybrids that
| Toyota makes are _not_ plug in.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| > I think that you're assuming that the hybrid in mind
| has plug in, otherwise you're not really making the case
| for using gas to inevitably charge the battery
| (regenerative braking still requires having had some
| speed generated by gas).
|
| This logic is plain silly. You're not simultaneously on
| the gas and the brakes at the same time. The weight of
| the batteries and electric motors pales in comparison to
| the whole vehicle.
| w-j-w wrote:
| The difference is how the electricity in the battery is
| generated. Even if your local power grid runs on coal,
| the electricity coming out of the wall is WAY greener
| than electricity coming from the gas motor. If a hybrid
| doesn't plug in, then the only way to get electricity
| into the battery is by using energy which is created by
| running the gas engine. Sometimes this is direct, and
| sometimes this energy first gets turned into momentum of
| the car to be later reclaimed by regenerative braking. It
| doesn't matter that they don't happen at the same time.
| dekhn wrote:
| regenerative braking doesn't care what mechanism you used
| to get to a speed. If I want to charge the battery, I can
| press a button and the gas engine comes on and charges
| the battery directly. Regen is just to reduce loss due to
| wasted kintec energy.
| onethought wrote:
| This doesn't make sense. The battery is 100% recyclable,
| and if you never use it's full range the battery literally
| lasts longer. This sounds like ICE shilling devoid of the
| actual facts
| atoav wrote:
| > anyone who looked outside their window would see EVs all
| over the place
|
| In Germany this is not the case. Also: A typical residential
| building over here has 3x 230 V / 63 A which results in ~43
| kW. Medium charging power mentioned by Tesla is 11 kW (16 A),
| so if we wanna leave some headroom for the residents you can
| charge 2-3 Teslas maximum there at once.
|
| Of course you could dig out the electrical cable leading to
| the house, add another house connection etc. but that would
| also mean all the electrics of the whole house have to be
| brought up to current standards etc. Also at some point the
| main cable under the road will be the limiting factor, and
| this has to go as well.
|
| I think EVs have an advantage over hydrogen now that they are
| not in totally widespread use, because their true
| infrastructure cost will only appear once everybody wants to
| charge them at once, and this is certainly not the case right
| now.
| prodent wrote:
| I think cars have an advantage over horses now that they
| are not in widespread use, because their true
| infrastructure cost will only appear once everyone wants to
| get gas at once, and this is certainly not the case right
| now.
| distribot wrote:
| This phenomenon is probably why systems that protect the status
| quo produce less innovation. Even though it might behoove them,
| and they have the resources to, the industry leaders are less
| inclined (because of inertia?) to resist ground breaking
| paradigms.
|
| I guess it kind of makes sense for them. It's high risk/high
| reward and it will take a scrappy new company to try it.
| [deleted]
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Its not Tesla that is pushing electric (they're basically
| irrelevant number wise) it is the Paris climate accord.
|
| CO2 emissions need to go down fast and governments are
| panicking.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| > Its not Tesla that is pushing electric (they're basically
| irrelevant number wise) it is the Paris climate accord.
|
| What? BEV were non existent before Tesla. Tesla is and has
| always been the leader in this space. Mary D. Nichols (chair
| of CARB from 2007 to 2020) credited Tesla for the adoption of
| EV and said they needed Tesla to enforce regulations (without
| any EV manufacturers, the state could not actually enforce
| limits since there would be no alternative). And because
| things were moving in California, other countries said they
| should speed things up and not just rely on hybrids as the
| goal. Since then, politicians are simply watching the
| adoption curve of EV, doing projections and announcing
| bans... right when they will not be necessary (because EV
| will already have replaced ICE). Watch what's happening in
| California https://cdn.motor1.com/images/custom/plugin-car-
| sales-califo... how is this explained by the l'accord de
| Paris?
| tw600040 wrote:
| I was of the same opinion and had respect for what Tesla stands
| for and what they do. Until I encountered Tesla Solar. The
| contracts these guys try to get you into makes Comcast or Exxon
| Mobil or medical insurance companies feel like saints.They have
| door to door salesmen who sell this to unsuspecting 80 year
| olds who don't even understand what they are signing up for
|
| There is a thing called PPA. Usual lease terms is for 20 years
| or more. No way to get out of them without signing your life
| away. They make you pay for what it _generates_ , not what you
| _use_.. I had to walk away from a really good house just
| because it came with a Tesla Solar PPA..
| dawnerd wrote:
| Pretty sure Tesla is/has moved away from those and they were
| simply a holdover from the solarcity days. I don't see it as
| an option anymore on the Tesla Solar site.
| tw600040 wrote:
| What are they doing to those who are currently stuck with
| these horrible 20 year contracts? The one their door to
| door salesmen sold to unsuspecting seniors without properly
| explaining the lease terms?
|
| I know what they are doing. They are asking for 35K to get
| them out of the contract.
| jahlove wrote:
| are you in one of these contracts?
| tw600040 wrote:
| The sellers of a house I gave an offer for is.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Tesla has no door to door salespeople. That was all
| SolarCity. Tesla Solar has it's own shortcoming but old
| contracts are kind of a weird situation that I don't even
| know what the right solution would be. Obviously they're
| not going to just wipe them out.
| zeusk wrote:
| Wouldn't you know SolarCity was run by his cousin/brother
| who runs it into ground and Musk thinks its appropriate
| for Tesla to acquire it.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's hard to know what this means. Insinuation best
| avoided on the internet!
| [deleted]
| relaxing wrote:
| I think it means SolarCity was run by Elon Musk's cousin
| and his cousin's brother, who ran it into the ground, and
| then Elon Musk acquired it.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Aaah! I didn't know they were cousins. Thanks.
| mthomasmw wrote:
| Does anyone know what TSLA is doing with all that data? I
| think everyone knows now that home power monitoring lets you
| know every web page visited, every show watched, and every
| appliance purchased. Who are they selling it to, is there a
| way to find out? I always wonder when people sign up for
| solar why this is ok.
| https://epic.org/privacy/smartgrid/smartgrid.html
| _JamesA_ wrote:
| I just directly signed up for Tesla Solar and it's a pretty
| good deal for me. 10 year financing at 0.99 APR.
|
| I get salespeople at the door almost every day from other
| solar companies trying to push all sorts of shady contracts
| but I have never once seen a Tesla salesperson.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > but I have never once seen a Tesla salesperson.
|
| They only have one, you can find him on twitter.
| slownews45 wrote:
| This is very uninformed.
|
| This person has not actually encountered tesla solar.
|
| If you compared Tesla Solar even to solarcity or ANY of the
| other players it's actually significantly IMPROVED.
|
| The terms are very public and transparent.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/VT_Energy_Purchase.
| ..
|
| is an example. Importantly - they will file warranty claims
| ON YOUR BEHALF if needed - plenty of other installers will
| just send you on the wild goose chase between panel /
| inverter warranty handling.
|
| They offer two products where I live, purchase for cash or
| use a loan.
|
| This is pretty much as vanilla as you get.
| [deleted]
| judge2020 wrote:
| Got an article? ie. were these Solarcity/Tesla employees or
| just 'contractors' peddling PACE loans[0]?
|
| 0: https://youtu.be/zv8ZPFOxJEc
| antattack wrote:
| After SolarCity acquisition Tesla have quickly moved away
| from PPA and sales stands at Home Depot.
|
| These days you can order Tesla solar directly from their
| website, no third parties involved. And, no PPA.
| bogomipz wrote:
| Out of curiosity was does the amount of that liability? How
| much more does that add to the price of the house for a
| buyer?
|
| >"They make you pay for what it generates, not what you use"
| For the uninitiated, what's the significance between this
| cost model for a consumer? Do most houses produce much more
| than they consume? So your paying for something you can't
| use?
| benlivengood wrote:
| > They make you pay for what it generates, not what you use.
|
| It would be a shame if the roof got sufficiently dusty to
| balance generation and usage.
| tw600040 wrote:
| They have clauses for this in the contract and also
| penalties for that.
| benlivengood wrote:
| Clearly the solution is to mine Bitcoin with the excess.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| What percentage of rooftop solar homes is a net producer? I
| have a friend in that business at a different company. It
| would surprise me if even 1% of users produce more power
| than they consume.
| bluGill wrote:
| When I put solar on my roof (In Illinois) they were
| trying to make me net zero overall, or a slight consumer
| of the grid: the utility net meters, but anything excess
| I send to the grid is worth zero dollars to me so there
| is no point in trying to generate extra.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| Also sudden price increases after not delivering the order on
| time. It was posted on hn before.
| kova12 wrote:
| Tesla is not as good as you might think. It has huge following,
| and I respect what they are trying to do, but the way they
| treat people is abominable:
|
| - they go fast and in process neglect safety. My personal
| friend had been stuck on the intersection because his model 3
| started automatically updating system software - they actively
| block any third party repair shops from fixing cars that broke
| outside warranty period without providing alternative. Specific
| case was when they quoted a guy $16K when a small part
| underneath car was broken off. Third party repaired it for
| $700. - they censor critics. Namely, they disable Rich
| Rebuilds's account with $200,000 worth of referral bonuses
|
| I would go with Toyota instead of Tesla anytime. In fact I did
| go with RAV4 Prime as my vehicle of choice. Toyota's stance on
| fully battery powered car makes absolute sense. We need more
| conservative policies on electric vehicles, where consumer is
| protected
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > My personal friend had been stuck on the intersection
| because his model 3 started automatically updating system
| software
|
| (X) Doubt
|
| I'm going to be blunt here. I think either you or your friend
| are lying. Teslas don't automatically update system software.
| It tells you when there's an update available and allows you
| to choose when to install it. Once you tell it to start
| installing the update, first off, it gives you two minutes to
| cancel the update. Once it begins, you can't drive until the
| update finishes. In short, the car will _NEVER_ interrupt a
| drive to install an update.
| kova12 wrote:
| He stopped at the red light, and the car started updating.
| I guess he didn't get stuck on the intersection itself,
| just on the traffic light before it
| some-guy wrote:
| I have many issues with Tesla and Elon Musk as companies, and
| they are no saints. But I cannot deny the impact that their
| cars have had on the industry. An electric-car startup has
| nothing to lose from shifting from ICE vehicles--every other
| automaker does.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Find me a saint who propelled car electrification forward 30
| years in the space of 10 and we'll talk.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > are now showing that they had no plans to embrace cleaner
| vehicles as an overall company strategy.
|
| If you read the NYT article that is the source for this,
| though, that's not the whole story. The real issue is that
| Toyota placed a big bet on hydrogen, which turned out to be the
| wrong clean energy bet, and now they are caught flat-footed.
|
| It's like people who bet on Mesos and then later had to try to
| catch up because the world chose Kubernetes. It's not like
| those people were against "container orchestration", they just
| bet on the wrong tech.
| scsilver wrote:
| I dont think hydrogen is the wrong bet, it just the mature
| evolution of the electric economy. Batteries cant hold enough
| power per pound/size or charge as fast as hydrogen and we
| will need hydrogen for those applications that batteries cant
| handle, like driving across the country or powering trains on
| our current rail network. Furthermore, electricity cant be
| piped through our existing gas infrastructure. Hydrogen
| complements solar and batteries but I think solar and battery
| will get into consumer hands first. Consumers don't require
| the high density energy storage that hydrogen/oil allows.
| nickik wrote:
| Fast Charging of current fast charger is already plenty
| fast. And next generation that is already being deployed is
| even faster. Before Hydrogen vehicles could reach even 0.1%
| market share that advantage will be gone.
|
| And it totally ignores the massive issues with hydrogen
| charging. Charger frozen to the car, constantly broken,
| incredibly difficult, huge issues handling high volume,
| require a lot of power and so on.
|
| > Batteries cant hold enough power per pound/size
|
| A comparable Tesla is lighter then a Mirai. Batteries still
| have massive amounts of improvements to make. Structural
| batteries is gone make it even lighter and battery density
| is improving every single year.
|
| FCV on the other hand have far less ways to be lighter then
| they currently are.
|
| EV will beat FCV on weight and efficiency by far and the
| lead is increasing.
|
| > like driving across the country
|
| That already works great with EV.
|
| > or powering trains
|
| Why not just use methanol? Almost the same as current tech
| for diesel trains and you can make it in almost the same
| way as hydrogen if you really want to make it carbon
| neutral.
|
| > Furthermore, electricity cant be piped through our
| existing gas infrastructure.
|
| Electric infrastructure that can do that already exists.
| Also, doing that is actually very, very costly and not
| worth doing. This infrastructure then ends up suffering
| from hydrogen embitterment and has massive leakage and is
| really expensive to maintain.
|
| > Hydrogen complements solar and batteries but I think
| solar and battery will get into consumer hands first.
| Consumers don't require the high density energy storage
| that hydrogen/oil allows.
|
| There are already many companies who are trying to make
| batteries that are more efficient and cheaper at storing
| energy then creating hydrogen. Using hydrogen as a battery
| is inefficient and expensive.
|
| Grid batteries don't need to be energy dense. The only
| thing that matters is cost.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| A 500 mile Tesla has a lot more internal space than a
| similarly sized ICE vehicle, which has more internal space
| than an similarly sized Hydrogen vehicle. Volume is a
| bigger constraint than weight for land vehicles. Hydrogen
| might be the better option for airplanes, though.
|
| Hydrogen has massive losses when piped and causes
| embrittlement. Electricity is much easier to transport.
| mnadkvlb wrote:
| Can you explain why would one power trains by hydrogen,
| when there are already electricty lines running over tracks
| ? I cannot imagine a case, Unless we dont trust the grid
| reliability.
|
| What am i missing here ?
| aembleton wrote:
| Railway lines that aren't electrified and with no plans
| to do so.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| There aren't electricity lines running over all tracks.
| In particular freight is still often hauled by Diesel
| engines.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| AFAIK many if not most trains (in Europe at least) are
| diesel-electric.
|
| The drive train is electric, they're just running a
| diesel generator to power them.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| I didn't know, so your comment prompted me to do some
| reading. Apparently diesel-electric is what has been in
| use more or less from the start. It's too hard to make
| clutches usable for trains.
| mnadkvlb wrote:
| oh, that makes sense. Its been a long time i saw diesel
| engines and probably thought its a past thing. Apparently
| not :)
| bluGill wrote:
| Most freight in the world is diesel (that is diesel
| electric). For passenger trains, only tourist trains run
| on non-electric lines - many steam engines, but there are
| some diesel as well. (Amtrak should take this as an
| insult)
| asdff wrote:
| Most (maybe all?) of metrolink in southern california is
| not yet electrified or even entirely double tracked. 12m
| boardings a year before the pandemic so it still gets
| used.
| snek_case wrote:
| It's been obvious for 5+ years that hydrogen was the wrong
| tech though, and Toyota just kept stubbornly doubling down on
| it. I don't really feel sorry for them. There's just so many
| problems with hydrogen, from distribution to storage, to the
| more fundamental problem that most hydrogen today is produced
| from fossil fuels and we don't have a way to efficiently
| produce it from renewables.
|
| Most large automakers have really been dragging their feet
| when it comes to electric vehicles. Tesla has had a real and
| visible impact. Now, years after Dieselgate, VW is pretty
| openly trying to copy Tesla's plan, bringing battery
| production in-house, etc. Their new CEO seems to admire Elon
| Musk. Car companies are doing preorders and trying to model
| new EV launches after what Tesla is doing, etc.
| rattray wrote:
| Sure, but they should be scrambling to catch up instead of
| lobbying to hold back the right tech.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| They're doing both.
| post_break wrote:
| Toyota is always the slowest to adopt. I believe they were the
| last hold out for carplay android auto next to subaru. They would
| put the same 5.7 V8 in the Tundra for the next 20 years if they
| had their way.
| softfalcon wrote:
| And this is a feature for many folks.
|
| When you're buying for reliability, it's nice to hear "this
| engine design has been the same for 10 years and is bullet-
| proof" rather than "this new engine tech is an unknown" in the
| reviews.
|
| I do feel Toyota has the resources and skill to make EV
| mainstream, but I understand their reluctance moving away from
| a solid tried and true manufacturing + business plan.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Toyota is always the slowest to adopt.
|
| Toyota had the first widely popular electric hybrid in the US.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| No clue if they've got CarPlay or Android Auto in the current
| generation of Tacomas, but I just recently bought a 2016 Taco
| and I am absolutely _loving_ how smooth the stereo works with
| my phone. Sure, there 's no screen mirroring or whatever those
| things do, but it just _does the right thing_ all the time with
| respect to music, texts /iMessage, and phone calls. When I've
| taken calls on the road, people have been surprised that I was
| talking on speaker in the truck because they couldn't tell the
| difference.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| Many people here seem to believe govts should ban non-EV's
| immediately, if not yesterday.
|
| Those people must clearly all be able to afford a vehicle that
| costs, at minimum, $30,000.
|
| Most people, in most countries, will struggle to afford to buy
| _any_ vehicle, let alone electric vehicles that will:
| + literally cost several years worth of salary +
| have a limited lifespan (probably around 10 years) +
| short and decreasing range (usually 200 miles when new)
| + take an hour or hours to recharge + whose
| battery packs alone can cost half of the purchase price (that is,
| another year or two of salary) to replace.
|
| Meanwhile, a well-cared for ICE car from the 50's will continue
| to run for many decades (just ask Cuba.)
| hateful wrote:
| I've heard in the past that auto makers have EPA quotas to make
| that are based on the average of all of their vehicles, so they
| would create an electric or hybrid car just to bring down the
| averages to acceptable levels.
|
| Not sure if that applies now-a-days, or is even true.
| mikestew wrote:
| I believe you're thinking of CAFE standards:
|
| https://www.transportation.gov/mission/sustainability/corpor...
| beders wrote:
| I just shopped around for an EV and Toyota had no compelling
| offer at all. Nothing, zilch, nada.
|
| And for the first time - after having a 1984 Ford Escort as my
| first ride - I decided to go with a Ford. They have the first
| real competitor to Tesla with the Mach-E.
|
| With the Lightning coming out soon, the next generation of EVs
| with high speed charging arriving in Fall, there's a clear signal
| that EVs are the future.
|
| And if you've ever done a test drive in a Tesla or Mach-E, you
| will hopefully disagree. These cars are not only practical, but
| plain fun!
| aejnsn wrote:
| I see a lot of people shooting comments back and forth over which
| tech is better. Why does an argument before Congress need to
| justify the tech's existence in a free market? If it works, it
| will sell.
| tim333 wrote:
| For better or worse the government it trying to make people
| dive less polluting vehicles. Personally I'd rather we had CO2
| pricing and then leave it to the market but it is what it is.
| nostromo wrote:
| > [Toyota] has argued that hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, as
| well as hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles should also be in the
| mix.
|
| This is totally fair; I'm glad Toyota is making this case.
| Hybrids like the Prius should be part of our solution to curb
| co2.
|
| Unlike Teslas, Priuses are actually affordable to a large number
| of Americans.
| CarVac wrote:
| If Toyota were serious about this, then _every vehicle they
| make_ should be a hybrid, instead of a mere 20-something
| percent.
| dartdartdart wrote:
| Aren't they one of the most hybridized car companized out
| there, offering hybrids from compact car to minivan. Even
| Ford licenses Toyota's hybrid technology
| CarVac wrote:
| They do offer them, but not on every vehicle (particularly
| the pickups and more trucklike SUVs), and only 23% of NA
| Toyotas and Lexuses were hybrids in Q1 2021.
|
| If they believe that fuel cell vehicles are the future,
| they ought to hybridize every gasoline vehicle they sell
| right now, because fuel cell vehicles will only require
| more batteries and more electric motor capacity than
| hybrids.
|
| If they hypothetically believed that electric cars were the
| future but still want to wait to release full-electrics,
| they ought to hybridize every individual vehicle sold while
| they build up production capacity for batteries and motors.
|
| For reference, normal hybrids have only about 2 kWh of
| battery, about 1/30 the capacity and anywhere from 1/4 to
| 1/2 the motor power compared to a pure EV.
|
| 23% isn't that bad, but that's 23% hybrid: it's still only
| baby steps towards either pure electric or fuel cell. This
| leads me to only one conclusion: they're not serious about
| pushing production of either fuel cells or electric
| vehicles.
| dartdartdart wrote:
| I think you're on the right track, but hybridized
| offerings / total offerings isn't the right way to depict
| this. If you have a car company that sells 10 vehicles
| per year and only have 1 model, then that would be 100%
| in your books.
|
| I would look at how many models total that Toyota group
| offers, which I believe is one of the highest in the
| industry. Couple this with the fact that they are the
| biggest car industry in the world, means that they are
| doing more for the reduction of gasoline burning than
| most other companies, including EV only companies.
|
| Total USA EV market share is somewhere around 2%, and at
| best that means 2% of those people replaced their non-
| hybrid with EVs.
|
| I believe they are planning a mass hybridization of their
| line-up with each new model that comes out now. The
| Sienna only comes in hybrid now, and that was released a
| year ago.
|
| See my other comment in this thread. If all 300k EVs sold
| in North America were used as the battery source for
| Hybrids, then there could be an estimated 7900% more
| reduction in full usage due to the fact that you can make
| 14 million hybrids with those vehicles.
| CarVac wrote:
| Yes you _could_ make 14 million hybrids from the
| batteries in 300k pure EVs.
|
| But the sad truth is that Q1 2021 they only sold 140,000
| hybrids in the US (23% of 600k), less even than the
| number of Teslas (180k).
|
| At least in the US, they are clearly _not_ doing more
| than Tesla, even if they are going about it with
| significantly less battery usage.
|
| The Prius came out 20 years ago, and the Highlander
| Hybrid 15.
|
| I expected them to keep their first-mover advantage going
| and have hybrid-only models other than the Prius at least
| as early as 2015, but it took until last year to do that.
|
| It's a shame, because their hybrids are so nice--I have a
| Prius, and my parents just replaced their Highlander
| Hybrid with a RAV4 Prime.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Unlike Teslas, Priuses are actually affordable to a large
| number of Americans.
|
| Which is part of why they fell out of favor so hard with the
| white collar demographics.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| A Prius Plug-in is 44kEUR in Finland
|
| A Model 3 SR+ is 48k + a 2kEUR government subsidy -> 46kEUR
|
| So yeah, not that affordable. One has two power trains that
| need to be taken care of + oil changes etc. Other has 0EUR/year
| maintenance costs.
| helen___keller wrote:
| I'm not sure why the gap is so different here, but in the
| states a model 3 SR+ is $39,990 before incentives while a
| prius prime MSRP is $28220, which is pretty significant
| difference (40% ~ difference)
|
| Plus in the states there's also subsidies available for plug-
| in hybrids, not sure about finland.
| kingnothing wrote:
| The average new car price in the US is $37k. A Model 3 is $39k.
| ffggvv wrote:
| that's tilted up because of rich people. who actually buy
| cars more often as well.
|
| and of course misses used cars. your average person making
| 50k isn't buying a 37k car
| kingnothing wrote:
| There are used EVs on the market.
| mnadkvlb wrote:
| where i live in Switzerland the prices for: 1. hyundai kona
| 64kwh (480km range): 33k swiss francs (1 franc ~ 1usd) 2.
| toyota prius base model: 31k swiss francs 3. tesla model 3: 40k
| swiss franc
|
| I honestly find no reason to invest in an ice/hybrid when i can
| get way better warranty on a korean hyundai at similar price or
| get a tesla for 9k more if i want something very shiny.
|
| Personally i use car sharing here and use couple times a month
| for electric renault zoe here, which is still way less than
| what it would cost me to lease or buy any of the cars i
| mentioned above.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Prius is pushing close to the cost of a base model 3...
|
| Sure they start at 24k but around here the cheapest Im seeing
| is 32.
| jrsj wrote:
| 8k is a massive difference. You can also negotiate on price,
| you're looking at MSRP or a dealer price and they will almost
| always go lower. There's also always the option of ordering a
| vehicle instead of buying one already in dealer inventory so
| you don't have to pay for options you don't want.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Toyota dealers here do not budge at all on prius prices
| since they don't have a problem selling them.
| jrsj wrote:
| Still, even at an $8k difference you're looking at
| $150/mo at a lower interest rate than most would get for
| 60 mo. Most car buyers don't want a $600/mo payment. Yes,
| average new car price is something like 38k but a lot of
| that is going to SUVs, not a midsize car like a Tesla.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Is the hydrogen-powered fuel cell part also fair?
|
| There was an article on HN recently on how the energy losses in
| the generation and distribution of hydrogen are _much_ high
| than for electricity in LI batteries. For all intents and
| purposes it just seems like hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles is
| a totally dead end technology, and Toyota bet wrong.
| nostromo wrote:
| The government should structure any program so that it's
| technology agnostic. Let the auto manufacturers figure out
| what tech to bet on.
|
| The government should focus specifically on outcomes. For
| example: CO2 reduction, energy independence -- those sorts of
| things.
| RubberShoes wrote:
| What's this? A company that's blinded by its current profit
| margins to see the shifting tide in its industry?
|
| Haven't seen this before: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/17/how-
| intel-missed-the-iphon...
| CountDrewku wrote:
| What shift? Electric isn't viable for most people still. If it
| was you wouldn't need to do anything to get Toyota to switch.
| The fact they have to put all these regulations in place and
| force people to accept electric is telling enough.
|
| The top selling vehicle in the US in the F-150. There is no
| replacement EV that can come close to offering what the ICE
| F-150 can.
| partiallypro wrote:
| How is Toyota saying something is impractical different than
| Tesla lobbying congress to push for something that benefits
| themselves and is actually impractical? There are two sides to
| this. Toyota vehicles still outlast every vehicle on the
| planet. Tesla has no proven track record for longevity. If I
| have to buy 2 Teslas for the lifetime of one Toyota that
| manufacturing footprint is going to cancel out a large part of
| the benefits of going electric to begin with.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| I do not understand why people think either electro or fuel cars
| will cause a good shift. Ok maybe exhaust emissions will be less,
| but the real issues about city traffic are rush hour and peak
| traffic times, vehicle for 4 transports 1 or 2 people at a time
| mostly, no parking available in big cities, except at extortion
| level prices.
|
| I do not know any solution other than an extremely well connected
| and efficient public transport system, or levitation capsules.
|
| But this friction between ev and fuel hybrid etc vendors , it's
| the modern equivalent of when people argued whether a donkey or a
| horse is more practical.
|
| All the save the air arguments are hypocritical at best, the
| marketing teams are targeting the lazy who should simply walk
| more to feel better about themselves and the environment.
|
| The mass adaption that would save something, including many
| peoples health would be not driving a car, or better, walking,
| bycicle when possible.
| Clubber wrote:
| >but the real issues about city traffic are rush hour and peak
| traffic times, vehicle for 4 transports 1 or 2 people at a time
| mostly, no parking available in big cities, except at extortion
| level prices.
|
| Work from home for people who can solves much of this. During
| COVID when many people were working from home, the roads were
| dead, even in non-mandatory lockdown states (at least mine).
|
| It's a pretty simple solution that will save everybody money
| (including employers) and many employees want it. It's weird
| that it isn't being talked about seriously by the government. I
| guess the commercial real estate market is against it.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| It's obvious that you don't live in the United States. The
| nearest grocery store from my suburban house is 2.3 miles away.
| It's a 1hr walk or a 30 minute bike ride, and to get there, I
| would need to scale a 400 ft elevation gain each way. The gym
| is 3 miles from my house in the opposite direction. I would
| bike there but the only road is extremely narrow and quite
| frankly dangerous to ride on. There is simply no way I can
| conduct my life without a car, and I say that as someone that
| loves to ride a bike and frequently rides 50mi and over.
| sorokod wrote:
| Is this sustainable? Is this not a problem that requires a
| solution?
|
| Was watching the Simpsons with my eight year old. He remarked
| that they must be rich to own two cars.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| No, it's terrible and I hate living in the suburbs. We are
| a family of 4 with 4, 4-door cars. It's ludicrous.
|
| But good luck convincing tens of millions of suburbanites
| to, idk, sell their home at a loss and move to a city?
| Public transit makes no sense. The geography is too hilly
| for biking and there is no infrastructure for it anyway.
| Everything is spread too far away. I wish we had never
| built suburbs in the first place but it's far too late for
| that.
| sorokod wrote:
| There are many countries, even "first world" countries,
| where a family of 4 does not need 4 cars to get on with
| their daily life.
|
| Replacing 4 ICE cars with for 4 EV cars is not a solution
| to a problem worth solving.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Replacing 4 ICE cars with for 4 EV cars is not a
| solution to a problem worth solving._
|
| CO2 production is not an issue worth solving?
|
| In seriousness, trying to "fix" American suburbs is
| another problem wrought with political issues of its own
| (See Trump's "Suburbs under Siege") message. Getting to
| the point where population density makes it feasible to
| have adequate public transportation in most suburbs
| doesn't like something that would ever be economic for
| large parts of the US. So you end up with situations
| where Mom, Dad, Son and Daughter all need their own cars
| for basic needs.
| sorokod wrote:
| The point I am trying to make is that this lifestyle is
| not well supported by this planet.
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| Sure, i know, the US has crowded, big cities and many remote
| suburban areas. I am not against the use of any car, electro
| or not, I am a realist. However, the US is not the whole
| world, albeit a big market. But to get all manufacturers to
| do the same, there has to be a market that's as big as
| possible. There are many countries stricken by poverty (no
| purchasing power), inadequate roads and no electro
| infrastructure for cars in sight.
| jrsj wrote:
| This only works for people in cities. IMO the pandemic proved
| that pressuring people into moving to cities isn't a great idea
| either -- a more distributed system is a good thing for a
| variety of reasons. We can have both EVs and improved public
| transit anyways.
| mbgerring wrote:
| The good news here is that the auto industry is ripe for
| disruption. Lots of opportunity here as some incumbents dig in
| and refuse to change, and the market, infrastructure and consumer
| preferences move on without them.
| kumarski wrote:
| Meanwhile, China went from 6000 Compressed Natural Gas vehicles
| in 2000 to 6M compressed natural gas vehicles 2017.
|
| 1000x increase.
|
| Egypt is pushing for 10% to 20% of all vehicles in the country to
| be CNG within 24 months or less.
|
| What do they know that we don't?
|
| Electric vehicles are a platform for tax dollar absorption.
| danans wrote:
| > China went from 6000 Compressed Natural Gas vehicles in 2000
| to 6M compressed natural gas vehicles 2017. > 1000x increase.
|
| China went from close to 0 EVs in 2000 to 4.5 million EVs 2020
| [1].
|
| 4.5Mx increase.
|
| Europe has the highest EV market share of new car sales, at 10%
| (China is at 5.7%).
|
| > What do they know that we don't?
|
| When it comes to EV adoption, developed countries like China
| and those of Western Europe are way ahead, so that question is
| still apt, just pointing in the opposite direction.
|
| Countries are looking for any cost-effective way to get off
| gasoline for vehicles to reduce local particulate emissions and
| petroleum dependency. Some are also want to reduce global CO2
| emissions.
|
| 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/07/todays-
| elec....
| CyanLite2 wrote:
| CNG is good for very dense urban environments. But that's not
| quite the use case for most of America.
|
| Also China/Egypt can easily sign an edict requiring CNG
| infrastructure build-out. Meanwhile in America, we can't even
| agree if Coronavirus is a hoax or not, let alone pass a decent
| infrastructure bill.
| cableshaft wrote:
| I'm in the Midwest, and I went to Toyota and Honda and a few
| others looking for a PHEV SUV (Plug-in Hybrid) recently.
|
| At Toyota I mentioned being interested in the Rav4 Prime and got
| laughed at by the dealer. He proceeded to tell me that they're
| only likely to receive a grand total of 2 Rav4 Primes all _year_
| and that all of them are pretty much going exclusively to the
| coasts.
|
| He actually said he's known of a few people that have taken
| flights to California to buy a PHEV and drive it back to the
| Midwest.
|
| I actually couldn't find any PHEV SUVs at any dealerships we went
| to and I'm probably going to end up leasing just a Hybrid (not
| from Toyota though) for a few years and hoping EVs are more
| prevalent when the lease is up. I was really wanting to not put
| out any emissions while around town, too.
|
| Granted there's a Tesla dealership in the area and we could
| probably get one of those, but we do like to make long road trips
| sometimes that would be enough out of its range. I'd also be fine
| with a Sedan, but my wife is dead set on getting an SUV, so the
| PHEV SUV was _supposed_ to be the compromise.
| solarkraft wrote:
| An interesting opposite is happening as well. Presumably due to
| their confidence regarding their electric vehicle palette the
| Volkswagen CEO appears to be shifting towards lobbying against
| ICE vehicles in Germany:
| https://twitter.com/herbert_diess/status/1418174370850222087
| rangoon626 wrote:
| I hope Toyota succeeds with fuel cell technology.
|
| Everyone on this board seems to think that the next auto fuel
| source has to be one-size fits all, like with gas.
|
| It also seems that carbon activists can't talk enough about how
| tortuously slow it is moving away from gas cars, but won't
| embrace anything other than batteries to actually make that
| happen. You're just shooting yourself in the foot, which is why
| no one takes all of the whining seriously.
| speedgoose wrote:
| > Toyota is lagging behind the rest of industry
|
| It's a very polite way of saying that Toyota is selling electric
| shit boxes. The brand new Lexus UX 300e is so bad and overpriced
| that it will not surprise me if Toyota's plan is to make a bad
| selling car on purpose to say that customers don't want EVs.
| jrsj wrote:
| Eh. Many EVs on the market are shitty. It's not much more
| expensive than a Chevy Bolt and those are catching fire often
| enough Chevy has told everyone not to charge unattended or
| overnight and to park them outside.
|
| That being said I don't know how bad this vehicle is because it
| isn't sold in the U.S. and I'm not really interested in a
| subcompact crossover regardless
| speedgoose wrote:
| It's brand new unlike the Chevy bolt and most of the not so
| great EVs though.
|
| It's so bad that for example it doesn't come with the
| standard European fast charging socket in Europe, and the car
| has a fuel gauge with a fuel station symbol to show the
| battery state of charge.
| jrsj wrote:
| So the issue is mainly that it's a quick/cheap conversion
| of the existing Lexus UX to an EV? That doesn't sound like
| a good user experience but it's not necessarily a bad
| vehicle from a mechanical standpoint either. I assume it's
| more of an experiment with the technology than anything
| else.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Toyota could spray silver paint on a dog turd, slap a 40k
| sticker on it and people would buy it. Toyota isn't in the
| business of selling cars. They're in the business of selling
| billboards that say "look how financially savvy I am" on one
| side and "look I can afford premium products" on the other side
| to upper middle class types. Toyota isn't innovating because
| they're under no pressure to innovate as long as people keep
| buying and tinkering with a brand image like that is fraught
| with peril so it's hard to justify unless you absolutely have
| to. This is why they've been so conservative for the last
| ~20yr.
| jrsj wrote:
| I mean they could, because they're known for producing
| reliable vehicles. It's not like this is just made up; the
| stuff they sell is just better than most of the competition
| in that regard. Being conservative in some aspects can be
| good. When they started adopting GDI they didn't only use
| GDI, they also used traditional port injection to reduce
| carbon buildup issues and improve efficiency. Whereas a lot
| of Ford ecoboost engines as an example didn't do this and
| started to have problems because cleaning the intake valves
| wasn't part of the scheduled maintenance
| tim333 wrote:
| >Toyota could spray silver paint on a dog turd, slap a 40k
| sticker on it and people would buy it
|
| As the owner of a few Toyota's I think you misunderstand how
| they became pretty much the world's largest car producer.
| Mostly because they produce no nonsense reliable cars that
| work well for years and years. I don't think many people
| think wow cool brand.
|
| (I know VW is technically bigger but they did it by acquiring
| Audi, Porsche etc rather than people buying more VWs)
| bluedino wrote:
| At one time, the Prius was the top-rated vehicle.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Toyota killed the Prius in the USA with the RAV4 hybrid,
| which kinda sucks because being heavy and brick-shaped and
| equipped with a larger engine, the latter burns much more
| fuel. The Highlander is even worse: with its huge V6, it is a
| hybrid that gets only 25 MPG. Ridiculous.
|
| Toyota owns about half the US hybrid vehicle market but the
| Prius is now a small part of that.
| novok wrote:
| I think the more accurate assertion is US customers really
| loathe the Prius body style and LOVE their SUV body styles
| via what they buy. I think it's unfair to Toyota to say
| they killed it, US consumers did. Ford stopped making
| sedans for a reason.
|
| Living in California, it's surprising how much people seem
| to loathe the prius type of car. They make fun of people
| who have them as people who have died inside or similar.
| jrsj wrote:
| This is a bit hyperbolic, I still see Prius & Camry hybrids
| way more often than rav4 hybrids
| jeffbee wrote:
| Market share is instant and fleet composition is the
| integral of it. In the USA the median fleet age is now
| over 12 years, so you should expect it to be a while
| before the sales leader is the most common car in the
| fleet.
| jrsj wrote:
| That is a bad position for Toyota to be in then; this
| aggressive shift in consumer preference to SUVs and
| crossovers has been incredibly stupid and bad for just
| about everything. The way this stuff is regulated and
| taxed probably doesn't encourage people to buy smaller
| vehicles as much as it should.
| mcast wrote:
| The Highlander Hybrid gets 36/35 mpg, but that's not much
| better than the all-gas model at 21/29 mpg. But if you
| drive in constant traffic the regenerative braking gives
| you better mileage than coasting at a constant speed
| (sometimes better than MPG stats which Toyota
| underreports), which also means less pollution on traffic
| congested roads.
|
| For many families, a Prius quickly becomes impractical if
| you need to fit in more than one car seat for kids and
| carry around bulky items. Toyota's hybrid offering is a
| good middle ground between full-gas and EV cars and very
| reliable considering how many old Prius's are still on the
| road at 200k+ miles.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Was just going from Fuelly. I think sticker MPG is almost
| useless. Fuelly says the 3.5L is the most common hybrid
| and the mode is 26 MPG[1], while the same-displacement
| without the hybrid reports 21 MPG[2].
|
| 1: https://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/highlander?enginecon
| fig_id... 2: https://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/highlander
| ?engineconfig_id...
| mcast wrote:
| It seems the 2019 hybrid model used to come in a more
| powerful V6 engine, but the latest Toyota hybrids seem to
| downgrade back to V4 engines to improve efficiency.
| lostmsu wrote:
| It looks like 2020 and 2021 models all use L4 with MPG
| around 32, if I am not mistaken.
| novok wrote:
| I think the Prius V was their attempt at addressing that
| market, but they never made a 3 row Prius. I'm guessing
| at that point your making a hybrid minivan.
| imglorp wrote:
| Thinking about the engineering, they squandered a tremendous
| lead. Look what they had on the road, mass produced in 1997:
| the electric propulsion, control, storage, and regen. If you
| squint, they solved the hard problems engineering problems
| already; just take away the gas part to make a full plugin EV.
|
| This smells more like a business problem. Maybe they can't
| scale the battery deals they need, big enough and fast enough.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Toyota bet on Hydrogen, and that bet has failed to pay off.
| nickik wrote:
| Quietly? They have been pushing hard and publically for years and
| years all over the world. Toyota has been the most anti-EV car
| company.
|
| They call their hybrids 'self-charging electric' vehicles.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-26 23:02 UTC)