Toyota Says Data Proves EV-Only Policy Is Worse For The Planet
The automaker provided figures to back up its claim that the market needs to accommodate multiple energy sources
Despite doing more than another carmaker to popularize the idea of hybrid technology, Toyota has been slow to enter the full EV market and has received flak as a result.
But now Toyota claims it has the data to prove that going all-in on EVs as many rival automakers have committed to do, isn't just a bad business decision, it could be bad for the environment. The firm's Chief Scientist, Gill Pratt, says it makes far more sense for car companies to offer cars with different energy sources, including hybrids and hydrogen.
But if EVs produce no emissions, why would we want to make more hybrids? Pratt says it comes down to the availability of lithium, the mineral used in the production of battery packs. He predicts that the car industry will soon be hit by a shortage of lithium, as well as other minerals used in battery production, and also a lack of recharging points as the number of EVs in production skyrockets demand.
And if there isn't enough lithium available to power tens of millions of EVs, it makes sense to share it out between hybrid vehicles. Pratt says making millions of hybrids will have a greater impact on CO2 output than using the same quantity of lithium to create a smaller number of pure EVs.
In a hypothetical model outlined to Automotive News, Pratt starts with 100 combustion vehicles that emit 250g/km of CO2. If you have enough lithium to make 100 kWh of batteries you could build one top-spec long range Tesla but the remaining 99 vehicles would still be combustion-powered, giving a fleet CO2 figure of 248.5 g/km. Spread that 100 kWh out between 90 traditional hybrids though, leaving only 10 plain combustion cars, and the average emissions drops to 205 g/km.
This doesn't mean Toyota isn't interested in EVs. It recently announced a Tesla Model 3-sized bZ3X sedan for China to complement its bZ4X SUV. But the company is adamant that rival firms like Honda, Cadillac, Volvo and others, are making a mistake by throwing all their weight behind pure EVs.
"There is a crunch that's going to come," Pratt told Automotive News. "Time is on our side. These shortages — not only of battery materials, but of charging infrastructure — will make it abundantly clear that one size does not fit all, and that the best answer is actually a mix of different vehicle types."
Link: https://www.carscoops.com/2023/01/toyota-says-data-proves-ev-only-policy-is-worse-for-the-planet/
The lithium argument is a massive fail - batteries don't absolutely need lithium. As lithium prices increase due to lact of availability, batteries chemistry will change.
And Toyota is 100% correct - also don't forget the environmental toll of the (re)colonization and wars in Africa and South America to get dat lithium (and copper and everything else).
Quote from: r0tor on February 01, 2023, 05:59:58 AM
The lithium argument is a massive fail - batteries don't absolutely need lithium. As lithium prices increase due to lact of availability, batteries chemistry will change.
All that does is shift the sociopolotical battle from one resource/region to another resource/region and the ravaging of the earth continues.
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 01, 2023, 09:53:20 AM
All that does is shift the sociopolotical battle from one resource/region to another resource/region and the ravaging of the earth continues.
Thus you have the history of mankind? Any different then wars fought over oil?
The other issue of course is though Toyota is technically correct, much time, $$ and environmental toil will be spent in developing disparate vehicle types, energy sources and infrastructure that WON'T be spent on refining current mainstream technologies. How much more fuel efficient, clean, useful and cost effective would a gas-only Corolla or CR-V get given said untold time and $$?
Quote from: r0tor on February 01, 2023, 10:09:19 AM
Thus you have the history of mankind? Any different then wars fought over oil?
My apologies, I thought EVs were supposed to help save the world, not exacerbate the issues and spread them out even further.
Quote from: r0tor on February 01, 2023, 05:59:58 AM
The lithium argument is a massive fail - batteries don't absolutely need lithium. As lithium prices increase due to lact of availability, batteries chemistry will change.
To what exactly?
Anything economical?
Anything abundant?
Anything efficient?
Yup, TANSTAAFL when it comes to battery chemistry - lithium, cadmium, cobalt, phosphorus, manganese - pretty much all the known world's largest deposits are in Africa, South America and China; same with copper and gold, and I'm gonna guess with pretty much most if not all elements of note used in modern electronics and battery manufacturing.
Sodium-uon batteries are now commercially available . Sodium-sulphur batteries are becoming a thing. Magnesium is being looked at as a lithium replacement. Glass and silicon batteries are also in development.
The failure of the argument again is lithium is not like a hydrocarbon - it can and will be replaced as technology and market conditions evolve.
The materials in old batteries can also be recycled.
You can't recycle used gasoline. lol
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 02, 2023, 08:56:31 AM
The materials in old batteries can also be recycled.
You can't recycle used gasoline. lol
Also, the cells themselves are packaged in a standardized way that allows them to be harvested and reused directly with only a small amount of manual labor. A cell with 70% life might be bad for a car but amazing for a cheap whole house battery backup.
All told, the history of recycling has shown that things didn't work out nearly as well as planned for ALL sorts of reasons, particularly for electronics waste (esp. dumping into Third World countries). Even if recycling had been the boon it was hoped to be, WtP buy ever more stuff every year, so or the foreseeable future there will always be a net net take of virgin materials, particularly for EVs since EVs worldwide are way less than 1% of the vehicles on the road (read: recycling is a non factor in the challenge of raw material extraction for the ramp up of widespread EV adoption).
Now, things may not proceed on their present course. Perhaps the West will instead play nice with those various countries (and China, who has already has more than a big head start in those countries), and establish fair, equitable and nonviolent trade, but given the West's (esp. the US's) extreme proclivity for war and empire (don't forget that the Russo/Ukraine war is partially the result of the EU outsourcing its fossil fuel responsibility to Russia) to me that does not look likely in the least. IOW, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itxthAhXDALA/v1/1400x-1.jpg).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2023, 01:21:59 PM
All told, the history of recycling has shown that things didn't work out nearly as well as planned for ALL sorts of reasons, particularly for electronics waste (esp. dumping into Third World countries). Even if recycling had been the boon it was hoped to be, WtP buy ever more stuff every year, so or the foreseeable future there will always be a net net take of virgin materials, particularly for EVs since EVs worldwide are way less than 1% of the vehicles on the road (read: recycling is a non factor in the challenge of raw material extraction for the ramp up of widespread EV adoption).
Now, things may not proceed on their present course. Perhaps the West will instead play nice with those various countries (and China, who has already has more than a big head start in those countries), and establish fair, equitable and nonviolent trade, but given the West's (esp. the US's) extreme proclivity for war and empire (don't forget that the Russo/Ukraine war is partially the result of the EU outsourcing its fossil fuel responsibility to Russia) to me that does not look likely in the least. IOW, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itxthAhXDALA/v1/1400x-1.jpg).
Just as a pactical concern: those wind vanes are hollow, and will eventually crush, which probably won't be a good thing for whatever is on top of them at the time.
Uff da - it's hard to pick which has worked out the least well for the environmental premise - wind power or en masse carbon fiber manufacturing (esp. life cycle).
Why aren't they recycling those turbine blades?
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 02, 2023, 05:30:44 PM
Why aren't they recycling those turbine blades?
They are fiberglass
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 02, 2023, 05:30:44 PM
Why aren't they recycling those turbine blades?
Because they're not designed to be recycled. The government manipulation only chased one side of the equation for dat woke vote - subsidies to get the damned things up and running ASAP so to hell with the macro concerns of a sustained future of widespread wind turbine use.
As to the tech details, (large) blades are typically made of some sort of composite - short/small glass fibers pieces suspended in cured resin - and there is no viable way to reclaim the constituent materials to be reused in new blades, or much of anything. The manufacturing is generally a one way street, unlike products based on AL, copper, etc. What's even worse is that even chopped up (such as filler in road beds or construction materials) the material isn't very useful as it is general toxic to people (esp. the fibers in the dust) and the environment (the cured resin) and really nasty should it ever catch fire.
Oh, and don't forget that EVs use up tires 20% quicker due to extra weight and lower CG, and tires are a nasty nasty thing for the environment.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 02, 2023, 06:22:21 PM
Oh, and don't forget that EVs use up tires 20% quicker due to extra weight and lower CG, and tires are a nasty nasty thing for the environment.
Good thing there is now soybean oil tires
Most EV tires have lower wear and last longer than an average tire. Part of the quest to provide the most range as possible.
Quote from: r0tor on February 02, 2023, 07:41:38 PM
Good thing there is now soybean oil tires
.......do you realize how much water it takes to farm soybeans. I really hope you're being facetious.
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 02, 2023, 08:11:24 PM
.......do you realize how much water it takes to farm soybeans. I really hope you're being facetious.
I wonder why that is now a problem
This article is a bit overblown with the "debunking" stuff, but it does have some good graphics and info about lithium mining and reserves:
https://thedriven.io/2023/02/03/utter-bollocks-energy-analyst-debunks-toyotas-scarce-lithium-hybrid-myth/
Quote
Hoekstra points out that the Pratt's fundamental assumption, which is that lithium production will be scarce, is not what's actually happening in reality.
To show this, Hoekstra posted an image from BP's 2022 statistical review of world energy, which shows a massive expansion of global lithium production in just the last 5 years.
(https://b2232832.smushcdn.com/2232832/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Gill-Pratt-Toyota_04-1160x1390.jpg?lossy=1&strip=0&webp=1)
https://twitter.com/visaskn/status/1621450142141353985
QuoteUSGS mineral commodity summary 2023 is out.
Here's a short take from to critical mineral output & reserve growth.
TLDR: Mine production is growing but the reserve growth is far exceeding the demand. We are not running out of minerals.
https://t.co/k0oLh3dn9j
https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1620549838298550276
Quote
And did you know we already know where to find lithium for almost ten billion full-EVs and we are constantly finding more resources while the ocean contains thousands of times more than the resources we know on land?
My analysis based on: https://t.co/FA6QcyUKpl
Basically, anything Toyota says about hybrids vs EVs should be taken with a massive grain of salt because they are the king of hybrids but very far behind on EVs. It's all just excuses from them.
Also, Toyota still uses NiMH batteries in their hybrids so they could be making hybrids and a bunch of EVs at the same time without having to ration lithium between the two.
I'm personally more of a fan of widespread EV adoption after we are off of lithium/cobalt (only a matter of 5 or so years probably)... But there always needs to be the early adopters to drive the market
I think Toyota's point is valid. Electric cars aren't the right fit for everyone's needs, and electrification can benefit every car today. It's hard to take issue with those statements. It's still no excuse for the pitiful hybrid and PHEV volume that they're mustering, so the messaging feels a teensy bit like sour grapes at the moment.
If they are really so utilitarian then they should abandon hydrogen and the Mirai like yesterday and use the billions saved to put out more goddamn PHEVs.
Jesus. That visual.
Li production has increased 11x since 1995. Today, there are ~16MM electric cars on the road and there are 1.5B cars in the world total, IOW 94x. So here's what the visual looks like extrapolated so for the next ~25 years. Note the real kicker is the proper comparison isn't the Y axis (~9.4x) but volume, which is ~100x. As it is often said, the problem isn't running out of Li (or copper, cobalt, gold, etc.), the problem is running out of environment (pretty much all of those mines are open pit). Now, of course, it's not to say ALL future EVs, would have Li-based batteries, but the visual tells a more than relevant story:
(https://i.postimg.cc/284DhZtV/spinwin.png)
Quote from: Laconian on February 03, 2023, 11:28:29 AM
I think Toyota's point is valid. Electric cars aren't the right fit for everyone's needs, and electrification can benefit every car today. It's hard to take issue with those statements. It's still no excuse for the pitiful hybrid and PHEV volume that they're mustering, so the messaging feels a teensy bit like sour grapes at the moment.
If they are really so utilitarian then they should abandon hydrogen and the Mirai like yesterday and use the billions saved to put out more goddamn PHEVs.
I agree
Quote from: Laconian on February 03, 2023, 11:28:29 AM
If they are really so utilitarian then they should abandon hydrogen and the Mirai like yesterday and use the billions saved to put out more goddamn PHEVs.
Hydrogen has and will never be a viable fuel. You literally can not store it without having to vent it off and the energy density makes batteries looks ubertastic
There are hydrogen fueling stations in LA that produce hydrogen on site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lUkOHnjLsM
What an operation. All of it just screams "boondoggle".
On balance, are fuel cell vehicles any worse? I'm not seeing it. In the very least hydrogen short circuits the as-of-now show-stopping problem of the environmental toll and fossil fuel usage of extracting battery elements en masse and the sociopolitical drama that will underpin it all (esp. that war and the MIC are the most polluting things WtP do). You'll likely never have at-home fueling but WtP have never had that.
Quote from: Laconian on February 03, 2023, 04:16:27 PM
There are hydrogen fueling stations in LA that produce hydrogen on site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lUkOHnjLsM
What an operation. All of it just screams "boondoggle".
On the BMW hydrogen powered cars they start venting fuel after 17hrs of non use. It's a simple physics problem. Hydrogen needs to be kept extremely cold or pressures get extremely high.
Fuel cell vehicles demand a lot of rare and expensive materials to serve as catalysts. Cobalt seems positively quaint by comparison to platinum (around $400 of Co versus $1700 of Pt). The hydrogen station requires electricity transport to the station. There are going to be losses in the H2 production process. The hydrogen plant is apparently very noisy and probably costs a mint to construct. Storage will have some leaks. And then the process of converting that stored hydrogen into electricity is also lossy. The fuel cell car also needs some lithium battery capacity to smooth out power generation.
The upside is fast recharging, but it's not really even that fast, and the advantage is eroding rapidly. And the cost of building a hydrogen gas station is a complete nonstarter. And what value is refilling if there's nowhere to fill at? They're never going to bootstrap a H2 fueling network without crazy subsidies, whether it be from government or Toyota's R&D science project budget. This is in contrast to electric chargers are set up cheaply and en masse today.
Electric recharging stations don't turn their real estate into Superfund sites either, which is another fun externality society that has to deal with today.
Two weeks ago I had to drive my GF to Nürnberg because her BMW i3S couldn't make it.
Last Wednesday we were eating out in the city. We use er EV because it's more efficient to do so in the city, plus it allows her to charge the car while we eat. Well, it was a very cold night and after a delicious high end fine dining Chinese meal we retuned to her car - fully charged.
Range in these temperatures? 170 km (225 km in the summer, fully charged). That's 55 km of range that will never appear due to the cold. Ok, we get in, turn on the heated seats and heating... range drops to 155 km...
And some eco wackos are telling me I need to get rid of my efficient ICE car and hop into something that does everything worse and gives me no advantage???
That crappy EV has radicalized you :lol:
Quote from: Laconian on February 04, 2023, 08:24:20 PM
That crappy EV has radicalized you :lol:
I'm not against EVs, but I don't think they are the solution and I don't see what advantages they give me over an ICE. I can't do long trips at a high speed because the batteries can't handle it. I can't heat or cool my cabin because the batteries can't handle it. "Quick filling up" takes 20-30 minutes as opposed to 2-3 minutes for an ICE. If EVs are "better" than ICE cars, I expect them to beat and surpass the flexibility of ICE cars, which they don't (in my case and my driving needs).
But hey, they are useful for eating out with your GF in the city where stop-and-go traffic rules. :lol:
Quote from: Laconian on February 02, 2023, 11:25:35 AM
Also, the cells themselves are packaged in a standardized way that allows them to be harvested and reused directly with only a small amount of manual labor. A cell with 70% life might be bad for a car but amazing for a cheap whole house battery backup.
If they were modularized you could use the packs themselves for consumer-level power backups à la Powerwall, just put them in a pretty box to hang in the garage. But if the pack itself is a structural element, based on what I saw when Munro & Associates stripped down a Tesla 4680 pack, they are virtually indestructible. It was a nightmare for them.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 08, 2023, 03:06:14 AM
I'm not against EVs, but I don't think they are the solution and I don't see what advantages they give me over an ICE. I can't do long trips at a high speed because the batteries can't handle it. I can't heat or cool my cabin because the batteries can't handle it. "Quick filling up" takes 20-30 minutes as opposed to 2-3 minutes for an ICE. If EVs are "better" than ICE cars, I expect them to beat and surpass the flexibility of ICE cars, which they don't (in my case and my driving needs).
But hey, they are useful for eating out with your GF in the city where stop-and-go traffic rules. :lol:
I envy your autobahn lifestyle and I can see why EVs aren't a good fit for it.
Stop and go traffic is my life here :rolleyes:
Unless their hobbies include inhaling fumes, changing engine oil, & changing brake pads, the needs of people who live their lives in and around cities are almost exactly matched by the proposition offered by modern EVs.
But I understand 'needs' and 'wants' are different animals.
Quote from: Laconian on February 10, 2023, 01:22:32 PM
I envy your autobahn lifestyle and I can see why EVs aren't a good fit for it.
And remember - speeding is expensive. I will normally cruise between 120-150 km/h with the occasional venture into the 200 km/h+ zone if possible. If I am really in a hurry then I will gun it and it's fun for sure driving between 160-200+ km/h - and I will still get away with a fuel economy of under 10 L / 100 km (23.5 mpg) which when you think about it is pretty darn efficient for a gasoline engine at those speeds. Not to mention that AFAIK turbo engines at these speeds become really hot and will inject extra gasoline into the combustion chamber to cool it down.
And this is where I see no advantage for an EV. The electric motor might be 90% efficient but the low energy density of the batteries is still an issue and will be so for some time to come and won't enable this type of spirited Autobahn driving which I like so much.
Quote from: Laconian on February 10, 2023, 01:22:32 PMStop and go traffic is my life here :rolleyes:
For the city and short-distance heavy traffic situations an EV is ideal. No argument from me here. This is why when my GF and I eat somewhere in the city, we always take her BMW i3S. We can find a parking spot for EVs and she can charge her car while we chow because where she lives the next EV charger is a little under a mile away. For trips outside of the city we use my car. It's a wonderful arrangement and in the grand scheme of things saves us both money.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 11, 2023, 07:19:54 AM
And remember - speeding is expensive. I will normally cruise between 120-150 km/h with the occasional venture into the 200 km/h+ zone if possible. If I am really in a hurry then I will gun it and it's fun for sure driving between 160-200+ km/h - and I will still get away with a fuel economy of under 10 L / 100 km (23.5 mpg) which when you think about it is pretty darn efficient for a gasoline engine at those speeds. Not to mention that AFAIK turbo engines at these speeds become really hot and will inject extra gasoline into the combustion chamber to cool it down.
And this is where I see no advantage for an EV. The electric motor might be 90% efficient but the low energy density of the batteries is still an issue and will be so for some time to come and won't enable this type of spirited Autobahn driving which I like so much.
I agree that high speeds demand sustained brute force backed by a big tank of gas, but I wonder how the ultra low Cd of the Lucid and Ioniq 6 might change the equation.
Quote from: Laconian on February 11, 2023, 12:43:01 PM
I agree that high speeds demand sustained brute force backed by a big tank of gas, but I wonder how the ultra low Cd of the Lucid and Ioniq 6 might change the equation.
Good aerodynamics will probably help a little, but the end problem is still the low energy density of the batteries.
I've always wondered why electric cars "can't partially recharge themselves" while driving. I mean they won't be able to get 100% but is it not possible to maybe have some kind of device "steal" energy from say a moving tire and put this energy into the batteries while the car is in motion?
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 12, 2023, 03:31:39 AM
Good aerodynamics will probably help a little, but the end problem is still the low energy density of the batteries.
I've always wondered why electric cars "can't partially recharge themselves" while driving. I mean they won't be able to get 100% but is it not possible to maybe have some kind of device "steal" energy from say a moving tire and put this energy into the batteries while the car is in motion?
that would be the same amount of energy used to push the car, MINUS friction.
A real innovation would be using the flex of the tires to generate electricity. That tiny little continuous flex would probably add up to quite a bit.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 12, 2023, 07:03:54 AM
that would be the same amount of energy used to push the car, MINUS friction.
Theoretically, wouldn't this mean the battery remains constantly charged?
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 12, 2023, 03:31:39 AM
Good aerodynamics will probably help a little, but the end problem is still the low energy density of the batteries.
I've always wondered why electric cars "can't partially recharge themselves" while driving. I mean they won't be able to get 100% but is it not possible to maybe have some kind of device "steal" energy from say a moving tire and put this energy into the batteries while the car is in motion?
:wtf:
Stop trolling Wimmer. Next you're going to be posting this image :lol:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/Y3StO4GvRG9zHwtwfaCNGpT9FTLFXf59LcMdDOQtHHE.jpg?auto=webp&s=3d35176f659b9518660dbc4e7bd14ca3710eb2e1)
Regen is a major component in overall EV efficiency. In this trip I captured almost 30%.
Granted I was going down a mountain pass, but... :lol:
Quote from: Laconian on February 12, 2023, 11:04:50 AM
Regen is a major component in overall EV efficiency. In this trip I captured almost 30%.
Granted I was going down a mountain pass, but... :lol:
Did your battery % go up after regenning downhill for a while? That's always fun to see
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 12, 2023, 07:22:58 AM
Theoretically, wouldn't this mean the battery remains constantly charged?
No, because friction robs energy and the regen is never equal to the power output of electric motors, which lose some energy ias heat or just cable etc... losses.
I used to be a proponent of the hydrogen future, but for 30 years it's always BEEN a future 5-10 years away, due to the massive problems with it. It takes more energy to generate, it requires custom tanks that can handle the 10,000 psi that it must be stored at to get any sort of energy density out of it, as the smallest atom it can slip through other materials and is HIGHLY flammable making leaks a Really Big Deal. Hydrogen embrittlement is still a thing. And the fact that there's NO infrastructure for it, while there is electricity pretty much everywhere now, makes it a real hard sell (and you can't refuel at home like you can with electricity).
While the idea of quickly refilling with hydrogen is appealing as a positive, there are also problems that so far are not yet solved - for example, with economically generating hydrogen, and with doing so in an energy efficient way. The most appealing way from a clean energy perspective is to use electrolysis of water using wind and solar power. But this process isn't cheap, so the resulting hydrogen is a good deal more expensive than gas (while charging a BEV is a good deal cheaper than gas); and, you lose energy when you convert from electrical energy to chemical in electrolysis - it's a lot more direct/efficient to just use that electrical energy to charge BEVs. And then there will be a need for building out a very extensive network of hydrogen filling stations - which won't be trivial. These are not small problems.
No, this is a hedge against Japanese government regulations. That's all. Hydrogen is a non-starter globally for passenger cars. It might be good for trains and long haul trucks, if the hydrogen can be generated cheap enough.
Hydrogen filling stations aren't fast either. It's like six to eight minutes per fill. The pump basically massages hydrogen in the tanks gingerly with repeated cycles of compression and suction, not too fast either or else the hydrogen gets heated too much. So many physical challenges to surmount and all for a few minutes saved vs. BEV.
BEV tech isn't standing still either. That gap is narrowing fast, especially as manufacturers switch to LFP and raise the voltages of their drivetrains.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 12, 2023, 03:31:49 PM
No, because friction robs energy and the regen is never equal to the power output of electric motors, which lose some energy ias heat or just cable etc... losses.
Entropy is a bitch!