Akio Toyoda, Toyota Motor’s chairman, has never been a huge fan of battery electric vehicles. Last October, as global sales of EVs started to slow down amid macroeconomic uncertainty, Toyoda crowed that people are “finally seeing reality” on EVs. Now, the auto executive is doubling down on his bearish forecast, boldly predicting that just three in 10 cars on the road will be powered by a battery.
…
“The enemy is CO2,” Toyoda said, proposing a “multi-pathway approach” that doesn’t rely on any one type of vehicle. “Customers, not regulations or politics” should make the decision on what path to rely on, he said.
The auto executive estimated that around a billion people still live in areas without electricity, which limits the appeal of a battery electric vehicle. Toyoda estimated that fully electric cars will only capture 30% of the market, with the remainder taken up by hybrids or vehicles that use hydrogen technology.
At this point the dude is just grasping for anything that will to justify the stupid business decisions that he’s made. 30% is a shit load, and something a sane business person would be excited about trying to capture.
Before nepotism appointed him to CEO, the company launched the Prius. That thing was exciting and innovative when it came out.
Under his leadership the Prius brand became a synonym for boredom, he relinquished Toyota’s electric powertrain lead to other manufacturers, and the brand produced a lot of uninspired vehicles in general.
This guy was at the helm during the years of Toyota’s decline. Forgive me if I don’t pay any attention to him.
Prius is still rocking all over the place and it says once again in his statement right here the guy likes hybrids. There’s currently lots of hybrids out and about, and I agree with the guy. At least until battery tech changes. A hybrid battery is a few grand to replace and there’s no range anxiety or worrying about plugging in anywhere. An EV with a decent range is $10,000 to $25,000 to replace an 1,100 lb battery in and it’s expensive and troublesome if you don’t live at a place where you can plug in at home in your garage.
As to prius being boring…I don’t even know what you’re talking about. What do you want it to do? They’re still really popular and have been going for over 20 years with several different models and some that can be plugged in. How is it supposed to be exciting?
Also, toyota achieved a couple years ago something it had never done before. Top GM in sales in the US to get the number one spot. So with their “boring cars and their crappy ceo” they seem to be doing great.
“…I agree with the guy. At least until battery tech changes.”
This point is important. There are not enough rare minerals to make EVs for everyone with current battery tech
What rare metals concern you in an LFP battery?
It’s not even that, for me. The lithium would still last a while. It’s that it currently takes an 1,100 pound battery that costs over $10,000 or even $20,000 to replace, that won’t last over 20 years before its shot and is crazy expensive to work on if anything happens to it sooner. EV batteries need to be lighter and have batteries that will last longer, or be cheaper to replace.
Most cars on average are scrapped by the 10-15yr mark. Much of the lithium can be recycled, and there are already videos of people diy replacing battery packs for 1/3rd the price you’re talking about.
Inverters are solid state and reliable, motors have about 6-22 components in their assembly… EVs will last far far longer than any ice car.
My non EV is at 250k miles at 16 years old on original Trans and Engine and has no mechanical issues whatsoever. Yes, this is not “common” for 15+ year old cars to survive and still do well, but go hop on marketplace and look at cars under $5000. All the undamaged still running vehicles are over 15 years old, and there are literally thousands for sale at any given time. If we were in a completely/mostly EV country there would be no cars that still ran or were worth buying that are over 15 years old.
Also, the battery fixing videos for 1/3 the cost isn’t really “fixing”. It’s just replacing the completely ruined cells while all the rest are on their last leg.
My 40yr old motorcycle is still running at 30k miles, mainly because southern California is very dry and non-corrosive. If I were to move back to NYC, the salty roads would probably destroy my machine in short order.
Regardless, the point is that in an EV, the energy storage part can be replaced while the rest of the system remains functional, without emitting CO2 directly into the atmosphere.
Packs can be recycled, individual damaged cells replaced if you really want to save money, though I don’t recommend it. By nature of system complexity, the dino cars simply cannot run as well as an EV for the same amount of time. Average 6cyl has about 350 individual components within the engine block which must be within very tight tolerances (the crux of the problem), whereas an equivalent power electric motor has maybe 8 parts if air cooled.
If you trust the engineers in large industrial operations where uptime is key, you’ll notice none of the pumps are driven by anything but beefy electric motors, running for years whether interrupted or continuously before going down for preventative maintenance.
Some Teslas have over 700 cells. Dropping an 1100 pound battery pack down after raising the car up and locating and replacing several cells in an old battery when all the other cells are also nearing the end of their lifespan is a very expensive and timely endeavor for a small amount of extra time before having to do it again, because replacing bad cells doesn’t magically make all the other cells new again. Without a complete battery pack replacement in a 10+ year old battery pack, it’s just spending a lot of money for a band aid.
And the swap didn’t work in the end…So it mattered very little if it was “easy” to do if it still doesn’t work in the end.
As an engineer, iteration is a core part of the process.
Laws need to be changed to ensure the process can be done by local mechanics without a 3x markup by the manufactures. “Free market competition” and all that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jyZKoifTRo
Here’s a kit for $10000-ish that increases range by about 40% of a Nissan leaf: https://qccharge.com/products/battery-high-voltage-traction-new-for-nissan-leaf?variant=44417197047967
And even they STILL have issues after installing a new battery. There were 2 issues that they “hope” will just magically go away because they aren’t sure where the issues stem from. And making such a swap is still costing more than the car is worth. Much like the EV market in general, they need to be priced so more than just the upper middle class and wealthy can afford to own one if they want.
Despite my somewhat negative tone, I do believe EVs can be be very viable for those that can afford them. It’s just that most simply can’t afford them and repairing them is far too costly even with aftermarket battery swaps. I was really interested in the Chevy Bolt when it was available. And I doubt Tesla ever offers anything in that price range. And until there are more entry level priced EVs available, they will never gain enough general market traction to garner a real amount of market share.
I even think this idea is superior to a Tesla semi - []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6e2Lh9u58 (Just remember this is a prototype and is currently being developed for very heavy duty usage). And these people are actual truck drivers and loggers. They know far better than Tesla engineers what is required for their needs. They also have since expanded to offering a conversion kit for heavy duty pickup trucks also.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
videos of people diy replacing
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It’s his hand to play. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong and will find out.
Lmaooooo
What data is being used to make this statement?
I guess the data that says they spent too much money on hydrogen tech that is now unlikely to pay off.
Even if there’s no data to back it, isn’t 30% a lot?? I know plenty of markets where if you tell one of the leaders they could capture 30% of they’d be more than happy to spend billions in R&D. So just at face value the man is smoking some copium hard.
There’s no way one company would be able to capture the entirety of that market, at best it would be like 20 brands splitting the 30% and that’s not an appealing prospect.
Really though the Toyota clan is saying this because they spent a shit ton on hydrogen vehicle tech that they want to catch on rather than electric battery tech that they neglected
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills - wasn’t Toyota all up in the news recently about its new battery technology that was going to revolutionize EVs? Why yes, yes it was.
I think they’re just putting out shit trying to create FUD so people are less likely to buy EVs.
Bingo, they bet on the wrong horse, and now they try to use their market share to FUD EV’s
He’s still pissed their early collaboration with Tesla yielded nothing but a new competitor.
He’s clearly aware of the “magic gas” cheat that allows infinite additional fossil fuel to be harvested from the map.
Edit: Or he’s confident that Hydrogen will pick up the slack.
The Hindenburg was coated in thermite.
Yeah. I don’t seriously mean to put down Hydrogen as an important fuel source.
Though I do think it’ll have a slow adoption curve because of cultural concerns for safety, and investors and innovators will need to plan to invest for the long term.
I mean okay…I guess I’m wondering what he thinks that some how the billion people who live in areas without electricity is going to afford a new hybrid or even more expensive hydrogen vehicle that has even less infrastructure than EV’s.
He doesn’t. He thinks they’ll continue driving old Camrys and Tacomas.
I haven’t bought an EV (or any other car) because I’m waiting for a car manufacturer to make the car I want in a plug in variant of some kind (also less telematics). Who doesn’t want to be their own gas station–self sufficient with Solar, anyone?
Get your shit together, car industry. Especially you Toyota.
You’re gonna be waiting a looong time.
I’m waiting for a car manufacturer to make the car I want in a plug in variant of some kind
What sort of car are you waiting for, out of interest?
Booooooooooooooooooooo
But don’t worry, they’re “too big to fail”. They’ll get bailout after bailout until they can stand on their own again after a transition made far more painful by their foot dragging. So in the end it’s the Japanese tax payer that will foot the bill.
Seems fair enough. I can imagine “first world” countries having much more than a 30% ev adoption rate especially in cities. For everywhere else though alot of the infrastructure that EVs rely on (power grids, electric charging stations, specialist mechanics, hell even well maintained roads) just doesn’t exist in a large enough capacity. For an international company like Toyota probably does make sense not to go all in on ev’s but to have a sizable fleet of both types of vehicles for all markets.
IDK why hydrogen just hasn’t captured any mind share. Seems like a great technology.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell me all about embrittlement and blue hydrogen, yet conglomerates are pouring many billions into water cracking infrastructure right now.
Huge energy losses in the conversion of electricity to hydrogen. Also for passenger cars there are no clear benefits. 350kW chargers provide hundreds of kilometers of range in under 20 minutes.
In some places (like Western Australia), solar electricity is very cheap, making the inefficiencies of conversion economically viable.
The benefit is storage and transport of energy.
Edge case, but a good one. So different energy carriers per geographical region.
We’re rolling out production capability so that we can export green hydrogen to South East Asia. Not so regional.
I’ve always considered hydrogen cool but ive also assumed it needs huge infrastructure changes so it can be supplied to the general population. Some EVs you can plug in an outlet and putting up charging station is super easy.
I want to get off gas yesterday and EV is simply the quickest way imo.
Sure ok, but we’re building infrastructure right now.
Hydrogen is great on paper until you start looking into the details.
hydrogen cars have to store the fuel in 70000 PSI tanks. theres only 2 stations in my major city area that sell it, and they are often unavailable due to maintenance or supply issues. if the car needs service the only place that will touch it is an hour drive away.
It’s almost as though you need infrastructure.
Put a 10,000 psi tank of hydrogen in your car, or a tank of heavy, reactive metal hydride. Also, while hydrogen isn’t a greenhouse gas, releasing unburned hydrogen into the atmosphere causes more GHG to be formed. Humans are terrible at keeping unburned gasses from leaking.
IDK why hydrogen just hasn’t captured any mind share. Seems like a great technology.
It’s great science but it’s hard technology.
It almost requires extremely high pressure or cryogenic storage and it diffuses through everything.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell me all about embrittlement and blue hydrogen
Why ask the question if you already know the answer?
The reason it hasn’t taken off is because it’s a fundamentally very difficult technology to safely build. Embrittlement is a fact of physics, and it’s extremely difficult to design around, especially at scale.
And the fact that there is almost zero global capacity to manufacture green hydrogen means that there is little point in subsidising it from an environmentalist point of view.
Hydrogen will have its uses, maybe in niches like aviation fuel where requirements are very specific and it’s possible to exercise much tighter control of the infrastructure chain. But it’s just not a competitive technology for replacing petrol and diesel in general purpose road vehicles.
Why ask the question if you already know the answer?
Because these problems are not prohibitive. Any tech has challenges.
A brief perusal of anything about embrittlement suggests that it’s very manageable. There are hydrogen powered vehicles driving around right now. How is it that their tanks to not crumble or shatter?
And the fact that there is almost zero global capacity to manufacture green hydrogen means that there is little point in subsidising it from an environmentalist point of view
Imagine saying “There’s not a lot of computers around, therefore this internet isn’t going to be viable”. In Western Australia there are three large scale hydrogen production facilities under construction. The one nearest me will cover 15,000 km^2 and produce 3.5 million tonnes of hydrogen per annum. Do you really want to bet against mining consortiums contributing many billions of dollars to hydrogen production?
There are hydrogen powered vehicles driving around right now. How is it that their tanks to not crumble or shatter?
The short answer is that they do. They have a relatively short lifespan (around 10 years) with regular inspections.
Replacing car tanks is not really the tricky bit though- it’s everything else. Pipelines, filling station infrastructure, transport trucks, and so on. All of which ends up having a similarly short lifespan. The ongoing cost (both in cash terms and in terms of environmental impact) of continually replacing huge amounts of the associated infrastructure at a much higher rate than you need to for petrol is a factor in why the technology isn’t competitive.
Do you really want to bet against mining consortiums contributing many billions of dollars to hydrogen production?
Green hydrogen makes up a tiny fraction of the global hydrogen supply because so-called blue hydrogen (produced from fossil fuels) is so abundant. Green hydrogen amounts to only 1% of global production, and blue hydrogen isn’t going away. Individual electrolysis plants might manage to turn a profit, but for the foreseeable future anyone filling up their car with hydrogen will almost certainly be filling up with fossil fuels, not renewable fuels.
Maybe at some point in the distant future when all the natural gas wells have been capped then the arithmetic will be different. But as of 2024, subsiding hydrogen vehicles is not a viable way of decarbonising.
That’s just BS. The longevity of everything is comparable to that of natural gas related equipment. It will be much cheaper than massively expanding the grid and build batteries for everything. Not to mention that you can reuse much of the natural gas infrastructure.
Green hydrogen is growing exponentially in the same way wind and solar grew. The upside of something that isn’t dependent on finite fossil fuels. It will eventually be available in vast quantities and at a very low price.
We can go back and forth about which ought to be a better technology, but one is practical now while the other isn’t. One has much smaller infrastructure requirements than the other. One let’s us refuel at home while the other doesn’t
I personally will be happy to see almost the entires gasoline industry disappear. Imagine making such an impact on ground and air pollution, when the goal is simply to reduce carbon emissions. Imagine how much it simplifies all of our lives to just plug in every night
EVs only have smaller infrastructure requirements if you ignore power production.
One may be practical now but, according to this article, we’re approaching the limits of practical applications.
Article is paywalled so I only see the beginning.
– if these limits are from the ceo of Toyota, they’re not worth the bits they’re printed with. Toyota has a huge investment in Hydrogen they don’t want to lose
— everything else indicates Batteries about the current level can cover all personal vehicles and many commercial ones. Clearly there are limits for things like shipping, aircraft, construction vehicles, but one of the things those have in common is they go back to a large depot. You don’t need to replace the tens of thousands of gas stations and their distributors but might have to replace infrastructure at hundreds of central depots
— power generation is sufficient for now but clearly needs to grow with adoption. Other countries with much higher BEV adoption rates have demonstrated this really isn’t a problem. Compare that to hydrogen infrastructure which is almost non-existent and you’d have to build out quite a bit before vehicles become practical
— charger infrastructure is adequate at the moment but clearly needs to grow with adoption. Compare to hydrogen infrastructure which is almost non-existent
Sorry boss, multinational conglomerates are investing many billions into water cracking infrastructure to produce hydrogen. It’s just arrogant to think your facebook research is more authoritative.
Hydrogen cars have limited performance, are overly complex and there’s no infrastructure. For an average consumer they make zero sense
This is a pretty vanilla statement. You could say this about literally any new tech.
Critics of hydrogen cars are repeating the same criticisms of EVs just before they took off. Same can be said of wind power or solar power. In reality, it’s just the same anti-green and anti-progress BS you hear about any new green technology. It’s all the same story.
Take it easy, it’s a bit more complex than that. Slow as it might be, everyone understands you can charge an EV even with just a regular 15A 120V plug. Stuck at your father in laws out in the country? They’ve still got a plug.
Generally, people are uncomfortable with high pressure explosive gases. I think overall, hydrogen gas a better shot in industrial/heavy trucking markets than consumer transport.
No it isn’t. In fact, the opposite is true. It’s much harder to wire up millions of charging stations with the necessary amount of power, than to deal with high pressure gas. We’ve just normalized the danger of high-voltage electricity. In reality, this is just as safe if not more so, and a lot easier to pull off.
You can plug an EV into an outlet in your garage. No way could hydrogen be easier than that.
You have to have a garage to begin with. People have created a distorted grasp of what infrastructure even is.
Two thirds of Americans have a garage. Roughly zero can refuel hydrogen cells at home.
2/3 is still not 100%. And you can refuel at home if you really wanted. In fact, you can even refuel a gasoline car at home. But in reality this was never a major selling point. It’s just the crutch BEV fans are relying on. The refueling infrastructure is the only thing that really matters.
Erm, no buddy. Everyone’s entitled to their incorrect opinion, and this one’s a doozy.
How much big of a tank of H2 do you need to effectively equal the energy capacity of a lithium ion pack? If the tank needs to be reasonably sized, how high is the pressure? How do you ensure hydrogen embrittlement isn’t a problem on both the tanks and the transport pipes/storage tanks? How does pressure correlate with exfiltration?
Flying wires is a walk in the park, especially competitively.
A 700 bar tank will store more than energy than a similarly sized li-ion battery.
As an energy storage system for cars, the problem is already solved. People are just repeating the same anti-progress rhetoric that was used against battery cars.
700 bar?? 10000 pounds/in^2??
No, you’ve unfortunately lost your grip.
We’ve been doing it for over a decade now. It is shown to be safe.
“Hydrogen will never work, there are no hydrogen gas stations in my city”
Lordy.
LOL
Meanwhile EVs have taken up a significant share of the market while hydrogen is still niche.
BEVs were a niche for about 100 years.
BEVs were around early on, but petrol vehicles overtook them. Battery technology is finally practical for automobiles and it’s mainly a matter of increasing energy density/range. Hydrogen, on the other hand, has a lot more obstacles to clear if it wants to get anywhere near the adoption level of even current BEVs.
Also, last I checked, hydrogen vehicles end up using a battery anyway which is charged by the hydrogen, then the battery is what powers the motor. You might as well just use a petrol plug-in hybrid, especially since more energy-dense batteries will mean more and more trips can be covered by the battery alone. In fact, that’s my situation right now. I have a plug-in hybrid petrol vehicle and it covers the vast majority of my trips on battery alone.
The only reason why we see BEVs today is the obsession to be green. If that wasn’t there, BEVs would still be dead. It has not come close to solving the fundamental limitations of batteries. One of which is that you need a huge charge infrastructure, something that will be more expensive than its backers think.
Hydrogen cars do not necessary need a battery, and only use it for regen power. This is the equivalent of a hybrid car. A hydrogen car is also 100% zero emissions unlike a petrol car. The main point is that a hydrogen car fully replicates the experience of an ICE car. For millions of people, that is an absolute necessity.
BEVs have their advantages beyond being green. I wake up with a full “tank” every morning, I can use the heater or air conditioner without emitting carbon monoxide so I can do this in my enclosed garage, the electricity is cheaper than gasoline (plus I can get free charging at work), and if you have a BEV then the vehicle is a lot simpler to implement which means more companies can make vehicles since the barrier to entry is lower and thus increased competition should drive down prices (look out for China, provided governments don’t make tariffs too high).
Not everyone can recharge at home. Hydrogen have all of the same advantages except recharging at home (and even this is a “kinda”, because home refueling is possible, and plug-in cars exist).
The problem is that we are hitting the limits of the BEV, and no amount of handwaving is going to make the problems go away. This mirrors the push for ethanol powered cars, and sudden realization that we cannot grow enough corn to make it happen. And fantasies about how China or whatever solving the problems is just a repeat of cellulosic ethanol, which was suppose to magically solve the problems of ethanol production.
There’s not really a ready supply of green hydrogen though?
That’s only one of many problems. Storage and transportation are other major problems.
Difficulties with storage and transportation are manageable. The only reason there’s no supply is because there’s no consumption.
Wait so you’re telling me over priced cars aren’t going to take over? Wow color me surprised.
