Toyota's strategy ...

[Jeremy996]

Based on energy efficiency on actually moving from A to B, BEVs are much more efficient than any ICE car/van/whatever, so even if the electricity is generated from coal, it is still less carbon intensive than petrol or diesel in a car/van.

To put it in perspective, a steam car is around 5% efficient, the ICEs about 35% and a BEV, about 90%. Electrical generation from carbon fuel, from gas turbines to bulk coal as about as efficient as other energy transformation out there, at around 30% for coal and up to 57% for natural gas.

If you add back all of the refining costs of petrol/diesel, a BEV in its lifetime will use massively less energy than the equivalent ICE vehicle; Volvo calculate the crossover, reflecting the initial higher energy cost of a BEV, at around 100,000km even with high carbon electricity. https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/...Com/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf.

Much as I'd love the Volvo, it cannot tow 3.5tonnes! It fails my useage case, so the Grenadier will have to do.

 

[Logsplitter]

The Grenadier will do for me to as I’m not sold on the electric car revolution myself. Clean hydrogen and I’m in.
In a lot of these calculations little If any reference is made to the mining of rare earth metals for battery electric car production. There are places like in the Congo where the environment is getting absolutely trashed to produce rare Earth metals, so that the rest of the world can save the planet by going electric.
I have a friend who works for a multinational as a senior risk manage He quotes , you tell me what narrative or agenda you want to work and I will make the figures suit

 

[globalgregors]

Based on energy efficiency on actually moving from A to B, BEVs are much more efficient than any ICE car/van/whatever, so even if the electricity is generated from coal, it is still less carbon intensive than petrol or diesel in a car/van.

To put it in perspective, a steam car is around 5% efficient, the ICEs about 35% and a BEV, about 90%. Electrical generation from carbon fuel, from gas turbines to bulk coal as about as efficient as other energy transformation out there, at around 30% for coal and up to 57% for natural gas.

If you add back all of the refining costs of petrol/diesel, a BEV in its lifetime will use massively less energy than the equivalent ICE vehicle; Volvo calculate the crossover, reflecting the initial higher energy cost of a BEV, at around 100,000km even with high carbon electricity. https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/...Com/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf.

Much as I'd love the Volvo, it cannot tow 3.5tonnes! It fails my useage case, so the Grenadier will have to do.

The problem with a purely calorific approach to energy efficiency is that it’s ignoring the problem of energy storage, and rather examines efficiency on an implied assumption of access to the energy.

Once limits are applied to the energy accessibility then new problems/trade offs emerge around storage/replenishment which in turn lead to infrastructure, vehicle weight etc.

Hydrocarbons remain an excellent, energy dense solution to making the calories available in the first place. Existing technologies can produce e-fuels with reduced environmental impact versus fossil fuels… offering less energy density than Hydrogen (gas or liquid) but with greater stability, and better energy per mass than batteries (and therefore less total vehicles per total payload).

All of that before the math associated with the production of energy (of whatever type) and its availability via distribution network.

I’m all for EVs replacing ICE where range and therefore replenishment is not an issue - we simply must stop poisoning urban populations. For other applications where it is though I reckon Tesla truck type rubbish is counterproductive, as folks who don’t know how to validate the claims are led to believe something is an alternative when really it’s not.

 

[Logsplitter]

The problem with a purely calorific approach to energy efficiency is that it’s ignoring the problem of energy storage, and rather examines efficiency on an implied assumption of access to the energy.

Once limits are applied to the energy accessibility then new problems/trade offs emerge around storage/replenishment which in turn lead to infrastructure, vehicle weight etc.

Hydrocarbons remain an excellent, energy dense solution to making the calories available in the first place. Existing technologies can produce e-fuels with reduced environmental impact versus fossil fuels… offering vastly better energy density than Hydrogen (gas or liquid), and better energy per mass than batteries (and therefore less total vehicles per total payload).

All of that before the math associated with the production of energy (of whatever type) and its availability via distribution network.

I’m all for EVs replacing ICE where range and therefore replenishment is not an issue - we simply must stop poisoning urban populations. For other applications where it is though I reckon Tesla truck type rubbish is counterproductive, as folks who don’t know how to validate the claims are led to believe something is an alternative when really it’s not.

Very eloquently put

 

[stickshifter]

Not only would a shift to hydrogen require building out new infrastructure, but it does not seem like the right fuel source for cars. Based on efficiency calculations, there are two types of hydrogen: Blue Hydrogen and Green Hydrogen.

Blue Hydrogen: the power for the electrolysis process to separate hydrogen from water is derived from fossil fuels. In the U.S., about 10 million metric tons of hydrogen are produced from oil and gas annually, and much more than that globally. However, only 1% of global hydrogen production is currently using carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions. So this form of producing hydrogen is not a "green" solution to energy needs. The use-case for blue hydrogen in cars is to relocate the site of emissions from congested urban areas to some other place - but you still have emissions. Oil companies promote blue hydrogen with carbon capture for obvious reasons (the continued use of fossil fuels), but the reality is that we are a long, long way from the widespread use of carbon capture.

Green Hydrogen: uses renewable energy to separate hydrogen from water. Only a tiny fraction of hydrogen being produced now is done so using renewable energy. You might argue, however, that this could change in the future. Sure, but even if most hydrogen we use for fuel ends up getting produced using renewable energy, there is still a very significant problem: green hydrogen production requires a lot of electricity to power the electrolysis process – electricity that could otherwise be used to directly power homes, transportation and industry. It is more efficient to use the electricity from renewables directly, rather than to use it to make hydrogen. The best use-case for green hydrogen is for powering something like a hydrogen plane (in development now). Planes have high emissions, and will probably never fly on electric batteries. Using green energy to make hydrogen involves a lot of loss of energy, but might be worth the inefficiencies in exchange for green flight. According to the report below, you get about 80% efficiency from using renewable energy to make electricity for use in an electric car; you only get about 30% efficiency from using renewable energy to make hydrogen for use in a car.

This graphic comes from a report produced by Earth Justice (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund), which is definitely an environmental organization, but it is one of the oldest in the U.S. and not one that is considered "radical". The full pdf of the report is here: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/hydrogen_earthjustice_2021.pdf

I like to get information from different sources though, so please post links to alternative analyses. For example, has anyone seen a white paper from Ineos, or some sort of detailed plan? I'd appreciate a link, as my knowledge on this topic is limited. Thanks!

 

[globalgregors]

Not only would a shift to hydrogen require building out new infrastructure, but it does not seem like the right fuel source for cars. Based on efficiency calculations, there are two types of hydrogen: Blue Hydrogen and Green Hydrogen.

Blue Hydrogen: the power for the electrolysis process to separate hydrogen from water is derived from fossil fuels. In the U.S., about 10 million metric tons of hydrogen are produced from oil and gas annually, and much more than that globally. However, only 1% of global hydrogen production is currently using carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions. So this form of producing hydrogen is not a "green" solution to energy needs. The use-case for blue hydrogen in cars is to relocate the site of emissions from congested urban areas to some other place - but you still have emissions. Oil companies promote blue hydrogen with carbon capture for obvious reasons (the continued use of fossil fuels), but the reality is that we are a long, long way from the widespread use of carbon capture.

Green Hydrogen: uses renewable energy to separate hydrogen from water. Only a tiny fraction of hydrogen being produced now is done so using renewable energy. You might argue, however, that this could change in the future. Sure, but even if most hydrogen we use for fuel ends up getting produced using renewable energy, there is still a very significant problem: green hydrogen production requires a lot of electricity to power the electrolysis process – electricity that could otherwise be used to directly power homes, transportation and industry. It is more efficient to use the electricity from renewables directly, rather than to use it to make hydrogen. The best use-case for green hydrogen is for powering something like a hydrogen plane (in development now). Planes have high emissions, and will probably never fly on electric batteries. Using green energy to make hydrogen involves a lot of loss of energy, but might be worth the inefficiencies in exchange for green flight. According to the report below, you get about 80% efficiency from using renewable energy to make electricity for use in an electric car; you only get about 30% efficiency from using renewable energy to make hydrogen for use in a car.

View attachment 7798476

This graphic comes from a report produced by Earth Justice (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund), which is definitely an environmental organization, but it is one of the oldest in the U.S. and not one that is considered "radical". The full pdf of the report is here: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/hydrogen_earthjustice_2021.pdf

I like to get information from different sources though, so please post links to alternative analyses. For example, has anyone seen a white paper from Ineos, or some sort of detailed plan? I'd appreciate a link, as my knowledge on this topic is limited. Thanks!

As mentioned above, I’d suggest going down the rabbit hole on e-fuels as these, combined with green hydrogen, are perhaps the more relevant alternative for long distance, heavy payloads and aviation. The lifecycle above, in my view, is strictly about short range/low payload and again suffers from a failure to factor the economic and environmental implications of the high versus low capacity batteries. Electrolytic hydrogen plus carbon-from-air appears to have great potential, but only where there is plenty of sun, wind or excess power (aircraft carrier?), but in those locations gives a fuel that can be transported/stored using existing infrastructure and consumed in existing vehicles.

This then buys us time to achieve more impactful (wrt broad climate, environment and social outcomes) and persistent transformation of energy infrastructure outside urban areas. Acknowledged all that is looking at the problem through somewhat of an Australian lens… but whatever we come up with needs to be as viable for developing economies as it is for advanced, it’s all the one atmosphere.

 

[Logsplitter]

As mentioned above, I’d suggest going down the rabbit hole on e-fuels as these, combined with green hydrogen, are perhaps the more relevant alternative for long distance, heavy payloads and aviation. The lifecycle above, in my view, is strictly about short range/low payload and again suffers from a failure to factor the economic and environmental implications of the high versus low capacity batteries. Electrolytic hydrogen plus carbon-from-air appears to have great potential, but only where there is plenty of sun, wind or excess power (aircraft carrier?), but in those locations gives a fuel that can be transported/stored using existing infrastructure and consumed in existing vehicles.

This then buys us time to achieve more impactful (wrt broad climate, environment and social outcomes) and persistent transformation of energy infrastructure outside urban areas. Acknowledged all that is looking at the problem through somewhat of an Australian lens… but whatever we come up with needs to be as viable for developing economies as it is for advanced, it’s all the one atmosphere.

Absolutely agree. Even more eloquently put

 

[Clunster]

The inconvenient truth only Toyota seems brave enough to admit. EV battery production is so resource intensive that widespread adoption simply can't happen.

 

[emax]

Based on energy efficiency on actually moving from A to B,

That's a tricky starting point.

A bit like "Based on rolling down a hill ..."

Can't take that for serious.

 

[Jeremy996]

That's a tricky starting point.

A bit like "Based on rolling down a hill ..."

Can't take that for serious.

I can think of a number of bases for criticising the comparisons of efficiencies between BEVS and ICE vehicles; BEVs do badly when the interior has to be heated, ICEs do badly in stop/start situations. I'm giving you one of the basic parameters. This sort of comparative analyses is very difficult as the person who commissions the study gets to decide where the lines are drawn.

There are lobbyists on both sides of the argument and they can be as dishonest as each other; ANY development is bad for the wider environment, (I can show you people who suggest that all technology past the bicycle is too much and leaving the caves was a bad thing!), so arguing about whether one form of mechanised transport is better than another is an "angels on the head of a pin" exercise, unless you can close down some of the variables.

 

[emax]

It's not about heating.

It's about the total energy and raw materials and their mining which goes into the production of a car from the very beginning to the end of it's life.

But I will not argue there because I believe that everyone who wants to make an objective picture of it also recognizes the facts themselves.

 

[OGrid]

The strategy of the previous Toyota president has been adjusted - a new incoming Toyota president starts in April 2023.

“In a media briefing overnight, new Toyota president and CEO Koji Sato – who this coming April is due to succeed 13-year company boss Akio Toyoda,….said the company will ramp up its rollout of electric vehicles.”

Toyota to fast-track electric-car rollout under new global boss

The new CEO of the world's biggest car maker has announced plans to accelerate its rollout of electric vehicles.

www.drive.com.au

 

[Pipm4000]

This is an interesting thread to read. It seems there’s a lot of resistance to BEV’s - I don’t think where we are today is optimised in terms of transport systems. Much like horses were saved by ICE cars and we were left with the best of them, I think the future of ICE cars is dependent on BEV’s and renewables/nuclear. In cities I think escooters/bikes single person vehicles will save the car. The truth is in a well designed city most people shouldn’t need a car very often. I travel a lot and cities designed around cars are pretty horrible compared to cities designed around people for example Amsterdam and Atlanta. Also I live very rural - Tesla is still great as a rural vehicle but it’s not a 100% solution - hence the Grenadier - it’s actually like the opposite of a Tesla - great at the things the Tesla can’t do and poor at the things the Tesla is great at - I think they are a perfect duo. Can’t wait for the Grenadier to arrive.

 

[r1978]

Toyota is also very late to the EV fight. What else would the CEO say? I am not denying the challenges in the migration to EV or the need to keep ICE around much longer. Personally I would have thought that pushing hybrids and increasing mileage and decreasing emission would have bought time for EV infrastructure to come into wider existence.

 

[AnD3rew]

As mentioned above, I’d suggest going down the rabbit hole on e-fuels as these, combined with green hydrogen, are perhaps the more relevant alternative for long distance, heavy payloads and aviation. The lifecycle above, in my view, is strictly about short range/low payload and again suffers from a failure to factor the economic and environmental implications of the high versus low capacity batteries. Electrolytic hydrogen plus carbon-from-air appears to have great potential, but only where there is plenty of sun, wind or excess power (aircraft carrier?), but in those locations gives a fuel that can be transported/stored using existing infrastructure and consumed in existing vehicles.

This then buys us time to achieve more impactful (wrt broad climate, environment and social outcomes) and persistent transformation of energy infrastructure outside urban areas. Acknowledged all that is looking at the problem through somewhat of an Australian lens… but whatever we come up with needs to be as viable for developing economies as it is for advanced, it’s all the one atmosphere.

Yep totally agree. E fuels on the one hand are quite inefficient in the conversion of electricity to liquid fuels, but they can power existing fleets instantly, can reuse existing distribution networks, and refuel to capacity in a fraction of the time of an EV. They are the answer. I will have an ev for my urban runabout which can be charged overnight at home and will almost never need to be charged at a public station, just waiting till the recent government incentives start to attract a bit more competition to Australia, but for long distance touring and towing etc, electric is not currently practical and may never be in our lifetimes.

 

[globalgregors]

The strategy of the previous Toyota president has been adjusted - a new incoming Toyota president starts in April 2023.

“In a media briefing overnight, new Toyota president and CEO Koji Sato – who this coming April is due to succeed 13-year company boss Akio Toyoda,….said the company will ramp up its rollout of electric vehicles.”

Toyota to fast-track electric-car rollout under new global boss

The new CEO of the world's biggest car maker has announced plans to accelerate its rollout of electric vehicles.

www.drive.com.au

The thing about Toyota is that they tend to articulate different (inconsistent) positions to different audiences. It is perilous to conclude that any one of these positions represents some core set of principles that indicate a meaningful change of direction for the brand as a whole.

I don’t think there’s any conspiracy however… they just see the world through the lens of various legacy and emerging markets, in which they hold valuable market share or hope to acquire it. There is just no central brand identity that sees a conflict between churning out Hiluxes and selling more BEVs, or FCEVs, or whatever. Meanwhile Marketing execs aligned to these various products pump out whatever messaging is likely to move more units - or in this case, garner favourable perceptions of the brand as a whole.

 

[trobex]

Pure EV = City.
Hybrid = Cross over City/Rural (generation + small battery)
Hydro/Fuel Cell+((Larger Battery) = True rural/Offroad

EV simply not affordable right now. Even throwing $30K of fuel into the car over 7years.

 

[klarie]

Yep totally agree. E fuels on the one hand are quite inefficient in the conversion of electricity to liquid fuels, but they can power existing fleets instantly, can reuse existing distribution networks, and refuel to capacity in a fraction of the time of an EV. They are the answer. I will have an ev for my urban runabout which can be charged overnight at home and will almost never need to be charged at a public station, just waiting till the recent government incentives start to attract a bit more competition to Australia, but for long distance touring and towing etc, electric is not currently practical and may never be in our lifetimes.

You are right. As of now we convert primary energy such as coal, gas, uranium but also Sun, Wind, Water.. (they re called renewable but the truth is they aren’t.. ) in to electric energy.. but at the end we store it in battery or convert again in motion, heat, chemical.. with loss. So or so we have lots of inefficient processes. Cheap high density energy makes the world go round. Batteries are just a chemical storage. EV ok. But BEV? Counting all parameters this is obviously a dead end. Toyota bowed to political mainstream and certain climate religion but left a door open. Currently facing this similar in IT: The cloud first strategy.. also kinda religion. But not in all cases applicable.
Toyota does it quite clever.. they said where their directions will go. But what thy did not mention is ceasing production of combustion engines. Better listen to what is not said.

 

[DaveB]

Electricity is very green in Australia

 

[DesertGecko]

So .. I think Toyota has far far bigger problems than their 4x4 range. They have missed the call of the EV's and now they've got big big issues.