Let me be clear, the science tells us clearly there is an urgent need to decarbonise and I support that, calling it a religion is a bit disingenuous. My point is that despite inefficiencies inherent in various methodologies that there is a place for efuels In doing that. Battery EVs good for some needs not for all. I work for AWS so naturally also going to largely disagree with you on cloud. But as long as we can disagree respectfully it makes the world a more interesting place is we don’t all agree on everything.
What I wanted to tell - Toyota wanted a "go all directions" which I like. So there is always a risk of a dead end. Still I think Toyota is correct but differently packaged communication to the public. - The company must do certain decisions in order to survive in public reputation and to "make money"
To the other topics I have a comment.. that needs a few more words:
Indeed E Fuels are currently inefficient in production. So were other technologies in the past. Out Network went from 10MB Ethernet.. to Gigabit.. on a cheaper fees. etc. Combustion Engines became cleaner and consume less fuel, smaller volume and higher power.. - We can seriously assume as we are just at the beginning of e-fuels the production efficiency will increase. Evolution peak hasn't yet been reached.
In sense of BEV I agree.. but some politics think they are the solution for every use case -where most of us agree BEV are most certainly not the universal solution.
I work for a company that is partnering with yours and there is the same politics in mine. I did not say my opinion - but arguments I get from my customers. As of now a cloud is far more economical. Just 2 arguments my customers telling to me: As long as the German government is not going into cloud I won't. All hyperscalers are of foreign jurisdiction no matter how the local branches are registered. So there is a spying risk. So its difficult to argue.. - No matter what you promise. - if my assets are gone my business is gone. I used this just as an analogy. The same for Toyota - we recommend / advert EV .. but I wont drive off customers that may not trust or may have reasons to go the classic way. And of course I keep on researching if there is an even better solution as both BEV -and ICEV.
A word on science.. I did a lot in that environment.. my trust in science is limited. Scientists can be bought. Science did a lot of fails in the past. The most important part of science is the scepticism and dispute. So what someone discovers and develops a theory and there is some proof required. The topic of carbon / climate / human effect is mostly based on models. The problem in climate theory is - there is the same as in the covid stuff. Very few dispute and critics on certain models is permitted mostly not because of science but of political interest.- I will not continue this as we get in the political stuff and that is to be avoided. The problem of climate theory is long term evaluation and influencing factors that we do not incorporate or considered.. Sometimes because it is not in the interest of the group that is paying for the study.
As long as there is not a minimum quality on the studies and what influencing factors must be considered in timelines and what models will be used.. I will challenge it.
I am not a climate liar or something .. or the nice little term "it is generally agreed on" - nope .. with this kind of arguments no one will convince me.
Tell me models, measures, influcening factors, timelines.. data foundation - how many, region, etc etc. What scientists were invoked in verification and what not and why.
Too complex for most people? May be but allow to show proof when demanded. BTW I supported some years ago 2 institutes in subjects of polar data and environmental research (mostly on image evaluation) what has changed in crops & trees and change of coastal lines and prediction of flooding and erosion. There are still a lot of factors that are unknowns.
I want to stay on science. science means - acquire knowledge and create good ideas - but also question the pro's, con's, side effects and both consistent and continuously reevaluate as well.
Do not roll out something generally without being tested at agreed standards and do not lift standards because there is a so called emergency. (It may make the emergency even worse) This is the reason why I call this religion. If someone starts to believe this will because of skipping tests and research.. and hand out forms where you accept that a product vendor is not liable for any damage caused - then this is not science but religion.. because the results are made of hope and faith - not facts.
I had some battle with LOB (line of business) managers on exactly this stopping the use of software that were just in a state of a banana blossom - not even a green banana, far from being edible, my experience as an enterprise architect and process analyst that I am since now 20 years plus. My rule in business "do not trust but verify yourself" - (okay occasionally I delegated verification to my aides who share the same mindset ) My role is to play the devil's advocate and Mr. Murphy.
Delaying a product is a cost.. but quality issues and non-compliance is (perhaps far more) costly too. Sometimes theories are found as "cool" and taken as reality unproven and people are caught by surprise because effects occur and denied to exist because they do not fit in their mindset so they shouldn't appear. That is just philosophic.. but an experience I made in a telecoms supply company I worked for in my past.
Long story short - even if there are delays - I like that Ineos Automotive are still checking the vehicles.. So discovery any flaw and fixing it is important. Seeing cars roll to agents stepwise is a good sign to progress. - The cars will be handed over .. even if there is some delay now..
And Toyota (never possessed one) - has a quite good way to handle the headwind facing the automotive industry and may perhaps better survive the regulation and politics than many other competition.
