Featured Toyota chief speaks out on EVs

There are very few numbers of hybrid Kei and they are only mild hybrid and a few true BEVs. I don't know the number of hybrid Kei cars on the street of Japan, but I don't think there are many.

 

Like China, mild hybrid will likely be good enough.

 

Would like to see the transcript if anyone can post a link that is not behind a paywall.

A few Toyoda quotes from the conference were widely reported.

This one is patently false in Japan as shown earlier in this thread:
"The more EVs we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets”

Toyoda did however hit one out of the park, when he was noted to be discussing how the ban on the internal combustion engine would affect the car industry:
"The current business model of the car industry is going to collapse,"

 

Here you go, if you can read and understand it. 自工会 豊田章男会長 、カーボンニュートラルと電動化を語る 「自動車産業はギリギリのところに立たされている」 - Car Watch
And YouTube video version.

You know his talk was entirely in Japanese. Some of his messages and nuances of his talk were completely lost in translation. I don't know the background and credentials of the writer of the WSJ article, Peter Landers. But some of Toyoda's quoted comments translated are very misleading or simply fake. For example, I can not find in Toyoda's comments where he is saying "The more EVs we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets". Although it is possible that the sentence came out of his mouth at the Q&A session or at other instances during the conference that was not broadcasted.

And as far as his comment "The current business model of the car industry is going to collapse," This comment did not come out of a discussion on how the ban on the internal combustion engine would affect the car industry. Instead, his comment was more related to the hypothetical situation where the car manufacturers and entire car industries in Japan may be forced to move location from Japan to France due to lower emission energy mix in France. He commented that Yaris made in the French factory is "better" than the one built in the Tohoku factory from a carbon-neutrality point of view. Thus they would have to move the entire production to France if such mandate goes to an extreme. He was simply cautioning such a drastic move will kill a large number of car manufacturing businesses in Japan.

 

Thanks. Read the transcript with Google Translate for what that is worth.

Yes, possibly these comments were made at a Q&A session as you suggested and not from the talk itself.

The closest thing I saw in the talk related to "The current business model of the car industry is going to collapse" was discussing how manufacturing in Japan right now is not well equipped to handle the electrical power/energy requirements of charge/discharge cycles required for inspection but ties that future to needing more thermal power generation and "producing a lot of CO2". As you note, he suggests the vehicle industry might then be forced to relocate out of Japan. But this seems silly as he also discusses a personal projection that during peak summer use EV vehicle use would require an increase the power generation capacity by 10 to 15% and asks how many more nuclear power plants would be needed but ignores the huge projected growth of renewables by 2030 as mentioned earlier in this thread that easily covers that.

Another interesting item noted in the transcript I had not seen reported on: Toyoda (incorrectly) touts/ covers himself with how far along they are with deployment of electric vehicles in Japan with similar marketing Toyota uses here in the U.S. He reports that the "electrification ratio" is 35% in Japan, just second worldwide to 68% in Norway.

The editorial author Kiyoshi Tanikawa explains that the use of "electrification = EV" by Toyoda includes hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. But the author (again, Google Translate) explains: However, there is no doubt that the reason why electrification = EV is becoming a backward country is that hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles are not recognized as EV companions" and noted it "would be better to write "HEV" for hybrid vehicles, "PHEV" for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and "FCEV" for fuel cell vehicles, and all electrified vehicles with EV"

 

No, that is deliberate pushback spin to confuse matters. It's what happens when clarity reveals ill intent. Antagonists work hard to confuse.

In this case, for years "EV" has represented any vehicle capable of full electric-only driving that was not a hybrid. In fact, this is how the "self-charging" came about, to identify the other category of electrified offerings. It was Toyota's effort to distinguish the two. But instead of that distinct label being accept by enthusiasts (mainstream consumers were indifferent), a big huff was made. The reason why was simple, those supporting BEV felt threatened. They didn't want to see PHEV in the same category, also being identified with an "EV" label.

It's quite remarkable how muddled that situation has become, but the controversy is undeniable. There are some who clearly don't want PHEV that deliver a full EV driving experience... like the 42 miles from RAV4 Prime... to be thought of as being like a BEV.

 

Even this doesn't make sense. You realize you quoted the editor saying that hybrid vehicles were used in the mis-definition of "EV" but then you said they were not in this case.

 

The reasoning for that should be obvious. The low-end is being neglected. It's far easier to produce an expensive vehicle and get a decent profit in return. This is basic economics... which is not being addressed.

Delivering an "economy" vehicle and squeezing out enough money to survive from a dependence upon high-volume to make up razor-thin profit-margins is an entirely different matter.

Toyota is very good a moving vehicles in that latter category. Tesla has no experience. Selling a vehicle with just a $25,000 price tag is very difficult. It's quite easy to waste resources (transport, storage, time, etc.) on something that will yield very little in return. This is why the American automakers focused heavily on SUV sales instead. They lacked the ability to sell anything else. This is also why we see Toyota changing to match market shift... since SUVs have become the norm. RAV4 is proof of the sedan no longer holding interest for the average consumer. New offerings... Corolla Cross and Yaris Cross... overwhelming confirm Toyota is striving to offer affordable "SUV" choices... which conveniently provide a nice location for large battery-packs.

The current business model for most automakers doesn't support such a shift yet, hence collapse. Imagine trying to take all those steps and remain profitable by 2030. That's only 9 years away. Transforming the entire industry in such a short amount of time just plain is not realistic.

 

Please remember that reading Google Translated script probably will not let you read between the lines especially for the Japanese language. Subtle nuances and impressions expressed in the Japanese language are almost impossible for a non-native to communicate.

As for the missing quoted sentence "The more EVs we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets", I have emailed to WSJ writer asking where he got that quote. I know it's a long shot. but still... I really don't know how the foreign correspondents work in a Japanese news conference like this one, but my suspicion is that the English translation script was produced by some centralized agent and used as a source. That might explain why the numbers of English media use the same exact quotes. The fact that I can not find any Japanese media covering the conference that had cited the said quote makes me suspect that the English information was false or fake.

I will leave the rest of the debate about EV shift and Toyota's role to the interested forum members on this thread. I do not enjoy futile divisive arguments based on unconfirmed sources.

 

Anticipating such a response and to acknowledge that was precisely why I started with the first line: "Read the transcript with Google Translate for what that is worth."

Regarding "electrification ratio" is 35% in Japan, I don't have the most recent numbers, but the last I am aware of almost all of this represents conventional hybrids, not PHEVs or BEVs.

 

That is exactly why I passed along the supposed quote. People take things so literally now, we get talking-points without any meaning behind them. It's how "self-charging" became so twisted. Antagonists worked to create a stigma by dropping references to misrepresent. It ends up becoming a confusing mess with an obvious goal: BOIL THE FROG.

The devil is always in the detail. Look at actions, not words. Think about how many times people were burned by GM's reputation for "over promise, under deliver". Notice how they, along with other legacy automakers, now remain painfully silent on this topic? They know quotes don't work anymore. People can only get taken so many times before they finally learn not to accept anything at face value.

Teaching moments....

 

The huff was made over the implication of a perpetual motion machine, and optional confusion of using charging in reference to a car that is never plugged in. Toyota's use of it wasn't about making a distinction between hybrids and plug ins, but because they saw plug ins as a threat to their sales.

VW does have experience in that mass market, and the price of the ID.3 starts at $25000 or less before VAT.

The specifics of Japan's gas ban don't seem completely set. Worse case reported is that all gas cars sold in 9 years will have to be hybrids, which already sell in large numbers. The manufactures will still be able to make gas cars for other markets even then. The collapse danger is for those unwilling to start shifting now.

 

Huh? A base model would likely only deliver 200 miles and be priced well over $30,000. There isn't much of a market for such small cars here. It's a niche, not mass market. Know your audience.

 

So why has there been no Lexus BEV all these years? Why has Toyota ignored those "easier" profits?

It looks like the first will be the Lexus UX 300e when it arrives late to the party.

 

The list price includes a 19% VAT. Subtract that, and the price VW put on the car is well under 30 thousand dollars.

Toyoda's comments weren't about the US, and the US is not the heart of EV adoption.

The ID.3 is around the size of the Golf on the outside, but the BEV platform allows more space inside. It has already out sold the Model 3 in some months. It is far from niche, and will have platform siblings to satisfy other customers. This is why the first to the US will be a crossover.

VW has invested into BEV mass production. IIRC, the Shanghai factory can make 300 thousand cars a year. Unlike Tesla, VW does know how to make a profit on economy cars. If other manufacturers had taken similar steps, they wouldn't be threatened by a fast shift the EV's.

 

Other legacy automakers like to party. Toyota takes mass adoption seriously. That's why chasing easy profit is of no interest.

 

Echoes of GM's past. It's all about understanding history. You're cherry picking, pretending what happens in one part of the world does not have any impact to the other.

Typical rhetoric.... no actual detail, just vague references to "similar" and "fast". That's what started all this. People used the word "overhype" without any context.

 

You say words, but I don’t think you know what they mean.
The very quote you responded to held details, had specific references. Perhaps you were referring to this quote, which used lots of vague terms with no clarity.

 

This is a wonderful example that maybe needs further explanation. "Biking takes fewer calories and you go 2-3 times as fast"
On the surface this seems obvious and a confirmation of engineering providing more efficiency.

Let's take a look at the total picture- Bikes have steel rims and steel frames or even worse carbon fiber frames. This steel has to come from ore that is mined them smelted, refined. transported remelted and formed into shape and further manufactured. The tires come from rubber compounds that also have to be refined transported and manufactured. Spokes pedal cranks, pedals, chain, bearings, handlebars etc and on and on all have to be converted from raw materials into useable bike parts. The environment provides these raw materials that are manufactured at tremendous energy expenditures to form a useable product.

Is a bike more efficient than walking certainly - is it more environmentally friendly and requires less energy - I would question that and wonder if the total environmental impact and energy used to manufacture the bike doesn't need to be included in the comparison on which is more efficient.

Let's look at a car -The metal, engine ,tires, plastic components, precious metals cloth, leather. copper etc etc all have to be obtained from the environment at tremendous cost and damage - then have to be formed and manufactured with tremendous energy impact.

Here is just a tiny example of the automotive manufacturing process - when a shell body is top coated ( painted) it goes through a paint booth. The booth has to have exact temperature and humidity control for the paint environment -typically 70 degrees and 70% humidity. There has to be a air draft downward to remove the paint overspray. I could go on but we will stop here. Paint Booths that supply 100,000 feet per minute of air provide this environment. Imagine the energy required to raise the temperature to these setpoints on a 30 degree day with 20% humidity to condition hundreds of thousand cubic feet of air per minute,
. This is just a tiny part of the environmental consequences and expenses to manufacture a car.

Regardless of the type of fuel it uses -a vehicle is manufactured at tremendous cost and often times considerable damage to the environment- many neglect this in touting one type of vehicle over the other as more green.

I am no better than anyone else- I own two vehicles a bike and many other modern appliance as well as being a retired auto worker.

My point in posting this- to maybe cause some to think about the consequences of individual transportation and bring some balance to the discussion on green alternatives to mobility.

Who is a better environmental steward : a well educated engineer who drive the latest model green vehicle and lives with all the modern conveniences or a Mexican farmer with limited education who live in a recycled tin shelter proving food for his family on a small plot of land?