Carbon is our enemy

Limited battery supply is key. We just don't have the resources to go BEV for every vehicle. That is why I have always taken the position that hybrids and, more importantly, PHEVs are NOT just a stopgap measure.

I also like the statement "what is best for the average person is not best for every person". Personally, I'm not at the point where a BEV makes sense...although we could most certainly afford one...even a nice one...if we wanted to. First, the cost for a model with decent range is just too high at this point. Second, I really don't want to have to plan road trips, etc...around a charger network ( we go to some pretty remote places ). And third, I just can't rationalize purchasing a BEV only for short trips. The novelty is cool...but to me it just doesn't make sense.

 

Unclean at any speed?

No.
However (comma!) just as hybrids weren’t the end all be all in the 2000s…BEVs still have some significant hurtles to overcome even WHEN they outgrow their awkward infrastructure puberty stage.

 

Carbon neutral fuels are too expensive for daily use in anything without a plug, and that includes hybrids.

The limits on battery supply is because of production, not resources. Lithium itself is kinda common. Nickel and cobalt are the more limited materials, but we can use iron instead for some applications.

 

I’m curious about the non-politicized carbon cost of the Nickel and Cobalt production but it’s hard to find folks that call balls and strikes WITH their glasses on.
I like some of the thinking I reading about mesh power distribution with solar equipped EVangelists…..but….charge/discharge cycles…..

 

So funny that they would say "...use everything we've got to fight it" when their approach is literally half-assed hybrids and rejection of all electric that don't use any fossil fuel simply because they don't have enough proprietary control over battery tech so instead gaslight us about lack of batteries. Meanwhile every other vehicle manufacture in the world is investing billions in scaling up battery production rather than just complaining and making excuses.

 

I don't think it's 'gaslighting'...but a pretty darn honest depiction of where we are at right now.

 

First disclaimer - I cannot access the first post's included content. it's an 'Asia' thing.

"carbon cost of the Nickel and Cobalt production"

Please consider this source:

https://www.sunriseem.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nickel-and-Cobalt-Quantifying-Cost-and-Carbon-Impacts.pdf

==
"half-assed hybrids"

Perhaps a bit harsh so let's step back and consider. Toyota hybrid vehicles arguably made 'not entirely fossil fueled' commercially viable. About 5 million of them* have been built, with modern** electric vehicles about 2 million. Do those numbers sound about right? If so, vehicular decarbonization by hybrid drivetrains has not yet been eclipsed by pure electric drivetrains.

*(Other manufacturers' hybrid vehicles could be added, depending on what point one intends to make)
**(Lithium battery technology)

Ideally, and probably, they will be eclipsed by pure electric, and it can readily be argued that Toyota does not lead there. It seems entirely appropriate to improve (rechargeable) battery performance, and not just for vehicles. The worst environmental aspects of battery life cycles pale in comparison to petroleum life cycles. Or so it seems to me.

It also seems to me that near-future vehicle fleet will have more hybrids than pure electric. I'd give Toyota their due for that even as other manufacturers now make viable vehicles at scale.

US and (the rich parts of) other continents will provide abundant recharging stations over time. But a large portion of global miles are driven elsewhere. I suggest that a large portion of global 'less emission' will be done by hybrid vehicles in near future.

==
The energy density of liquid hydrocarbons is amazing in comparison to all electrochemical energy shuttles. If externalities are disregarded. And disregarding externalities is how transportation got to where it is. It is the hole we are digging ourselves out from. I continue to see hybrids as a good shovel for that.

==
Last disclaimer - this was written by a Toyota Prius fanboy.

 

Absolutely...if you take a world view of the situation...hybrids are NOT going away. In fact, we should feel lucky if hybrids become more popular in 'poorer' countries.

 

"Absolutely...if you take a world view of the situation"

For CO2, one cannot do otherwise. For mining and processing (petroleum or metals) externalities effects are at smaller scales. That does not make them easy to ignore.

Vehicle transportation has provided enormous benefits to humankind. It was not all Toyota's doing . But as we are all so darn 21st century smart, we perhaps ought to make transportation enlargement as smart as we see ourselves to be.

Most of that won't come from Toyota Inc. I can accept that . Can't imagine why anyone would care if I could not.

 

That thread title is preposterous.

The real "enemy" is human gluttony and short sightedness........and throw in a little greed too.

The natural carbon cycle is a thing of beauty.

 

Clickbait - Wikipedia

I'm a little curious about why a company that builds.....cars, needs a "CHIEF scientist" or even a team of subordinate scientists.....

A ROCKET company?
Sure.
But a CAR company???

...I think that they're taking themselves a little too seriously.
Perhaps we should swap out the TRD team with whatever team these scientists are working for and see what changes in the company.....

 

Cars have changed since I first began tinkering on them, in some nifty sciencey ways.

I'm not sure I know the whole story of why "student" (who figured out the t distribution) was discouraged by his employer from using his real name on the publication. But I sort of wonder if the employer figured it was just as well to let their competitors think the (non-rocket) business they were competing in had no need of a statistician.

 

I stopped reading at "climate change".

thankfully all these opinion columns use the same buzzwords. it makes it much easier to skip over the fluff.

 

I probably will be sorry for this but............
Does that mean that you think climate change is fluff ??

 

Anthropogenic or Cyclical?

 

What proposed cycle corresponds?

 

Random?
Natural?

The idea that "climate" is static is as ludicrous as the notion that "science" can (1) accurately model it agnostically with data collected thus far, (b) come up with an effective "solution" and (iii) implement that solution without 'kudzuing' it.

...and yet....most of the "weather is climate" news stories out there start with words like "unprecedented...historical....record-breaking...."

It's our human arrogance leading us into very dangerous, uncharted rocks and shoals......IMHO.
Clean Energy?
VERY MUCH worth doing.

"Carbon is the enemy?"
Sounds more like what it really IS.
...manipulation.

Heck.
So far we've pretty much not even been able to effectively handle a relatively minor pandemic, and by MINOR I mean deaths as a percentage of the population of humans.....or are we just dealing with the raw numbers today?

It's hard to keep track as to which is more...."accurate."

 

Anybody spotted a candidate natural cycle with period and amplitude kinda sorta like what we're seeing?

What would a "random" "cycle" be?

 

Nearly anything in nature?
Something we mighty all-knowing humans cannot quantify?
Some we as a half-million year old species haven't SEEN yet?

Humans don't really understand "random" at all.
What is a random number and why is it so difficult to generate them? | Euronews

It's sorta how we were designed.....