Featured Toyota Breaks into Top 10 of Worst Companies on Climate Policy

Feet of clay?

 

Or stuck in it.

Bob Wilson

 

There is kind of an irony ..., the OP article condemning toyota. When the Gen2 got massively popular for high mileage and cleanliness during high gas prices (2004), it was GM that referred to Toyota's Prius as a Halo car - as tho GM won't be sucked into a false image of cleanliness halo. necessarily. Now it's GM promising to be electric by year whatever - & Toyota is the company reluctant to make such claims - preferring instead to folloe their different 'clean' philosophy.
.

 

With many of Toyota's other models being on par with the competition in terms of fuel economy, the Prius was a halo car. The Tundra went from the most efficient full size pick up to the least during the gen2 Prius's time.

 

Then I'm afraid you haven't looked hard enough. Any ev-related site that downplays the role of PHEVs is already questionable. Even if non-Tesla EVs are mentioned, it's not always in a positive light. Take a closer look.

 

Any down playing now, unfortunately, has real world data backing it up. PHEV adoption in Europe lead to increased carbon emissions. It is only partially the PHEVs fault, and more another example of poorly thought out incentives. As was the case with flex-fuel incentives in the US, those EU incentives didn't require the cars to use the alternative fuel. Businesses bought PHEVs for the tax benefits, and handed them off to employees without a means to charge. In some cases, the employee got a gas card.

The part PHEVs could be blamed with was that the popular models weren't much better in hybrid mode than the ICE counterpart. Flip the sales numbers of the Prius Prime and BMW PHEVs in the US for an idea on what the PHEV fleet is like there.

PHEVs have potential to reduce carbon emissions; I think they have a part to play. Without incentives, positive or negative, to encourage electric use though, they'll end up being only as good as a hybrid at best.

 

To be honest, that is a "greenpeace" or "T&E" sentence. In fact, even if only 30 to 50% of the fleet users plug it in, the amount of carbon emissions is lower than an ICE-only or even Hybrid-only equivalent fleet.

 

How many were plugging in though?
How many PHEVs were near a Prius in efficiency when not plugged in?

PHEVs can reduce emissions, but only if people plug them in. The incentives that encourage their being bought did nothing to encourage their being charged. It's just like flex-fuel in the US. The manufacturers got a big credit in their CAFE numbers based on the assumption that people would use E85, but there was no incentives for people to use E85, if there was E85 actually available to them.

Volts, PiPs, and Prius Primes were bought in California just for the HOV stickers, by people that had no intention of plugging in. Others bought a Prime because the incentives made it cheaper than the Prius. Those got good to great fuel efficiency when not charged. A BMW SUV and Outlander were the two big PHEV sellers in Europe.

Unless there are enforceable requirements that the PHEV has to use grid electricity, incentive funds that go to PHEVs are funds being wasted.

 

Alex at E for Electric makes a Toyota commercial.

 

The EV-or-nothing fanboys pretend that EVs are clean because no CO2 is released in the operation of the vehicle, completely ignoring the electricity part. Yes, they're generally cleaner but not my as much margin as people think compared to hybrids.

Go to fueleconomy.gov. Compare vehicles based on their MPG(e) figures and also the carbon intensity of the local electricity. The site can even guestimate what percentage of your PHEV might drive on electricity based on your driving habits and the EV range. Comparing well-to-wheel CO2 emissions is the only sensible thing to do. And on this front, Toyota does pretty alright.

 

Once again - ignoring the ever-increasing number of plug-in purchasers that have or plan to install rooftop PV solar.
https://thedriven.io/2021/06/20/most-ev-owners-have-rooftop-solar-and-many-install-it-just-to-charge-their-car/

But if shunning reality floats one's boat .....

 

This is a straw-man logical fallacy.
The number of EV enthusiasts that hold that position are almost nil.

Personally, I enjoy being able to refuel in my garage. I do also enjoy that my EV emits almost zero CO2 as I do recharge from solar.

 

I enjoy two orders of magnitude, fewer moving parts. Then the price of electricity not being set by despots and unreasonable peak demand. My hands don’t stink of fossil fuels.

Bob Wilson

 

Haven't posted this here yet.

The mpg (miles per gallon) value listed for each region is the combined city/highway fuel economy rating of a gasoline vehicle that would have global warming emissions equivalent to driving an EV. Regional global warming emissions ratings are based on 2019 power plant data in the EPA’s eGRID2019 database (released February 2021). Comparison includes gasoline and electricity fuel production emissions estimates for processes like extraction, transportation, and refining using Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET 2020 model. The 93 mpg US average is a sales-weighted average based on where EVs were sold in 2011 through 2020.

Plug In or Gas Up? Why Driving on Electricity is Better than Gasoline - Union of Concerned Scientists

full report here Driving Cleaner | Union of Concerned Scientists

There are regions where a Prius-like hybrid beats the average EV sold to date; roughly 4 to 6 states in size. Then another half dozen state sized regions where they are tied. In the rest of the US, the plugs do better. Some much better. If we are talking V8 Jeep Wagoneer, which is a hybrid, the results are quite different.

The EV pick ups will bring that average down, but the UCS did a map for the trucks.


What Are the Benefits of Switching from Gasoline-Powered Cars and Trucks to Electric? - Union of Concerned Scientists


Yep, the Prius handily bests the likes of the F150 Lightning in most of the country. If only the Prius could pull a fifth wheel.

The UCS also has a tool to give the results in the MPGeq used in the maps. https://evtool.ucsusa.org/

Fueleconomy.gov can show the upstream emissions for ICE fuel. I'm in an 89 MPGeq region of the first map. A Prius is 206 g/mi of GHG emissions. A Prime 140, and the Model 3 RWD 110.

 

Firstly, if you are upper-middle class, have a bit of money to splurge, and live in a state that is generally clean (little or no coal), get an EV. No questions asked! Same if you are mostly off grid with solar panels. You can stop reading. (But don't be smug because you're still polluting and your lifestyle is probably still unsustainable.) Rest of the comment is for the rest of the people.

US light duty vehicle average mpg was 25.7 in 2020. Let's say it was 26 in 2021 and let's say it was 30 when pickups are excluded. (Maybe there's data for this somewhere, I don't know.)

A 30 mpg vehicle consumes 7.84L to travel 100 km. A 55 mpg vehicle consumes 4.28L to travel 100 km. A 93 mpg vehicle (2021 US average from the above figures) consumes 2.53L/100km.

Compared to a baseline of 7.84L, 4.28L is 45% less, and 2.53L is 68% less. So compared to a relatively efficient 30 mpg vehicle (by ICE standards), a Prius can reduce your emissions by 45% and if you opt for the average EV, you can reduce it by another 23%. That is to say, you could go 2/3 of the way simply by driving a Prius.

Granted the Prius is the most efficient hybrid, but we are in a Prius forum, after all. Camry, Accord, Sonata hybrids are all around 50 mpg as well. As is the Niro in a CUV form factor.

Here's the catch though: The study you linked from Union of Concerned Scientists is not a well-to-wheel analysis of the vehicle emissions. It's looking at the carbon intensity of the energy used to move them only. Volvo estimates that EV production is 70% more carbon intensive. And even with 100% clean electricity, they estimate that their EVs need to travel 30,000 miles before they break even with their ICE vehicles. The new Prius Prime with a good balance of efficiency, relatively small battery, and relatively decent range will likely be better for the environment for most people compared to the average EV.

EVs aren't cheap. (Except for the Bolt, for some reason. Is GM making money on them?) For the cost of 1 EV, you could purchase 1 hybrid/PHEV, insulate your attic, and have some cash left over. The 2nd option might be the better bang for the buck in terms of CO2 reduction per dollar spent.

Obviously this will change over time. I'm hoping that in 10 years, we'll have gone past not only ICE-only powertrains, but hybrid powertrains as well. And generally have clean electricity.

Hybrids (and to an extent PHEVs) are great way to cheaply reduce emissions. Governments botched it by not pushing these technologies harder and faster.

 

Yes, the maps I posted are just CO2 emissions from use. They are for comparing use emissions with ICE cars. The UCS report from which the data those maps use is a lifecycle study. Cradle to grave is literally in the title.

Carscoops' link to the Volvo study was broken. This should work. https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/intl/applications/dotcom/pdf/c40/volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf
Hopefully I'll have time later to go through it.

Such complete comparisons of individual models are good, but the results can be misleading when applied to a vehicle class. The amount of carbon emissions from use comes down to vehicle efficiency. The XC40 BEV isn't the least efficient EV available in the US. It is towards the middle of the pack with 85 mpge. It's just that its peers there are luxury and or performance brands. The pedestrian brands(Toyota, VW, etc.) are above 90 mpge, with the exception of the Mach-E GT being worse than the XC40.

The big EV sellers will cover the extra emissions from production sooner than the XC40.

 

I'm fairly sanguine about the subsequent analysis as this is what the EPA shares:

• Cost per mile is lowest with our 2019 Tesla Model 3 Standard Range
• Carbon per mile is lowest with our 55 kWh Tesla

I'll take these reproducible metrics over any sophistry analysis. Because the cost comes out of my pocket:


I'm reasonably content with the results. BTW, battery and EV technology continues to advance suggesting earlier studies should be treated as a 'snapshot in time'. Current data has more credibility.

Bob Wilson

 

I have a Tesla M3 and a Prius PHEV.
I pretend nothing. But I do like the fact that when I charge either car it comes from my solar panels. But when I charge elsewhere it will probably be cleaner each year as my cars age. I can't say that about filling up as the gas station.
Also, when I recharge it is domestically produced in any case. Some gas is pumped domestically, but marginally it is imported and internationally coming from the lowest cost producers who frequently use the money to cause havoc.
I like that in any case I'm not adding to the local air pollution.

30K miles is a very small number when looked at in comparison to the average lifetime of any car, much less EVs that are designed to last 10x that long. Thinking that 30K miles is a lot is short term thinking. It is about 2 years of driving (maybe 2.5) for most drivers.
Short term thinking will cause people to never try a better, more expensive solution and pays off in the long run.
Imagine putting only the amount of insulation in your house that could be paid back in 2 years of your heating bill savings.
Very short sighted, IMO.
Try googling "how long do toyota cars last" or any other brand.

Mike

 

"Break even"?
What does that even mean. Does that mean you have to drive 30,000 miles in order to equal the amount of energy used just to manufacture the vehicle? - just in order to start actually saving energy?
If that's the supposition, what about the ice vehicle at that point. What about the other 120,000 MI that gas burning cars can easily drive before being scrapped out or reinvested IN repairs - heavily. Isn't what you are really doing with numbers like this - is attempting to hide the EIGHTY % amount of energy saved over life expectancy?
Gosh! I better go buy a gas burner so I can save during the first 30,000 miles!

.

 

^ Who’s the quote from?