Featured Toyota President Says 'Silent Majority' Not Convinced on EV-Only Future

They aren’t so silent you see them in every thread on social media.

and the real issues pertain to energy efficiency, waste and proper management of resources .

our society never does much effective to curtail over consumption and overbuilding.

Usually the opposite in fact.

We also don’t manage the grid correctly to address duck curves.

The magic bullet isn’t here in our 24/7 reliable grid but people are loath to have real solutions

 

Some day there isn't going to be anything left to burn... Then what!?

I think that the problem is that no one agrees on the solution. In people's minds an alternative to the internal combustion way of life has to surpass it in every way, shape and form before it becomes viable. But then you end up with ultra expensive, sporty, sexy, EV's that aren't affordable to the majorty of people with the promise that some day in the future they will be cheaper but never any proof that that will happen soon.

What about cheaper EV's that are lamer than gas alternatives, but substantially cheaper to own? What about public transportation? What about just putting people's living quarters within walking distance from work? What about designing cities so that driving yourself is a pain, not a plus? What if you could get places faster on a bullet train or something? Why don't cities at least make a half way attempt so that you don't feel like riding your bike is a death wish?

Well, then you end up with a whole can of worms that nobody agrees on.

Ok, so there's the Chevy Bolt (speaking from a US market perspective). If my car were to blow up tomorrow (hopefully not with me in it) I would seriously consider a Chevy Bolt. It still has a lot of downsides for me, but it would be an affordable choice compared to anything else. But a gas powered Camry would be close in price and have a few of the things I'd like to have in a car that the Bolt doesn't have.

 

From the article:

“Because the right answer is still unclear, we shouldn’t limit ourselves to just one option,” says Toyoda. ​

True enough as customers will vote with their wallets: Tesla Reveals What Cars Tesla Buyers Trade In



So my 2017 Prius Prime became a 2019 Tesla Model 3 Std Range Plus:

• $24,000 after Prius Prime trade-in
• 4 years coming on March 26, 2023
• 88,463 miles today
• ~1/3d the cost per mile of the Prius Prime
  • ~90% at $0.12/kWh home charging, ~$0.025 per mile
  • ~10% free at merchants around town
  • on cross country using fast DC charging, ~$0.08 per mile
• No engine or transmission maintenance costs
• AutoPilot today much better than TSSP in 2017
  • Limited FSD testing brings AutoPilot to urban streets

Bob Wilson

 

Fair enough if you've been buying new and trading in every few years already. But for someone like me a Tesla will cost $48,190 (that's including destination fee) at a bare minimum, which is nearly 5 times that of my previous car loan. KBB lists my current car high again, at $8,080 that I still owe $2,000 on. So I'd have to pay nearly $42,000 for a Tesla. With a 5 year loan that would be about $800 per month. Even if electricity were free, that's $200 more than my Avalon's total budget at $200 for loan, $200 for fuel and $200 for maintenance, repairs and insurance ($600 total), and we haven't even factored in insurance as well as maintenance for the Tesla which would include things like tires.

Mind you I have to buy a new set of tires every couple years because #1, I have both all-season as well as winter tires and #2, the limit here is 3/16 of an inch, not 3/32 like in other places and the tread indicators go by.

 

Maybe car culture as a life style has run its course? It’s been what, about a 100 years of excess, and here we are.

City planners ‘round here are especially brain-dead, keep situating schools and universities atop steep hills, rapid transit stations off in the boonies.

And ever more drive-thru oil change, Starbucks and fast food joints.

The nearby-to-us, recently-built Starbucks in particular rankles, with it’s horseshoe-shaped drive-thru lane clogged with idling zombies, all looking down into the glow of their cellphones, as they inch towards caffeine, dispensed by min-wage teens.

 

I would recommend getting a free Tesla account and follow their used prices. Tesla technical improvements make used ones available.

You might consider a used BMW i3-REx. They are affordable, $15-20k, and easily handle 70 miles EV. The two cylinder motorcycle engine is reasonably efficient with 39 MPG at 70 mph. The battery buffers so you can pass and climb hills.

Bob Wilson

 

Putting politics aside, I do not like to put all Eggs in One Basket. Diversification is good. Alternatives are OK. And having the freedom to choose is vital. I will continue to try to cut down our dependency on fossil fuels, but I will not abandon gas and oil cold turkey. For our household energy needs, I will continue to keep the dual or triple-fuel system going as long as .gov allows us.

And as for our household automobile situation, my 2015 Gen3 (pure gasser by definition no matter what Toyota wants to call an HEV) which replaced the 2008 Hond Civic Hybrid (also a pure gasser) became the 2017 Prius Prime, then the 2020 Prius Prime, then the 2021 Prius Prime (all PHEV much less of gasser but has dual fuel options). Compared to Bob's experience, my experience with PP PHEV was excellent!

• The total cost to purchase, own, maintain, and operate 3 PPs for ~5 years was $10,304. The average cost is ~$180/mo.
  
• per mile cost (including purchase, maintenance, fees, tax, insurance, services, accessories, and FUEL) for the PP averaged $0.18/mile.
  
• For comparison, the previous two HEV (HCH and Gen3) averaged $433/mo and $0.42/mile for 113 months and ~118Kmiles span of drives.
• As far as gasoline consumption goes, the three PPs combined used 670 gallons over ~5 years for a total of ~56K miles. The data for efficiency is ~84 mpg average for three PP.
  
• Additional 953 gallons of gasoline was consumed by our other car Pathfinder Hybrid over ~3 years, ~22K miles. This means only 23mpg on this car.
  
• For comparison, Gen3 and HCH together used 2,639 gallons of gas over ~10 years for a total of ~118K miles. This is about 45mpg.

Sorry, Bob. But my PPs were far more economical than your Model 3.

And now, I have switched the PP and Pathfinder Hybrid in our household to another PHEV, Escape PHEV. I do not expect the Escape PHEV to save on the fuel cost overall if compared singly to a PP. However, being able to haul more cargo, it can replace both PP and PathHY duties. I predict we will be able to save at least 50% on automobile-related costs including at least 50% less total gas usage in our household. I will report back in about a year if my prediction was correct.

BTW, if I simply replaced my PP with ANY BEV, then our total household annual gasoline usage would actually increase. This was because, with a BEV, I would have to continue to drive PathHy for our frequent longer trips with larger cargo.

 

The EPA reports:


Bob Wilson

 

i would think we'd have learned a lesson about energy since ukraine, but nope.

would i like toyota to make the perfect bev for me? absolutely.

do i think toyota's dedicating more resources to bevs will help the planet? nope.

they are making smart business decisions. the only disagreement i have with them is that they waited too long too secure battery materials, even for hybrids.

edit: they have disappointed me with their hydrogen follies as well

 

msrp $35,000. where do i sign?

 

Sorry, EPA does not report on the true cost to own the car. If you are only interested in reducing the cost of fuel for the operation especially use of the gasoline, then as might as well walk to wherever you want to go.

And, EPA fuel cost is only for the US average. If I use personalized local data, sorry, PP still wins over the period of the last ~5 years or so because the gas was cheaper than electricity in our region. Only in the last 11 months, it became more economical to drive purely on electricity.

The fact remains the same. For my local condition and use cases, PPs were far more economical than your M3.

 

There is not enough lithium to transition every car to EV. There is not enough energy in the grid to make that happen now or in the future. That's why CA is experiencing blackouts and brownout and extreme need to 'conserve' energy. Unless there is a major clean energy breakthrough we would need every available tool to SURVIVE as a human race without destroying our planet that host and supports our survival.

Fuel combustion vehicles can still go green if there is a breakthrough in converting water to pure hydrogen and oxygen. After all that is what burning fuel is all about. It is the carbon we want to avoid. If there is a way to convert water to it's basic element (split) and then combust that back to water. You in essence have a 'clean' energy combustion. But we haven't 'cracked' the code to make that happen. But I don't think we are that far off and if there is a breakthrough it would save the internal combustion engine. I don't think major electricity is needed to split water. Just SOUND.

Using sound waves to turbo charge green hydrogen production

 

I agree a manufacturer shouldn’t limit themselves to just one option.
It is why I had been so disappointed that Toyota only had one option to fuel their cars (gas), for so long.

Hydrogen is still a lab experiment. Electricity finally be came a partial option for some, and a complete option just this year (for those few in the limited areas the BZ is being sold in).

Yet Toyota is still dragging their feet. I am not asking Toyota to make only BEVs, I’d just like to see them put some of that know-how and reliability into making more BEVs and fewer gas guzzlers.

 

These are are incorrect myths. There is plenty of lithium, but it takes time to ramp up production, those false statements about not enough are using today's production.

It is fairly easy to add natural gas ccgt plants, wind, and solar over a 15 year period. California is experiencing shortages because they do not have enough natural gas back up, and seem to want to keep it this way. Natural gas plants are a cheap way for reliablity, and produce much less ghg in a plug-in than gasoline.

Methane is renewable, it is simply less expensive to get it from the ground as natural gas than to make it renewably.

If we are talking fuel combustion vehicles, and I think they will be around for a long time, then methanol is a much better source than green hydrogen. It is less expensive to transport and distribute. If you produce it from co2 from the air then it is net zero combusting just like hydrogen.

The sound is produced by electricity, it simply allows less expensive materials to get than fuel cells to split water at around 80% efficiency. The 14x is not an efficiency but how much hydrogen can be produced with less expensive electrodes on the same electrode surface. When oxidized the hydrogen or product (like methanol) also takes an efficiency hit, 50% or more power is given off as waste heat. Renewable electricity is much more efficient going into a plug-in. As battery prices likely will continue to drop, it makes little sense to have a hybrid versus a small batteried phev.

 

Heard there is a $3750 and 10k free Supercharger miles incentive for the 3 and Y if delivery taken before the end of the year.

California's grid had issues before EVs started plugging in. Air conditioning alone was enough to trigger problems at one time there.

The US grid, like the rest of our infrastructure, needs maintenance and upgrading. EVs might increase the urgency, but no EVs won't negate that need.

We need green hydrogen to displace all the fossil hydrogen we use for fertilizer. Advances for it are welcome.

Hydrogen though is a lousy fuel for transportation. It has a low specific gravity which means you have to highly compress or liquidfy it to get enough fuel into a car for a usable range. That takes a lot of energy, which leaves batteries a more efficient way of fueling. The tanks required to contain the hydrogen end up taking up as much space and weight as a battery. For a range that is just slightly better. Then there is the cost for the distribution and refueling infrastructure.

Expanding a green hydrogen plant to go the next step for methanol or methane would very likely cheaper. Even possible to make diesel and gasoline, and you cut the carbon emissions of the existing fleet.

 

We're almost there, lucky to put 3K kms on yearly.

The last few times we went to downtown Vancouver (we're out in the eastern suburbs), took the skytrain. Less stress, no parking issues, gets you right downtown.

A fair number of the Prius miles is ferrying relations/friends to airport. Cab duty, lol.

 

I don't get why you post the price of your Tesla deducting your previous car. You could have sold your Prius for cash. So the real cost of your Tesla was much higher. You could have sold a Porsche or Mercedes and had a negative Tesla cost to post. Equally bogus.

You have covered lots of miles in those 4 years.

I have less than a third of that on my '19 hybrid. Gas has cost me an average 6.7 cents a mile. $1,707 total spent on gas. Will take me a long while before buying an equivalent Tesla would have me at the break even point. Like decades.

 

In 2019. opportunity has passed.

Bob Wilson

 

“EPA does not report on the true cost to own the car.”​

The EPA reports a consistent standard so buyers have a reasonable expectation of the relative cost and performance. Certainly there are edge cases where two close cars can change relative costs. More important is factoring in the owner/operator requirements. I shared the EPA numbers because it shows how close … accidentally the 2019 Tesla ‘won’ over the Prius Prime … or who would care?

Bob Wilson