It is moves like this which show the tremendous impact of Tesla. The old automakers were never going to be the ones to push the switch to greener tech themselves. Even the companies that we may have thought were forward looking a decade ago like Toyota are now showing that they had no plans to embrace cleaner vehicles as an overall company strategy. The industry needed an outsider to threaten the incumbents into actually changing.
What's crazy is I absolutly thought Toyota would be the leaders here. The prius HAD a full electric drivetrain ALREADY. Regen etc etc. Neat dash display. They could have dropped the gas engine out and simplified things, increase battery size and they'd have been well on the way.<p>Instead we have this hydrogen craziness. Billions here in CA have been spent on a "hydrogen superhighway". Meanwhile, for some reason the EV / Tesla charging network is getting built out naturally - I just did an EV plug at home for my relatives with electric cars -> no govt subsidy needed. If we get an EV (we want to) I will leave the house every day with a "full" tank.<p>The conversion losses are a lot less with electric -> Hydrogen you start with electricity, make hydrogen, compress it, transport it, pump it, use to to make electricity again, run engine.<p>Electricity you can also make locally (solar etc) and hopefully one day use as a battery backup to your house (100kW house battery would be great).
Instead of everybody jumping on bandwagon and siding with every legislature to be PC, individuals and companies have right to challenge those laws or on how practical they are. These challenges will naturally yield better laws considering the huge wave already behind the electric vehicles.<p>"Toyota’s Indian subsidiary publicly criticized India’s target for 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030, saying it was not practical.", the keyword being not practical, country which struggles with electricity during summer and rations farmers electricity is legislating 100% electric?
It's hard to overstate how influential Toyota has been, historically, on legislatures and legislation. Trade agreements, for the past 40-ish years, have been the keystone piece of both trade and industrial policy.<p>These agreements are designed around the auto industry, and its JIT, and global supply chain it necessitates. Auto manufacturing is basically the model industry. The auto industry of 90s onward, was basically modeled on Toyota and The Toyota Way. The classification of subindustries, the structure of tariffs... Most of it is directly or indirectly a product of decisions made at Toyota. For better or worse, they invented modern global manufacturing.<p>It's sad to see them where they seem to be today.
> Toyota is lagging behind the rest of industry<p>It's a very polite way of saying that Toyota is selling electric shit boxes. The brand new Lexus UX 300e is so bad and overpriced that it will not surprise me if Toyota's plan is to make a bad selling car on purpose to say that customers don't want EVs.
I'm in the Midwest, and I went to Toyota and Honda and a few others looking for a PHEV SUV (Plug-in Hybrid) recently.<p>At Toyota I mentioned being interested in the Rav4 Prime and got laughed at by the dealer. He proceeded to tell me that they're only likely to receive a grand total of 2 Rav4 Primes all <i>year</i> and that all of them are pretty much going exclusively to the coasts.<p>He actually said he's known of a few people that have taken flights to California to buy a PHEV and drive it back to the Midwest.<p>I actually couldn't find any PHEV SUVs at any dealerships we went to and I'm probably going to end up leasing just a Hybrid (not from Toyota though) for a few years and hoping EVs are more prevalent when the lease is up. I was really wanting to not put out any emissions while around town, too.<p>Granted there's a Tesla dealership in the area and we could probably get one of those, but we do like to make long road trips sometimes that would be enough out of its range. I'd also be fine with a Sedan, but my wife is dead set on getting an SUV, so the PHEV SUV was <i>supposed</i> to be the compromise.
If you want to steel-man Toyota's perspective, TRI's CEO Gill Pratt:<p><a href="https://gillpratt.medium.com/?p=b38bfbc1f16" rel="nofollow">https://gillpratt.medium.com/?p=b38bfbc1f16</a><p>> Maximizing the benefit of every battery cell produced requires that we distribute them smartly.<p>> This means putting them into a greater number of “right sized” electrified vehicles, including HEVs and PHEVs, instead of placing them all into a fewer number of long-range BEVs, like my model X. This is particularly important because presently it is difficult to recycle the kinds of batteries used in BEVs. If we are to achieve carbon neutrality, we must pay attention to all parts of the “3R” process — Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.<p>> For example, we hardly ever put gas into our RAV4 Prime PHEV, which has a battery ⅙ as large as our Model X BEV. For the same investment in batteries as our single Model X, five other RAV4 Prime customers could reduce their carbon footprint too.
> [Toyota] has argued that hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, as well as hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles should also be in the mix.<p>This is totally fair; I'm glad Toyota is making this case. Hybrids like the Prius should be part of our solution to curb co2.<p>Unlike Teslas, Priuses are actually affordable to a large number of Americans.
I had a conspiracy theory level explanation for why Toyota is dragging their feet on EVs -- they need to have the inherit unreliability of ICE cars in order to make selling highly reliable Toyotas viable. Stay with me on this one.<p>Toyota vehicles are already highly reliable. If you take Toyota level quality and apply it to already simplified EV cars the average lifespan of their cars would go from 15 years to 30 years (guestimates) since there's 1/100th of the moving parts (or less?) in an EV. You'd sell fewer cars and your parts division would sell fewer replacement parts. You can't be profitable on wiper fluid and tires.<p>Toyota execs saw the end of their business if they ever adopted EVs so they need to ensure future vehicles were powered by explosions -- you still gotta have an entire ICE powertrain in a hybrid. They knew hydrogen was a dead end, but by the time everyone else figured it out it would be 30 years later.
In Norway, sales of new gasoline and diesel cars ends in 2025. No exceptions for hybrids, plug-in or otherwise. Norway is a microscopic market but it still is astounding to me that Toyota will likely be shut out of the country in four years as they have almost nothing in the pipeline except an as-yet nameless crossover using some GM EV platform.<p>Must be weird to be a dealer in Oslo now, considering the RAV-4 and Yaris hybrids still sell in ok numbers.
What's this? A company that's blinded by its current profit margins to see the shifting tide in its industry?<p>Haven't seen this before:
<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/17/how-intel-missed-the-iphone-revolution/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/17/how-intel-missed-the-iphon...</a>
If you only provide incentives as tax credits for buying new EVs, you’re really only getting a small % of a wealthier segment of the population to buy them. And in many cases there are problems; look at GMs current predicament with the Bolt. They have to advise people not to charge overnight and to park outside because their batteries might catch on fire. The EV market sub $40k is still very weak. They’re also impractical for anyone who doesn’t park somewhere they can charge.<p>Now look at hybrids and PHEVs. They can be as much as $15k cheaper out the door, but they still cost a bit more than a traditional ICE vehicle. If your goal is to reduce the emissions of new vehicles as quickly as possible, you should use a more “all of the above” strategy. Incentivize small hybrid vehicles & make them cheaper than similar non-hybrid vehicles, and suddenly the majority of cars priced under $30k being sold would be hybrids and you would cut emissions significantly.<p>Ultimately if you want the market to solve this problem, you need to get the financial incentives aligned. Right now they just aren’t, it’s just pumping up EVs that are still niche & ignoring other more effective short term solutions.<p>FWIW I’d love to see some kind of subsidy for used hybrids & EVs too, many people can’t afford to buy new cars at all but they might consider at least switching to a hybrid if it’s economical.
I sold my car this year and decided to use public transport until the car industry sorts itself out. The EVs may be zero emission vehicles, but the environmental cost of making them does not entice me to buy one. Also, it is currently an option for a homeowner who has a driveway/garage as the EU and the UK networks aren't developed well enough to make long-distance travel as easy petrol/diesel cars. Europe is building a lot of high-rise apartment blocks with little or not parking spaces which makes car ownership either very expensive or impossible. If you want an example of it, visit new estates near the London City Airport or its vicinity. They are built for the future without privately-owned cars. If the car industry wants to survive, maybe they should be investing in premium car parks with EV charging facilities or houses/apartment blocks with similar facilities. Porsche did something like this in the Miami Porsche Design Tower. Like it or not, car ownership will dwindle and resemble airline industry with cheap options for the masses (Uber) and luxury options for the wealthy who can afford not only the vehicles but also the more expensive residences and charging facilities.
Bad company who scared of the future and cant innovate, partners with bad people to halt the march of the progressive and virtuous. I believe this to be lazy clickbaity reporting<p>Remove the pearl-clutching and all Toyota is doing is trying to get the government to extend government subsidies beyond BEVs using the very same system of lobbying major companies use. Their methods are the same as every other company and their aim seems perfectly sensible
Historically a fan of Toyota and I loved the RAV4 hybrid I had until a couple of years ago. Saw the writing on the wall though when they started their “self-charging hybrid” nonsense, like we don’t all know a euphemism when we hear one
The reality is that Toyota has an antique model of amortizing an engine design over too long. the CAFE regulations put them in a tough spot because the overall fleet has to reach a certain MPG. For a long time they made it work with the prius bring the average high so the 5.7L v8 in the Tundra, Land Cruiser, and sequoia, and the 4.6L in the 4Runner, Tacoma, and FJ Cruiser could continue to get very low specific power output / liter and very poor mileage.<p>They reacted to the regulations by creating 1 very effective vehicle, and letting all the others suck.
The Japanese automakers in particular seem to have been caught flat footed by the shift to EVs. Strange considering they were/are the leaders in hybrid technology.<p>Honda is partnering with GM to build their cars on their EV platform until they can come up with something on their own, and I am not sure what Toyota’s long-term plans are. And this makes me think they are not sure or are so woefully behind that they have to try and delay change as much has possible.
I don't think Toyota cares about Tesla so much, but they have to care about VW- the largest car manufacturer. VW's push into EVs must have them terrified.
I do not understand why people think either electro or fuel cars will cause a good shift.
Ok maybe exhaust emissions will be less, but the real issues about city traffic are rush hour and peak traffic times, vehicle for 4 transports 1 or 2 people at a time mostly, no parking available in big cities, except at extortion level prices.<p>I do not know any solution other than an extremely well connected and efficient public transport system, or levitation capsules.<p>But this friction between ev and fuel hybrid etc vendors , it's the modern equivalent of when people argued whether a donkey or a horse is more practical.<p>All the save the air arguments are hypocritical at best, the marketing teams are targeting the lazy who should simply walk more to feel better about themselves and the environment.<p>The mass adaption that would save something, including many peoples health would be not driving a car, or better, walking, bycicle when possible.
Meanwhile, China went from 6000 Compressed Natural Gas vehicles in 2000 to 6M compressed natural gas vehicles 2017.<p>1000x increase.<p>Egypt is pushing for 10% to 20% of all vehicles in the country to be CNG within 24 months or less.<p>What do they know that we don't?<p>Electric vehicles are a platform for tax dollar absorption.
> The executive, Chris Reynolds, has argued that hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, as well as hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles should also be in the mix.<p>I don't see whats wrong with this. The media always just twists things.<p>It sounds like they are advocating that the government shouldn't just choose the winner as EV's already when maybe the future could be hydrogen. Whats the problem with subsidizing both EV and hydrogen, not just choosing EV as the winner?
An interesting opposite is happening as well. Presumably due to their confidence regarding their electric vehicle palette the Volkswagen CEO appears to be shifting towards lobbying against ICE vehicles in Germany: <a href="https://twitter.com/herbert_diess/status/1418174370850222087" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/herbert_diess/status/1418174370850222087</a>
The article doesn't really touch on it but someone here will know: do we have any kind of projections on how long it would take us to shift to EVs (e.g. proportion of vehicles on the road which are electric over time) and how that compares to the rates at which charging and electrical infra can be improved/expanded? Does that second point hinge on the current infrastructure bill?
When will we realize that electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered fuel cells are the same?<p>We differentiate between ICE and EV. An EV then can have different types of energy storage like supercaps, batteries, and hydrogen-powered fuel cells. All of which can be charged from electrical energy and all of them can be discharged. Supercaps can be charged and discharged very fast, so that they are used for very shortterm storage. I know railway application who use them to charge while braking and then discharge for acceleration. It is the most efficient way. The modern batteries can also be charged and discharged fast. They are more suited for a longer term of storage. Then there fuel cells. That can also be charged and discharged. While charging is a very slow process, it is easier not to do it in the car itself, but outside. It is still a process of charging.<p>That way, we in Germany do not distinguish between the kind of storage when we say we want to support EV, at least from the legislative view. I know, there are lots of people who does not understand this.
Side note: This Verge piece looks like a rewrite/gloss of recent New York Times reporting: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-hydrogen.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-h...</a>
Seriously how hard is it to make an electric car? These guys are acting like they never heard of the sunk cost fallacy. It should be a piece of cake to retool Toyota for electrics, they are already a huge consumer of batteries and make plug-in hybrids.
I think they have a point about hybrids, but only to a point. I think you could make a solid argument for possibly allowing plug-in hybrids with a solid battery-only range (I would say at least 60 miles, a range which almost no current plug-in hybrids reach) for a few years before you get to the point of only allowing electric cars to be sold new to consumers.<p>so maybe from 2035 to 2042 (something like that), only EV’s and 60+ miles plugin hybrids can be sold new to consumers (the requirement for commercial customers would start at around 2042 or thereabouts). After that, only new cars sold would be EV’s. That would be my preferred timeframe.
Imagine DEC and IBM going to congress to try to pass laws against these "Micro-Computers" that are popping up on desks.<p>Or BlackBerry back when it was still relevant trying to legislate that touch screen can't be bigger than X on phones...
Toyota might be smart enough to realize that Tesla has a supply chain that will be difficult to beat. It's going to be a shit-show among the remaining contenders once all of their hands are forced.
I just shopped around for an EV and Toyota had no compelling offer at all. Nothing, zilch, nada.<p>And for the first time - after having a 1984 Ford Escort as my first ride - I decided to go with a Ford.
They have the first real competitor to Tesla with the Mach-E.<p>With the Lightning coming out soon, the next generation of EVs with high speed charging arriving in Fall, there's a clear signal that EVs are the future.<p>And if you've ever done a test drive in a Tesla or Mach-E, you will hopefully disagree. These cars are not only practical, but plain fun!
I would agree with Toyota. Excluding hybrids from the mix is simply wrong, as global electric mix (64% fossil fuels, mostly coal) poor performance in harsh conditions, charging time and infrastructure, are still so unmature. Hybrids with smaller batteries are great middle step and solution for now, as you can have best of the two worlds. And in the most countries, they could be better in terms of environment compared to pure EVs.
I hope Toyota succeeds with fuel cell technology.<p>Everyone on this board seems to think that the next auto fuel source has to be one-size fits all, like with gas.<p>It also seems that carbon activists can't talk enough about how tortuously slow it is moving away from gas cars, but won't embrace anything other than batteries to actually make that happen. You're just shooting yourself in the foot, which is why no one takes all of the whining seriously.
Toyota ruined the whole idea of "hybrid" with their early parallel hybrid (Prius) that could not charge the batteries using wall power, only charge by the ICE. In the beginning I thought it was just a first step, but they never went further, even when Tesla came along. I find this waste of early success extremely disappointing and sad.
They may lobby and campaign finance their way to some very inconvenient legislation but to consistently hurt EV they would need to turn it into a political shibboleth in the way the oil industry did with climate change.<p>Naturally I hope this does not happen but it may not be much harder than gaining the sympathies of a few pundits with strong Nielsen ratings.
Toyota is greener than Tesla because it focuses on the impact a world society can make rather than on the individual level.<p>Luxury EVs like Tesla are consuming too many limited battery resources. There were 300k EVs sold in North America, if these batteries went into hybrids, you could make 14 million hybrids, which would save 7900% more gasoline than the EVs [1].<p>Not to mention that Toyota is bringing to market 4 types of electrification: Hybrid, Plug in Hybrid, Battery Electric, and Hydrogen Full Cell. Don't get me wrong, Tesla has pushed consumers and automakers in the right direction, similar to what happened in the advent of the Prius.<p>Also remember that the average car sits idle for 90%+ of the time, and when they are being used, they aren't being used for the full range of the vehicle, which is why a Plug in Hybrid is a great option for those whose commute is less than say 50 miles.<p>It's slowly shifting to electric vehicles not because it's anti-EV, but because the world's battery supply can be used much more efficiently in reducing the amount of gasoline consumed (79 times at that).<p>[1]: <a href="https://youtu.be/8Fub8AdysmI?t=264" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/8Fub8AdysmI?t=264</a>
I get what Toyota is doing here. Going full EV isn't a fully thought out or well planned approach. The lack of charging infrastructure for one.<p>Most of the world and as Texas has shown even the US sometimes lacks reliable and clean electricity supply. With warming related increase in demand things will get even worse. Then there's the question of how world's electricity is generated and how that contributes to pollution.<p>Besides, Toyota is doing the right thing with their suppliers in not saying screw you no more ICE - they're taking a more humane approach by doing a longer transition from ICE to hybrid to EV or hydrogen. There is a reason they can still find enough chips when almost all of their competitors are struggling - good supplier relations and investment.<p>This also gives them time to work with say Panasonic to improve battery tech to their standards. In the meanwhile if their hybrids offer great mileage and prime offers 40 mile full EV range that's much greener already.
>Toyota was the largest corporate donor by far this year to Republicans in Congress who disputed the 2020 presidential election result.<p>I'm saddened as a long time fan of Toyota that part of the company seems to be moving to the dark side as it were.
The good news here is that the auto industry is ripe for disruption. Lots of opportunity here as some incumbents dig in and refuse to change, and the market, infrastructure and consumer preferences move on without them.
Toyota is always the slowest to adopt. I believe they were the last hold out for carplay android auto next to subaru. They would put the same 5.7 V8 in the Tundra for the next 20 years if they had their way.
I see a lot of people shooting comments back and forth over which tech is better. Why does an argument before Congress need to justify the tech’s existence in a free market? If it works, it will sell.
Exactly a week ago I asked my friend,<p>"Why is toyota not pushing the production of electric cars? Hyundai, Mercedes and Audi have launched theirs and they have been trying to catch up with Tesla".<p>Then this happened
Quietly? They have been pushing hard and publically for years and years all over the world. Toyota has been the most anti-EV car company.<p>They call their hybrids 'self-charging electric' vehicles.
I remember being in the market for a minivan years ago and thinking that maybe I should wait a year or so until Toyota comes out with an electric Sienna. Ha ha ha ha!
Here's the original journalism, instead of The Verge's rewrite of someone else's work.<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-hydrogen.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/climate/toyota-electric-h...</a>
If you look at how amazingly reliable car engines and transmissions are now, you can see why stranding that investment is going to be hard for car makers to swallow. Nevertheless, it should be done. A gas car is like a perfected minimally harmful cigarette. Still something that should go away.
I've heard in the past that auto makers have EPA quotas to make that are based on the average of all of their vehicles, so they would create an electric or hybrid car just to bring down the averages to acceptable levels.<p>Not sure if that applies now-a-days, or is even true.
> The executive, Chris Reynolds, has argued that hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, as well as hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles should also be in the mix.<p>Why aren't fuel cell vehicles already in the mix? Are EVs only classed as such if they use a lithium battery?
First they were continuing to donate money to congress members who wouldn't certify the presidential election until The Lincoln Project called them out and now this. I'm actually looking at purchasing a car. I'll keep Toyota off the my list.
I'm really optimistic and hopeful for the future of electric vehicles, but that article was incredibly slanted. It seems to start with the premise that electric is better in every way and anyone arguing otherwise is only doing so to protect their profits.<p>What TFA fails to articulate is that Toyota is NOT pushing congress to slow the shift to electric by interfering in the market to prevent a natural disruption. They're asking them to interfere <i>LESS</i> so that there's more time for the market to adjust naturally rather than respond to artificial pressure that makes electric more competitive than it is without special favors. It's presented as lobbying, but it more like lobbying against lobbying.<p>Presentational digs like this don't inspire me to think the author is politically neutral:<p>> <i>Toyota, which sided with the Trump administration in its battle with California</i><p>I am glad that they at least mentioned that there is some merit to hydrogen cells too. There are people who live in very remote places where electric is not possible, and in some cases extremely dangerous. If the people who live in the big city make it economically infeasible to have anything that's not electric, it's going to devastate some people's way of life.
I'm not really a fan of big government or over-arching government regulation -- in fact I consider myself a (little-l) libertarian of sorts.<p>However: This is EXACTLY the role (and responsibility) of government. Capitalism cannot be left to drive this, the externalities here are far to great and critical to the future of this planet -- if we leave it to the car companies we'll still be driving cars with I/C engine in 100 years (assuming we haven't choked to death on the CO2).<p>We need BIG incentives for ordinary people to be able to buy and use EVs, and for companies to develop EVs and produce them. As much as Tesla has pushed the curve, the 30% tax credit we had for a $120K car isn't going to help anyone but the wealthy. Although the Model 3 is much more affordable it's still out of reach for most median income families (esp. after paying $3-5K for a charger to be installed).<p>Companies like Toyota are doing this because they dropped the ball on their own EV development and should be called out and admonished for hindering this.
I can't see why Toyota, one of the auto giants, is struggling with electric vehicles. I hope that they will allocate funds sufficient for EV research and development to become competent enough to stay in the space. They should avoid what Nokia did as it falls to its demise in the rise of touchscreens and the smartphone revolution.
Many people here seem to believe govts should ban non-EV's immediately, if not yesterday.<p>Those people must clearly all be able to afford a vehicle that costs, at minimum, $30,000.<p>Most people, in most countries, will struggle to afford to buy <i>any</i> vehicle, let alone electric vehicles that will:<p><pre><code> + literally cost several years worth of salary
+ have a limited lifespan (probably around 10 years)
+ short and decreasing range (usually 200 miles when new)
+ take an hour or hours to recharge
+ whose battery packs alone can cost half of the purchase price (that is, another year or two of salary) to replace.
</code></pre>
Meanwhile, a well-cared for ICE car from the 50's will continue to run for many decades (just ask Cuba.)
> Toyota’s top executives, including billionaire CEO Akio Toyoda, have been on the record calling the trend toward electric vehicles “overhyped” in part because of emissions associated with power plants — which is a favorite talking point used by the oil and gas industry.<p>How is this just brushed off as NBD? Where do people think the energy is going to come from for these electric vehicles (especially if everyone drives one/fossil fueled vehicles are restricted)?