I really don’t have any skin in this game, EVs aren’t right for me yet. But just because I don’t like their message, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
EV developments
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
In another EV development, Google backed Gravity has opened their first rapid charging station in Manhattan. It boasts up to 500kW charging. They are planning on street meter charging at 200kW. It's an ambitious program with some deep pocket backing. Although cars can't charge at this rate, yet, it means that your car will charge at the fastest possible rate. Will Toyota's solid state batteries be the first to take full advantage?
One concern of mine is maintenance. How do they stop copper thieves from cutting the charging cords of the street meters? Meanwhile Chevy, it's past time to consider 800v battery architecture.
gravitytechnologies.com
www.thecooldown.com
One concern of mine is maintenance. How do they stop copper thieves from cutting the charging cords of the street meters? Meanwhile Chevy, it's past time to consider 800v battery architecture.
EV Infrastructure | Gravity
Gravity's is working to make EV infrastructure fast, innovative, and sustainable. Learn more about how we are bringing EV charging infrastructure to the nation.
gravitytechnologies.com
Google Ventures backs revolutionary startup to make breakthrough in EV charging technology: 'Fastest EV charging in America'
Google Ventures-backed EV charging startup Gravity just opened its first public charging location.
www.thecooldown.com
Having owned and driven one for 7 yrs. I can't agree. It was an extraordinarily clean car for it's time with exceptionally low emissions. In 2006 most Toyota vehicles were bland, but exceptionally reliable vehicles. I improved the handling with a chassis stiffer and better tires. The only costs for the Prius in 7 yrs was replacement tires, old changes, and a cabin filter.
Toyota is a conservative company, but they've certainly leveraged their hybrid tech well. It's pretty much the gold standard of the industry.
I do think the credit buying is a dumb system. If one wants to go electric, then don't provide a way out for those who resist by allowing them to buy indulgences from those who mfg pure electric vehicles.
If BEV mfgs need extra money to succeed, kill the oil subsidies and or at least raise the subsidy level of BEV mfgs to the same level. Then there's no need to have a system that allows ICE mfgs to buy their way out of what policy is deemed needed.
I.e. the credit business is a dumb loophole that counters the grain of the policy itself...
Regarding copper thieves, I think the amount of copper in 10 ft long thick cables is not enough to deal with the hassle (in public)?
If BEV mfgs need extra money to succeed, kill the oil subsidies and or at least raise the subsidy level of BEV mfgs to the same level. Then there's no need to have a system that allows ICE mfgs to buy their way out of what policy is deemed needed.
I.e. the credit business is a dumb loophole that counters the grain of the policy itself...
Regarding copper thieves, I think the amount of copper in 10 ft long thick cables is not enough to deal with the hassle (in public)?
As the largest seller of passenger cars in the world, Toyota is conservative, but their sales numbers show the market is there.
![[Hearth.com] EV developments](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/326/326150-28ac8fd2ba61209c25236086aed2811c.jpg?hash=h2oBTHpPs_ "[Hearth.com] EV developments")
www.start.io
The main audience in terms of Toyota demographics is younger-to-older middle age consumers, in the 30 to 50 years bracket.
Toyota Target Market Segmentation & competitors analysis | Start.io
Toyota's main audience comprises middle-aged consumers (30-50 years). While popular in Japan, North America serves as the key customer base for the brand
Agreed on the credit.
And yes, tweakers are stealing charging cords with disturbing regularity at least out here. Heck, we even have to protect the valves on our small public water system from them. If they can get 10-20 in a night, that's like $50 easy money.
EV charging cables cut
Nearly a dozen EV charging cables are missing from the EVgo charging station in Oakland after vandals sliced through the thick cables, leaving drivers powerless.
EV charging cables cut
Well, if you want to have climate goals, you can either mandate lower emissions, or ban some tech and allow others. We know that no one wants an ICE ban or a requirement to build BEVs, so instead we have a system that mandates lower emissions.
In that system, what do you do with no compliant companies? Lock them up? Nope. They pay a hefty fine to the govt for non-compliance. OR they can pay a lower fine to a competitor. This last part is what the credit system is, and it has been shown in many scenarios to be a great, tech agnostic, easy to administer way forward.
Hey, if I had a magic wand, maybe I would ditch all fossil subsidies, ban new ICE vehicles at some future date, allow only EVs to take the interstates on Thursday, Spend $500B building out 500 kW DCFC stations everywhere.... but I don't have a magic wand.
The current system is a compromise between folks that want dramatically faster change and conservatives that find it anathema to pick winners and ban existing technology. If you are saying that the compromise is dumb, you are voting to do nothing at all.
In that system, what do you do with no compliant companies? Lock them up? Nope. They pay a hefty fine to the govt for non-compliance. OR they can pay a lower fine to a competitor. This last part is what the credit system is, and it has been shown in many scenarios to be a great, tech agnostic, easy to administer way forward.
Hey, if I had a magic wand, maybe I would ditch all fossil subsidies, ban new ICE vehicles at some future date, allow only EVs to take the interstates on Thursday, Spend $500B building out 500 kW DCFC stations everywhere.... but I don't have a magic wand.
The current system is a compromise between folks that want dramatically faster change and conservatives that find it anathema to pick winners and ban existing technology. If you are saying that the compromise is dumb, you are voting to do nothing at all.
Nope. Mandates and standards exist all around.
Emissions (or mpg) standards can just be that. If you don't meet them, you can't sell your product.
(We are on a stove platform, after all, where that is precisely the situation.)
Emissions (or mpg) standards can just be that. If you don't meet them, you can't sell your product.
(We are on a stove platform, after all, where that is precisely the situation.)
Agreed on the credit.
And yes, tweakers are stealing charging cords with disturbing regularity at least out here. Heck, we even have to protect the valves on our small public water system from them. If they can get 10-20 in a night, that's like $50 easy money.
EV charging cables cut
Nearly a dozen EV charging cables are missing from the EVgo charging station in Oakland after vandals sliced through the thick cables, leaving drivers powerless.www.ktvu.com
EV charging cables cut
www.kolotv.com
I assumed that most of the cord cutters (who have been around for a decade) are simply anti-EV vandals. The (partly funded by toyota) misinformation and anti-BEV FUD IMO leads to more of this vandalism.
Hey, why can't I say that Exxon makes really great gasoline and its super reliable gasoline, never had my car break down running on it, and they are the biggest oil company.... so when they say that climate change is a hoax, solar will never work and we will need growing oil demand to 2100..., we should believe them!As the largest seller of passenger cars in the world, Toyota is conservative, but their sales numbers show the market is there.
View attachment 326123
The main audience in terms of Toyota demographics is younger-to-older middle age consumers, in the 30 to 50 years bracket.
Toyota Target Market Segmentation & competitors analysis | Start.io
Toyota's main audience comprises middle-aged consumers (30-50 years). While popular in Japan, North America serves as the key customer base for the brand
Being the biggest incumbent, and being the most defiant, doesn't make them right. I am not talking about their recent PR that PHEVs are where its at in 2024. That is small potatoes. I am talking about them saying that BEVs, especially ones based on lithium batteries, will never work. Which they are still saying in many circles, including with our politicians.
Last edited:
Really? What is the basis for that assumption? They are stealing any copper or brass available including grave markers. Are they stealing remote cabin powerlines because of a Toyota kickback?
That's a false equivalent. Toyota, more than most companies, has been leading in fuel-effiicient vehicles. They have easily and regularly exceeded CAFE requirements for a couple of decades. The fact that a mid-sized, stock Camry Hybrid can regularly get 50+mpg is remarkable. When one considers that they are the leaders in car sales, their contribution to reduced fuel consumption and emissions is not trivial.
^^That.
It's true they may have understimated the Li-ion business, it is true they are slow (I explained why). It is true they argue for their own survivability. It is true they don't see a full electric world as "anytime soon", however much some disagree with them. They can argue for that.
Yet, they have, and continue to have a reasonable role in reducing emissions. In particular as a large part of the consumers are not willing (yet) to go fully electric. Then buying a Toyota is far better than any the crappy US car mfgs are able to make.
It's true they may have understimated the Li-ion business, it is true they are slow (I explained why). It is true they argue for their own survivability. It is true they don't see a full electric world as "anytime soon", however much some disagree with them. They can argue for that.
Yet, they have, and continue to have a reasonable role in reducing emissions. In particular as a large part of the consumers are not willing (yet) to go fully electric. Then buying a Toyota is far better than any the crappy US car mfgs are able to make.
The difference is that banning some wood stoves is politically feasible, bc everyone has lungs, and only a few folks have wood stoves.
With cars, the best we can do is a compromise to reduce emissions, and leave the companies alone to figure out how to meet it.
Also, the limits are on average emissions. If one company makes tiny sports cars, and one makes big pickups, why can't they team up to meet the mandate on average?
Really? How so? Toyota sells piles of low mileage pickup trucks and utes around the world, and lots of non-hybrid sedans 20 years after the Prius was introduced. They sold as many Prii as they could, to limited global demand, and made money doing it, not taking a loss doing it altruistically. And the Prii helped their average mpg so they could sell more pickups cheaply.
I am sure that Exxon cares about energy efficiency. What if they were pioneers in improving the efficiency of oil refining by leaps and bounds? And saved a bundle of money in the process? And then they used those profits to lobby for more oil subsidies, spread climate misinformation, and say there is no alternative to oil. Are they part of the climate solution or part of the problem?
I get that there are Toyota fans here. You all need to wrap your heads around the idea that the same company that sells a nice hybrid product line can also greenwash itself up the wazoo while lobbying globally against CAFE standards and climate legislation.
The list that has Toyota on the list of climate villains with the oil majors and mining cos? I didn't make that up. Toyota has been on those lists consistently for over a decade bc they are against policies for reducing CO2 emissions. Ford is not on that list, nor is GM or Stellantis.
Toyota is on those lists. The whistleblowers are blowing. Stop and smell the greenwashing.
Last edited:
Of course not.
There has been a spate of anti-EV vandalism and arson is boring staid old Germany. Folks burning down Tesla showrooms, cars on carrier trailers and supercharger sites. I note that this is happening during a period when there has been a huge uptick in anti-BEV PR in regular and social media. I tend to think that these things go together.
Bot farms pushing the idea that EVs don't work when the temp drops below freezing, that folks want to ban ICE vehicles globally, that EVs burst into flames and kill people. And then vandalism goes up. Hmmmm.
And Toyota says 'I think people want PHEVs and not BEVs'. Ford and GM say 'me too!' and everyone goes 'that sounds logical.'
You make my point.
The goal is to protect something. There is no fundamental qualitative difference. It's politics.
And as a result dumb loopholes are included. The mandates have forced car mfgs to improve. Why then include a loophole for poor performance.
Average emissions are similarly dumb.
Let's allow BK now to make good old barrel stoves *because they have the low-emissions Princess model*. That's dumb. Too.
Agreed. Toyota makes a lot of big SUVs and pickups. They're best sellers. And some Prii.
This is just like if BK made a bunch of smoke dragons, and a few very fancy cats with super low emissions, and then greenwashed that they were good guys because some percentage of their products were these nifty cats.
The reality is that some car makers are trying to pay off politicians, and to spread misinformation to prevent climate progress or legislation. And some other makers are not. Toyota is the former.
The loophole exists to allow time for the makers to transition. Its realism. They are still making fat profits on selling pickups and SUVs, and in principle they are using those profits to design and scale future BEVs.
Except this year they said, um, no. We're not going to, we're gonna make PHEVs instead, and if that is not good enough (it isn't), we will pay the fine (or buy the credits).
And putting out a lot of BS about how BEVs dont' work, no one wants them etc. Despite other makers selling them as fast as they can make them, and posting large YoY sales gains.
It really doesn’t matter. If they are so far off base, they’ll go out of business and there’ll be nothing to worry about.
And yet you keep bashing the hybrid Prius, i.e. the BK Princess.
And that is what I was objecting to.
Toyota's hybrid vehicles have prevented more emissions than Tesla has, up to now. One could also argue against the trucks, and be thankful that we have prevented as many emisisons as the hybrid vehicles have and are doing.
And those trucks would have been built anyway - by your good old American mfgs.
I would prefer that those that are married to their trucks get one from Toyota; they still have better mileage, and they last longer (also an emissions benefit).
Moreover, *all* car manufacturers are trying to pay off politicians. Even Tesla.
And the supposed BS of people don't want BEVs is reality. Look at the sales volumes. You may not like it, but it's a fact on the ground. (And yes, both sides do their marketing.)
Well. I'm not bashing the Prius. It was a good technology at the time (with Nickel batteries as the available tech). Not my cup of tea, but whatever.
I am bashing Toyota's corporate hypocrisy and large scale funding of misinformation campaigns and anti-EV advertising. It is no different in my mind that Tobacco companies marketing low tar cigarettes as a healthier option after the Surgeon General report, while spreading misinformation about the dangers of smoking. Did those low tar cigarettes save any lives? Maybe they did! But from 2024 they are clearly not a panacea.
If one Tobacco company was buying a lot more political influence than another, yeah, I have more of a problem with that. You can say, well, if they didn't sell cigarettes, some other company would have... OK. But the real solution was public policy moves that were blocked for a couple decades by tobacco lawyers, paid off pols and misinformation.
The fact that Toyota is a 'merchant of doubt' on climate and has slowed the adoption of BEVs is well established. If they had merely sold Prii, and decided to take their time adopting BEVs, I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with them getting this green sheen while they are actually doing the opposite in the back room.
I am bashing Toyota's corporate hypocrisy and large scale funding of misinformation campaigns and anti-EV advertising. It is no different in my mind that Tobacco companies marketing low tar cigarettes as a healthier option after the Surgeon General report, while spreading misinformation about the dangers of smoking. Did those low tar cigarettes save any lives? Maybe they did! But from 2024 they are clearly not a panacea.
If one Tobacco company was buying a lot more political influence than another, yeah, I have more of a problem with that. You can say, well, if they didn't sell cigarettes, some other company would have... OK. But the real solution was public policy moves that were blocked for a couple decades by tobacco lawyers, paid off pols and misinformation.
The fact that Toyota is a 'merchant of doubt' on climate and has slowed the adoption of BEVs is well established. If they had merely sold Prii, and decided to take their time adopting BEVs, I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with them getting this green sheen while they are actually doing the opposite in the back room.
I am looking at sales, which are still UP. Only legacy makers EV sales are down. So ofc they are teaming up with their BS.
At 7.6 percent sales in the US, the fact of the matter is that people by a far, far majority prefer non- BEV cars.
Oh, I see. I guess I embrace democratic rule. I'd be all for some bans and tough regs if I had a magic wand. But it is clear that folks don't want to ban ICE vehicles tomorrow in the US (or anywhere else for that matter).
You have a lot of ideas about what I think. I'll clarify.
I think we live in a free country, where a lot of scolds have tried to solve the climate crisis for many years, with little effect that I can see.
That free country has elected leaders with a mandate to 'do something' to put the US on a course to drastically reduced emissions, but that is compatible with existing laws and people finances, and gives time for the transition. That plan is to foster the development of low cost alternatives to fossil energy and light transport, in as tech agnostic and hands off a manner as possible, until that tech is cheap enough for mass adoption.
Also, the plan can be adjusted as needed to make for more time, if tech adoption is slower than expected. As happened this week, and which I thought was a good thing, and hardly surprising.
Overall, I think that this approach is a good plan, versus advocating for radical degrowth, banning stuff or scolding people. Its a good plan because it is popular, seems like it has an excellent chance of working, and a big project that people can rally behind in the long run.
But, ofc there are plenty of incumbents who are interested in stalling the plan or preventing it entirely. Folks (presumably) with financial interests that outweigh their personal interests in a livable climate 20 or 50 years from now. These folks are using all their usual tricks to stymie the plan.
Toyota is among their number, and has been lobbying against CAFE regs and EVs and climate legislation (globally) since the early 2000s. That is well documented.
The countervailing opinions around here seem to be (if I understand):
--Toyota sells more cars than anyone else, and they are great cars, so they must know best.
--The US still buys more ICE cars than BEVs, so Toyota must be right about everything.
--Toyota pioneered HEVs, so they must care about emissions and the climate.
--If I don't want to ban all ICE cars tomorrow, then my opinion about Toyota is forfeit.
And yet, with cigarettes, after the Surgeon general report, most americans kept right on puffing away for another two decades. During that time, the companies developed fancy filters and low tar formulations that (they implied) reduced or eliminated the health risks of smoking. And they spread misinformation about the dangers.
If I tried to point out that Phillip Morris was actually evil, folks would say 'But they invented the xxx filter and my favorite low-tar brand... they must care about health!' Or, 'PM sold more low tar cigarettes than anyone else, and yyy% of Americans still smoke... they can't all be wrong.' Or you can ask me (in 1982) 'So, I guess you want to BAN all cigarettes tomorrow?!?' and when I say that that is not very practical (because they would just go underground) I could be called a hypocrite rather than Phillip Morris.
When all I was saying was I wanted to reduce the corrupting effect of corporate money on politics (and science) and then let's have the wonks design the best public policy paths to get us to where we need to be, using correct information.
You have a lot of ideas about what I think. I'll clarify.
I think we live in a free country, where a lot of scolds have tried to solve the climate crisis for many years, with little effect that I can see.
That free country has elected leaders with a mandate to 'do something' to put the US on a course to drastically reduced emissions, but that is compatible with existing laws and people finances, and gives time for the transition. That plan is to foster the development of low cost alternatives to fossil energy and light transport, in as tech agnostic and hands off a manner as possible, until that tech is cheap enough for mass adoption.
Also, the plan can be adjusted as needed to make for more time, if tech adoption is slower than expected. As happened this week, and which I thought was a good thing, and hardly surprising.
Overall, I think that this approach is a good plan, versus advocating for radical degrowth, banning stuff or scolding people. Its a good plan because it is popular, seems like it has an excellent chance of working, and a big project that people can rally behind in the long run.
But, ofc there are plenty of incumbents who are interested in stalling the plan or preventing it entirely. Folks (presumably) with financial interests that outweigh their personal interests in a livable climate 20 or 50 years from now. These folks are using all their usual tricks to stymie the plan.
Toyota is among their number, and has been lobbying against CAFE regs and EVs and climate legislation (globally) since the early 2000s. That is well documented.
The countervailing opinions around here seem to be (if I understand):
--Toyota sells more cars than anyone else, and they are great cars, so they must know best.
--The US still buys more ICE cars than BEVs, so Toyota must be right about everything.
--Toyota pioneered HEVs, so they must care about emissions and the climate.
--If I don't want to ban all ICE cars tomorrow, then my opinion about Toyota is forfeit.
And yet, with cigarettes, after the Surgeon general report, most americans kept right on puffing away for another two decades. During that time, the companies developed fancy filters and low tar formulations that (they implied) reduced or eliminated the health risks of smoking. And they spread misinformation about the dangers.
If I tried to point out that Phillip Morris was actually evil, folks would say 'But they invented the xxx filter and my favorite low-tar brand... they must care about health!' Or, 'PM sold more low tar cigarettes than anyone else, and yyy% of Americans still smoke... they can't all be wrong.' Or you can ask me (in 1982) 'So, I guess you want to BAN all cigarettes tomorrow?!?' and when I say that that is not very practical (because they would just go underground) I could be called a hypocrite rather than Phillip Morris.
When all I was saying was I wanted to reduce the corrupting effect of corporate money on politics (and science) and then let's have the wonks design the best public policy paths to get us to where we need to be, using correct information.