“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” - Car Sedan
my god how many stars had to align to make that joke. wish i could think of puns in my own response but even if i could they wouldn’t match this. fucking bravo.
i’m probably going to come back to this in a few days and marvel at it again. JFC nicely done.
If this is yours, walk taller today. Great work.
Can you explain it? I don’t understand the joke.
The quote is by Carl Sagan, sedan is a kind of car.
Okay. I’ll check it out when it is available.
Haven’t they been saying this shit for years? I’ll believe it when it happens. Toyota got a late jump on EV’s from what I understand, placing a bigger bet on hydrogen but that never really took off.
EDIT: I should learn to RTFA
sink cost fallacy was strong on the hydrogen tech
For passenger vehicles sure, but hydrogen is likely the war forward for long haul trucks
Maybe. Hydrogen is very expensive.
Companies aren’t going to be interested in a technology that makes their fuel costs double or triple.
Hydrogen is going to become more commercially available with it being pushed into the steel industry. It is being trialed for direct injection into blast furnaces in order to reduce carbon emissions, and so far it has been going well. It will need more active supply to make an impact, amd that is already in the works.
Source: I work for a steel company who is trialing this currently, and hydrogen providers are stepping up their infrastructure as we speak
You’re actually using the hydrogen instead of inefficiently turning it into electricity and driving electric vehicles with it, so I’m not sure why you thought this was relevant to bring up in a discussion about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Completely correct observation. 70 % conversion of electricity to hydrogen 50 % loss for storage 70 % conversion back to electricity = 0.70.50.7 = 25 % efficiency. Absolutely abysmally low. Unless there is a lot of renewable in the electricity mix, it is even worse than ICE!
Naah your cynicism is well founded, let’s see what actually gets delivered in 2026 before believing marketing claims with no proof in the article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/toyota-electric-cars-ceo-hybrids-plug-in-silent-majority-resistance-2022-12?op=1 - why buy an electric Toyota when their own CEO isn’t giving them his full support?
Edit: I just found out he stepped down after this statement: https://electrek.co/2023/01/26/toyota-ceo-steps-down-amid-electric-vehicle-movement/
Toyota has literally ceded their entire hybrid advantage by doing jack shit when it comes to EVs. If they’d even created a new line of EVs while keeping their ICE legends like the Corolla and Camry for now, they’d get the best of both worlds.
Toyota’s are legendary for their reliability and they’ve earned that. By having not a single EV to offer, they’re losing a ton of business. I know I certainly would’ve bought one of theirs but had to go elsewhere.
It’s exactly because they put longevity and dependability first that they aren’t currently competing in the EV market much. And where they do they put weird one off names on the car. Lithium batteries wear out faster than is acceptable for Toyota. That’s why they are literally inventing new solid state batteries that live up to people’s expectations of Toyota before committing to EVs. That’s why I’m holding off on EVs. I only buy Toyotas because of the dependability and longevity, so I only want an EV once Toyota is willing to release a Camry, RAV4 or 4Runner ev. Until then the hybrids will do.
Replacing the battery at 100k miles as scheduled maintenance solves that problem. I had to change my Prius’ hybrid battery at 150k. Toyota can build a 200k mile reliable car and if the fuel source isn’t up to that standard, make it easily serviceable so it is part of routine scheduled maintenance.
The fact that every automaker except them and Honda have put out compelling and competitive EVs says a lot. I love Toyotas and strongly would’ve bought another. But my readiness to go electric didn’t line up with the 15 years Toyota has squandered to have something to sell me.
Maybe when I’m ready for another car in the next decade they’ll be ready. Until then, they lost out on my business by no fault of my own. I’m not buying another gas car.
So why did they make a RAV4 EV, then stop in 2014?
Their own official announcement said it’s to pivot their engineers into developing next gen battery tech, and that the RAV4 EVs they made would continue to receive excellent service, implying the motivation is the dependability issue
“Lithium batteries wear out faster than is acceptable for Toyota.”
They don’t though?
Someone was told to make a Toyota EV design for the article and we got a Prius Cybertruck.
Part of me loves the idea of changing stations popping up with something to divert people for twenty minutes.
Part of me realizes that will be forcing someone to push a button for twenty minutes while they are blasted with advertising.
This coming from the company that is probably near the bottom in terms of electrification progression. No one should believe anything Toyota (or anyone else) says until they actually release the product. Right now Toyota’s only full electric vehicle is the abysmal Bz4X and its Lexus cousin. The Japamese car makers are laughably behind the rest of the industry.
Toyota is the first company to figure out how to make commercially viable solid state batteries… they are trying to pivot now that they are the first to figure it out but plan to release with their 26/27 line.
This is a major change for the entire world and you guys are snickering about how behind they are… just say you dont know anything.
figure out how to make commercially viable solid state batteries
Yeah, and where are they? Talk is cheap. Show me a shipping product with these solid state batteries.
Lots of companies claim lots of things and rarely do they ever deliver fully. The proof right now is in the pudding and as of today, the only full EV offering they are selling is hot garbage.
Show you a product that has these??? Nobody on planet earth has these yet… you are just assuming because they dont have it yet that they wont. I dont work for Toyota but i know it takes a long time to pivot manufacturing. The BZ and NZ are their first foray into the EV market chill out.
https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/06/Toyota-EV-battery-tech-3.jpeg?resize=1024,248
*Nobody on planet earth has these yet
Yeah, that’s the whole damn point! Until they are shipping actual product it is all just smoke and mirrors.
Who knew there were so many clueless Toyota fanboys on Lemmy?! lol
Ignorance must be bliss amirite? Ill smash that like button and give you 10 thumbs up 👍
deleted by creator
Costs too much. Range is atrocious. Charge speed is shit. Interior is just god awful, and the exterior is hideous.
You can “trust” them all you want, I guess.
A corolla isn’t as prestigious as an Audi, it doesn’t have as many features for the price as a Kia would have, it isn’t as fast as a BMW or as luxurious as a Mercedes.
After 10-15 years all those other cars will be off the road, most likely due to needing repairs that cost more than the vehicle is worth. The corolla will still be as boring and plain and dependable as it was when it rolled out of the factory.
I loudly bemoaned Toyota’s glacial development of BEV products, but I presume that they ultimately made the right call to release a good vehicle late to market rather than rush to market with a vehicle that would tarnish their reputation for reliability.
I’m happy to wait for a Toyota EV that costs more and has lower "performance " figures than a Korean or American equivalent.
Just because they didn’t take the tesla route of claiming 500miles but only deliver half of ut in the real world? They set on hybrids, which you know, has batteries and electric motors as well. Then they use that knowlege to make an EV that isn’t just shit.
I would love to care but my magic 8 ball says “80k dollar+ crossover SUV” so, meh.
Wonder what ludicrous range will get folks to buy an EV for their 20 miles of total driving in a day
Yeah but a car with ludicrous range used for short commutes gets less stress on the battery than a car with a smaller battery since you need to charge it less often and don’t even need to charge it to 80-100%. Which means the battery will still have very good range when the car enters the used market.
Not to mention the few times a year people typically go on holiday, during which time the range actually does get used.
Not all of us are living in and near a city. Those properties are very expensive, and becoming less affordable each year. For those of us with longer commutes, and especially those of us with only one car and with family and friends further away, range is really important. We like to take weekend trips away, and unfortunately an EV (long range Model 3) adds about 30% travel time to the trip. I’ve rented them several times to see if it’s worth the change but it’s not. Yet. The future of battery tech is bright.
Yeah im nowhere near a city
The 1% trips drive sales. With a gas car I can drive 300 miles and then find fuel anywhere and get another 300 miles. Most of the time I don’t make those long trips, but I do a few times per year.
This is a wild realization. Like I don’t need to go 300+ miles more then once a year or so but I WANT THE OPTION TO.
Realistically - give me a 100 mile range cheap good EV and let me rent something for the rare road trip.
Have you priced the cost of a rental car? It quickly is cheaper to just buy a car for allowed trips.
Before I bought mine, I decided if there’s enough coverage by charging networks then the occasional long trip doesn’t matter.
If you don’t have enough range to cover your regular trips, that’s a pain. Those yearly trips, though? It’s okay if they take a little bit longer. Stretching your legs every couple of hours makes for a nicer trip anyway.
If you add up all the times that you charge while you’re asleep instead of diverting and stopping at a filling station, you probably save time overall with an EV, even with half hour charging stops on long trips.
If you only have 100 miles range then there isn’t enough chargers. Even if you have 300 you have to check where chargers are, as unlike gas stations chargers are not everywhere - yet. In 20 years I expect driving a gas car on those long trips mean check for where gas is first.
Yeah other places have things like trains for the longer trips
Maybe ,it depends on where you are going. Trains are good where they go, but most trips don’t have that option. Even in Europe try getting from Italy to Sweden, a distance - this distance is much less than how far I have to go to visit some relatives. And since i’m driving my whole family goes for one price (the cost of plane tickets for my family mean I don’t fly often)
You can definitely take the train from Italy to Sweden. This summer we took the train back and forth from Denmark to Italy, with children.
You do realise people go on holiday, right?
Yeah so do people with EVs. And people without cars in places sane enough to have public transit.
Yeah, EVs that have decent enough range for a road trip, and good luck catching a bus to a remote campsite with all your gear.
You can easily cut the range of an EV in half by towing etc, a vehicle like this will still have decent range even when towing.
How much towing and camping do you do
A few trips a year, typically. This can be a few hundred KM one way though.
And if I’m buying a brand new vehicle, I’d expect it to be able to do something my existing vehicle does.
I’m in a strange position where I pretty much only use my car for long trips. I would love to switch to an EV, but I’m not really sure when it will make sense as I’m only putting ~3000 miles on it per year.
I drive about 90 miles in a regular work day, up to 150miles to 250miles at least once a week throughout the summer.
I would maybe feel comfortable once the ranges reach double that to make sure I can get there and back if I don’t quite have a full charge, so 500 miles is probably my minimum requirement just so I can do my job.
You don’t need all the extra range if you have charging network coverage to bail you out, though. If you could just stop for 20 minutes and add two hundred miles whenever you needed to, then you only need the range to cover your regular travel. 350 miles should be fine.
My company probably won’t be a fan of paying for me to sit around for 20 minutes waiting for a charge when I should be working
I can’t imagine twenty minutes once a week being a huge deal.
It’s great news. Sadly Toyota has been a laggard and opposed electric cars until they can clear their hybrid line…
Step 1 make hybrid Step 2 sell aggressively and push back against full electric vehicle manufacturing Step 3 ??? Step 4 profit
Then go back and sell the electric vehicles and embrace your consumer fanbase on how you have pivoted to being a environmentally loving and caring corporation… aaaah so warm and fuzzy
I wonder how many will be left buying new internal combustion engine cars in 2030?
charging an ev with electricity produced through a fossil fuel plant is just a gas car with extra steps. also the price tag of 40k$ isn’t really enticing, especially when the car isn’t eco-friendly.
Is not and you know it. Stop
is not
proof ? no, i dont know it
It’s pretty much known that using an electric car, even if the electricity comes from a fossil fuel plant is far, far, more environmentally friendly than internal combustion engines. Sure, it’s not the perfect ideal, but it is a significant step in the right direction. Bringing up fossil fuel burned to make electricity as a deterrent to electrical car adoption is disingenuous at best.
Also it sets the stage to replace the electricity source with nuclear or renewable sources. It’s a lot easier to replace a single generating facility then millions of private cars.
There’s also home solar panels to consider. I imagine there’s a significant overlap between people who have EVs and people who have solar panels.
i wouldnt argue. A solar plant would make all the sense. Also nuclear is finite, might as well skip it (fission, not fusion)
disingenuous
ofc. i dont plan on convincing u either. people with a reasonable mind would judge my opinion based on scientific facts, not by sentiment. sure a Tesla is cooler when u can drive 40km for 1$, while a 30mpg gasoline car would cost three times as much to cover the same distance. But piggybacking on cheap utility electricity isnt a valid reason to act like u r preserving the environement. u bought an Ev because it were cheaper to run, albeit the higher costs to be paid upfront
Sorry bud. I bought a used Leaf for about $11k a good 5-6 years ago. I’m poor as shit.
sorry i was talking about Tesla. no offense but also a leaf with a 24kwh isnt enough for battery, and charging at 0.5$/kwh and beyond isnt viable really. maybe u should have studied the running costs in ur location, including the electrical utility prices etc…(40km for 1$ thats with 0.13$/kwh in the us, 90km with 21kwh in a Tesla(222wh/km), so prices arent the same everywhere)
Who cares why they bought it. We don’t run on values. You are a nonsense talker.
Facts have vanquished you. Now begone troll
If we are talking solely about power usage from the grid then, even in the worst case scenarios, EVs are much cleaner than ICE vehicles.
For example, the average gas car emits around 441g or about .972 pounds worth of CO2 per mile.
For comparison purposes, let’s take the most popular EV currently sold right now which is the model 3 long range as our test case. This car in the worst conditions (cold) goes around 240 miles (a far cry from the 300+ it’s advertised to have I might add) and uses 72kWh to do so. This means, in the worst case scenario, the car is using .3kWh of battery per mile.
Now for the power plant. Let’s use coal as our power source. Coal power emits approximately 2.26 pounds of CO2 per KWh produced. If we take our numbers from earlier, then the model 3 driving in the cold results in .678 pounds of co2 per mile being emitted at the power plant if it is charged using coal power. This is still about 30% less emissions than the ICE vehicle per mile. If the car was powered by natural gas then the percentage grows to around 70%.
Of course there are other factors involved such as other pollutants emitted during power productions (especially when burning coal). However, a lot of these are also produced by ICE vehicles. It’s much easier to have centralized sources of pollution rather than millions of them spread out over the place. Another thing to note is that EVs take more emissions to produce, but is mostly offset over the lifespan of the vehicles due to their low maintenance. EV batteries can also be recycled, though they are usually used in power storage instead of new vehicles.
i am not doubting the calculations, but see ? Evs only save 30% on emissions, what about the rest of 66% ? the purpose of EVs is to save the environment thou, right ? if Evs were powered by a solar plant, that would be a cool 0% of emissions. and that would be really nice. Also u dont want to depend on countries like russia for fossil fuel, be it gas or coal, or have to invade african countries for their uranium. instead solar is a more sustainable form of energy
30% is better than nothing and for the majority of people that number would be much higher (different power mixes and climates). It’s not like power plans have to be converted before we switch to EVs or vice versa. We should be doing everything we can to reduce emissions whether that is making new solar power plants or switching from ICE vehicles to electric.
I will add that EVs don’t actually solve the problem and other solutions like increasing public transportation and shifting away from car culture would have a much greater impact overall. The purpose of EVs wasn’t to “save the environment”, but to sell people more new, expensive vehicles with the illusion that they will save the environment while lining the pockets of those who helped to destroy it. They do help and something is better than nothing, but it still isn’t enough.
but to sell people more new, expensive vehicles with the illusion that they will save the environment while lining the pockets of those who helped to destroy it. They do help and something is better than nothing, but it still isn’t enough.
now we agree, but its a step in the right direction. just people should stop pretending they are saving the environment when buying Evs, thats just hypocrite. electric trains powered by solar should also subtitute airplanes, and electric buses are also less polluting…
Don’t make claims if you’re not even going to take the 15 seconds to do a search to verify.
what should i be researching ?
Evs save only 30% on emissions compared to a gas car. but ok 👍
Where energy is produced isn’t the same problem as emissions by vehicles. EVs aren’t meant to address emissions of power production, they’re meant to reduce demand for fossil fuels to aide in shifting to carbon neutral alternatives.
$40k for a new car is on par for their ICE offerings, especially something like a 4Runner
they’re meant to reduce demand for fossil fuels to aide in shifting to carbon neutral alternatives.
that way i ll keep rocking my 10k$ mk6 diesel running without dpf or adblue from the other side of the planet, until a carbon neutral alternative is figured out
This is your “scientific approach”? You don’t adopt something new because it costs more than something that is already old? Well, good thing that in 10 years there will be plenty of cheap EVs. Using the tech of today, which you claim is not figured out now.
But what about the second time you charge it?
Don’t think he knows about second charge, Pip.
Whatever any claim is, wait until it hits the market to believe.
Toyota wasted time with hydrogen so have catching up to do.
a car with 260kwh pack weighing 1.7 tons would charge at 300kw from 10% to 80% in 20 min and give 800km mileage. A car with two 300 kw plugs would charge in 10 minutes instead
