[RahulNagaraj]

According to a report, Toyota claims that the decision made by its rival carmakers to transition into a full-EV brand is a mistake & could not only be a "bad" business decision but also bad for the environment. Toyota says it has data to prove the claims made.

Toyota's Chief Scientist, Gill Pratt, mentions how it makes more sense for car brands to explore and offer vehicles with different energy sources like hybrids & hydrogen, rather than concentrating on EVs alone. Pratt states that although EVs don't produce any emissions, it comes down to the availability of lithium used to produce the battery packs on EVs.



He predicts that the auto industry will soon face a shortage of lithium and many other minerals required for the production of battery packs. He also added that with the number of EVs skyrocketing in demand, there would also be a lack of charging facilities. With the limited amount of lithium available, it makes better sense to share the mineral between hybrid vehicles. Pratt stated that producing millions of hybrid vehicles will have a better impact on CO2 output than creating a smaller number of pure EVs from the same quantity of lithium.

Gill Pratt also outlined a hypothetical model considering a fleet of 100 combustion vehicles emitting a combined total of 250 g/km of CO2. A fixed quantity of lithium, if used entirely to make a 100 kWh battery, will power one long-range EV, but the remaining 99 vehicles in the fleet will still be ICE-powered, bringing the CO2 emission down to just 248.5 g/km. However, if the same amount of lithium is spread across 90 traditional hybrids, leaving 10 pure ICE-powered cars - the average CO2 emissions drop down to 205 g/km.

Source: Automotive news

Link to Team-BHP news

[grshnehete]

Every other manufacturer has its own claims. Nobody is sure what the automobile future will hold. Even manufacturers are confused.

But its a valid point about the lithium shortage and unavailability of charging facilities.
Imagine in a country like our's, if people just switched to EV's, there will be jams on the roads just by queue's of cars waiting for their turn to get charged which will take more than 40-50 mins to 80% charged.

I have seen people queuing up on roads to fill in CNG, which takes 5 mins to fill and are still negligible % of total car sales.

Hybrids are the best solution for now, which doesn't comes with range anxiety, good mileage and do not require expensive infrastructure for charging

[Raghu M]

And I totally agree with Toyota. Not all countries produce electricity from natural resources. Let alone other, India is still reliant on coal for majority of it's energy requirement. So, why burn coal to create something that is greener? I don't believe that EVs will take over even in the next 2 decades. They will stay and maybe play a second fiddle but not replace the regular cars/vehicles. I know the debate is a hot one but it's just too much process vs. pull out from rig and burn.

[amartya_bhp]

Totally on the same side as Toyota, specially in a country like India, which is yet to come up to global standards for ICE cars (in terms of infrastructure, model availability, road network, educated drivers, the list can go on), promoting EV centric policies is like committing Hara-Kiri. I think traditional Hybrids, PHEVs should be promoted by the govt so that people also do not need to invest into two cars - one for long drives and one for city rides!

[The Rationalist]

Neither the government nor Toyota can decide what people want. The consumer will decide what’s best for him and that will decide the future. If the price of EV’s becomes comparable to ICE cars, people will jump enmass to EV’s. For someone like me, that will amount to a savings of atleast ₹1.5 lakh/year in fuel expenses. I will buy EV not for love of environment, but just because that’s more economical for me. For the vast majority that will be the reason. Why would I pay ₹10/km for ICE, ₹4/km for hybrid etc if I can run EV at ₹1.5/km? I never travel more than 500 kms/day, if needed to travel that much I take a train or flight, so the costly DC charging also isn’t a consideration. Toyota can bring out ‘n’ number of studies, but for the average person it all comes down to economics!

[Livnletcarsliv]

At least now I am happy that one the greatest auto brands in the world has the same perception about going full on EVs.
EVs cannot become mainstream vehicles 100% for multiple reasons, couple of reasons are already mentioned here.

Originally Posted by The Rationalist

Neither the government nor Toyota can decide what people want. The consumer will decide what’s best for him and that will decide the future. If the price of EV’s becomes comparable to ICE cars, people will jump enmass to EV’s. For someone like me, that will amount to a savings of atleast ₹1.5 lakh/year in fuel expenses. I will buy EV not for love of environment, but just because that’s more economical for me. For the vast majority that will be the reason. Why would I pay ₹10/km for ICE, ₹4/km for hybrid etc if I can run EV at ₹1.5/km? I never travel more than 500 kms/day, if needed to travel that much I take a train or flight, so the costly DC charging also isn’t a consideration. Toyota can bring out ‘n’ number of studies, but for the average person it all comes down to economics!

I totally disagree here. I humbly request and recommend you read a lot more about EVs. The idea of EVs in the first place is not about economics at all. If it is only about economics, EVs should not sell at all (even in India) given its high purchasing cost and the battery replacement cost.

[deehunk]

I agree with Toyota's claims, it is foolish to switch completely to EVs as they can hardly reduce the percentage of pollution. Hybrid vehicles are well suited for the Indian mentality and promoting hybrid engines designed for dual fuels augurs well for the future.

[kosjam]

What everybody is overlooking in this propaganda piece is that none of the automakers Toyota accuses of planning to go EV exclusive, are saying they are going to do so in the near future. Everybody gives a ballpark figure of around late 2030s by when they might go full EV.

Even in the Indian context, by 2030, the government expects only 30% of the total new car sales to be EV.

The point here is we cannot be like the person who says he will enter the swimming pool ONLY after he is an accomplished swimmer. Baby steps are required. In that I will laud Tata Motors and Mahindra for having a clear vision, with their generations of EVs, and a roadmap into the next half a decade or so.

Toyota's CEO (who recently stepped down) has always had an anti EV stand for reasons best known to him, because none of the publicly held opinions have stood the test of time.
They still keep harping on and on, about the hydrogen bandwagon, but the truth is, that hydrogen is only feasible for very large consumers, which have fixed runs, such as the Indian railways for example, and trucks/buses running on the trunk routes, where onsite green hydrogen production is financially viable.
Everything else is pure hogwash...

[GrammarNazi]

This entire quote in India’s Economic Survey likely sums up how the emerging world feels about environmental issues right now.



Just like powering the basic lighting points of a house through a UPS is crucial, developing an EV infrastructure is important so that the country doesn't find itself at the complete mercy of OPEC when it comes to reducing energy dependence.

Yes, they're bad for the environment, but it might become necessary as leverage (however small), especially in a de-globalising (& increasingly polarised) world. EV adoption by China has made the world realise that this is an actual alternative.

It cannot(/must not) be done by the Govt alone, they need the private sector to participate and develop the basic foundational infrastructure for EVs, on which the nation can have an alternate energy source for contingencies (or emergencies). Trust EV adoption is NOT as much about climate change, as much as it is about energy security.

[COMMUTER]

Kudos to Toyota for rightly pointing out the obvious misgivings of this battery car dogma. Toyota is seeing through the false propaganda of EVs which is designed to funnel more wealth to th Chinese who are responsible for over a third of the pollution of the entire world.

If the purported environmentalists are really focussing on reducing 'global' pollution,they must have raised flags against shipping and air travel before peering at people's cars. They would have advocated local production and called for avoiding the gruesome shipping of mined and finished materials which is benefitting china.

Rest of the automotive world must follow Toyota and make the world a really safer place to be in future because there is no by passing the good old saying, "get woke, go broke".

[aim120]

Originally Posted by kosjam

Toyota's CEO (who recently stepped down) has always had an anti EV stand for reasons best known to him, because none of the publicly held opinions have stood the test of time.

Its really simple Job loss, just think about all the suppliers that make parts that go into making a ICE car from engine to transmission parts to emission parts.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...es-jobs-japan/

Toyoda himself talked about the job loss.
https://auto.hindustantimes.com/auto...223681803.html

I remember watching a news report couple of years back where the Japanese government itself was pushing for delay of EV transition by Japanese car makers, again due to massive job loss.

[Contrapunto]

I have heard it said that EVs are “guilt-free rather than pollution-free”. And the concern on whether the grid or support systems are ready is also a valid one. Remember that mighty California asked citizens not to charge their EVs last year to not overload the grid !!

I think government should enable but should not actively “promote favourites or pick sides”. Let the market competitions play out. Maybe a better technology or a very different, innovative battery chemistry will emerge over the next 5 years. In the meanwhile, anyone who wants to but a low-risk hybrid or PHEV should go ahead and do just that.

[kosjam]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

,they must have raised flags against shipping and air travel before peering at people's cars. They would have advocated local production and called for avoiding the gruesome shipping of mined and finished materials which is benefitting china.

I have no issue with people having opinions different from mine, but i would like to point out a small error in your statement. Focussing on Shipping: while a large producer of global emissions (yes, i did not say polluter) is one of the greenest modes of transport, especially of cargo per tonne-mile of cargo shipped and carbon released.

Almost everything we use in our daily lives is shipped from different places. Your phone from the far east, the electricity you use, from Australia and the internet we all use, is a product of the west. (While it is not directly shipped from the west, the outsourcing of manufacturing to the far east freed up West's resources to be able to invent the internet)

Carbon emission was a necessary step in technological advancement, and the next step in the evolution is carbon control / capture, not stopping carbon consumption. That will come further down the line.

So calling shipping a major polluter is a bit excessive in my opinion.
Yes, I am a tiny cog in the maritime industry, so calling it evil (paraphrasing) hurts, especially when it is not true...

[krishnakarthik1]

In my view, instead of putting so much time, energy and human talent into making electric vehicles one should put that in making petrol engines which give a mileage of minimum 50 kmpl.

Then you don't destroy Africa for Lithium mining. You don't make the world dependent on China for batteries. You don't jeopardise world safety by making those oil producing countries irrelevant. And you save environment.

All parties win.

[PratikPatel]

Originally Posted by krishnakarthik1

In my view, instead of putting so much time, energy and human talent into making electric vehicles one should put that in making petrol engines which give a mileage of minimum 50 kmpl.

Law of diminishing returns is now a factor in future development of IC engines. IC engines have terrible energy efficiencies by virtue of the way they are designed to work and that’s not going to change over the next 50/75 years. Ultimately, IC engines will need to be replaced with a more efficient propulsion system.

Currently, we are at that juncture of time which could be equated to mid 19th century where steam power was at its zenith & IC engines were still in their infancy. By early 20th century steam power had reached a saturation point, the low hanging fruits that gave quantum leaps in performance and development were no longer there, hence the development of IC engines which had plenty of low hanging fruits to pick became dominant.