[satyamkolhe]

I honestly doubt the future of EV in its current form. Specially for countries with high population density like India.
I am mostly travelling in the Mumbai-Pune-Nasik triangle and occasionally do long trips but never have I ever seen a petol Pump empty even on highways. And considering the fact that EV take a lot longer to charge as compared to refilling fuel, the charging infrastructure along the major highways and expressways needs to be a lot better and denser than the current Fuel Station infrastructure. In cities it can be managed because people can just charge at their homes. Setting up that infrastructure will take some time, money and a lot of creativity. And even then the time taken to charge the vehicles increases the journey times a lot which no one really likes.

Agreed that with EVs people can charge at home, but with current range it is difficult to go out of city without proper planning and it increases the hassles.

Battery swapping technology can be used but it will take a long time for infrastructure to be set up and also to standardize the battery swapping technology.(If the government is even thinking about it).

[sharathkamath04]

Originally Posted by vamsi.vadrevu

It has been about 15 years since Tesla released Model S. And battery tech has truly improved at a rapid rate since then. But the charging infrastructure has not improved at such rate. Even if the EVs reach price parity with ICE vehicles, the inconvenience of long charging time will heavily weigh down EV adaptation.

I've not seen the super capacitor quick charging that was promised some 5 or 6 years ago that Tesla acquired.

Fast charging still seems to be a work in progress for everybody. Even Tesla DC fast charging speeds are nothing to write home about.

Looking at all these, I've taken the plunge and bought ICE car despite being an absolute fanatic about EV technology. I truly believe locomotion should be via electric motors. They're the most efficient way to convert energy into motion.

Hybrid seems like the best middle ground. Current Hybrid powertrains already use electric motors for locomotion but power it with a generator run by ICE. This is how diesel locomotives used to work too. I had always wondered why that tech wasn't made available to cars. After having felt the constant, relentless, brutal acceleration of an electric motor, one would always crave that!

And it would be even better if Ethanol or fuel cell electric cars become mainstream. They have none of the disadvantages of BEVs but all the advantages of current ICE vehicles.

Fast charging in 10min will result in battery life degradation which is not negligible with today's battery tech. It will take a decade more to have such a setup.

But do we need 10 minutes of fast charging? I drive an EV with a 300km real-world range. I have done up to 500km daily, by ensuring my breakfast and lunch time coincides with charging time. With more vehicles on the road, we are observing charging infra multiply at a very high rate.

yes, today we need to spend time on planning, and looking at plugshare to plot chargers and backups for the trip. But is buying an EV worth it?

Totally yes. Its smooth run, low noise, lowest cost, quick acceleration, and zero vibration driving experience with the fact that I am not burning fuel & emitting gases makes it a worthy experience.

[KeepItSimple]

There is a misconception that the Japanese are not favourable to BEVs.

The Nissan sakura a kei car with a range of about 180 km is a runaway bestseller in Japan. It is somewhat similar to the mg comet but with better ergonomics and build quality. This has a 20 kW battery, the comet has a 17kw battery.

Nissan have stopped talking orders as they are unable to meet the demand.

This highlights the difference of opinion between the public and the Japanese automakers.

The public would like a small BEVs with low cost and good quality and are prepared to spend money on this.

The automakers are unwilling to make mass market BEVs with small efficient battery packs currently.

Mahindra took over the Reva and closed it. There is a demand for pre owned Reva currently.

The quest for profits are pushing the market for larger battery pack size in BEVs which increase the weight, costs to the public. The optimum battery size between cost, weight and range is yet to be worked out.

Maruti Suzuki is working on a series range extender for their small cars to overcome the charging anxiety for BEVs.

The future for India with a huge oil import bill is for electric mobility.

This where a disrupter in the automobile market is going to make a difference going forward.

The Bajaj Qute EV is an example of the smaller two and three wheeler makers scaling up which can disrupt the mobility market.

My 2cents!

[DIY410]

Toyota CEO said that, if Japanese automakers start making only EVs, it would cause 5.5 million people to be without jobs in Japan. There was even a news report a few years back about the Japanese government not wanting to push for EV because that would lead to a political suicide for the party in power in Japan.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by TorqueIndia

However, if we replace it with 90 traditional #hybrids, leaving 10 pure ICE-powered cars - the average CO2 emissions will still be 205 g/km.

Now imagine the cost and pollution in manufacturing of those 90 #HEVs vs 20 BEVs !

This is the biggest flaw with 1:6:90 is that it is hyper fixated on the battery capacity, not the vehicle emissions.

90 hybrids will still use 90x the steel, aluminium, glass and plastics as one EV.

90 hybrids can never be cleaner than one EV. Their comparison only counts battery capacity, assuming it to be supply constrained (which it is not) such that it can either make 1 EV or 90 hybrids.

Looking at the , considering the XC40 EV and ICE model, the EV incurs 18 ton production emissions while the ICE model incurs 14 ton

If you adjust total emissions, that’s 1 hybrid = 0.7 EV or the emissions of making 7 EVs is same as making 10 hybrids.

Suddenly, it’s no longer 1 vs 90. Both the EV and hybrid have common emissions worth 14 tons just for the steel, aluminium, glass and plastics.

Applying their own math to a 100 car fleet with 250g/km

CASE 1 : we can replace all cars with 100 hybrids and have 200g/km CAFE

OR

CASE 2 : We can replace 70 cars with EVs (for same carbon emissions as 100 hybrids) and leave the 30 ICE cars as is.

In this case avg emission is 30x250 + 70x0 = 75g/km CAFE

[Chrome6Boy]

Originally Posted by KeepItSimple

There is a misconception that the Japanese are not favourable to BEVs.

The Nissan sakura a kei car with a range of about 180 km is a runaway bestseller in Japan. It is somewhat similar to the mg comet but with better ergonomics and build quality. This has a 20 kW battery, the comet has a 17kw battery.

!

I recently visited Japan and Korea, and I saw no EVs in Japan, and also no EV public chargers either.

I might even say Chennai has more EVs than Tokyo based on my observations!

Whereas Korea has wholeheartedly adopted EVs. There are a lot of Ioniq taxis, Konas and many many Teslas.

[ruskinash]

This could provide some insight into the Japanese approach to doing things.

https://youtu.be/hyPUSX02lIQ?si=5yQEoweiRFEZKxQ3

[EV Fan]

Voted for BEV.
AS a person looking for ease of driving & efficiency, between an ICE automatic like CVT, strong hybrid & BEV, there is just no competition. BEV outshines.

Hybrid's can compete with ICE automatics but not BEV's.

Plug in hybrids seem like a stop gap and an attempt to squeeze in best of both world's but ending with something that has worst of both. It would be my pick only over an ICE only if BEV never existed in the market.


On a macro level, it seems the industry is just trying to slow the R&D & possibly growth of Battery tech due to old vested interests in ICE technology.

R&D on battery tech was a fraction of that on ICE's or even hardware/software of electronics/chips.
The surge of improvement could go a long way and could have cascading improvements in other fields like consumer electronics, and not just stay limited to cars.

[kiku007]

Subaru, Toyota and Mazda have come together and released the below ,

Subaru, Toyota, and Mazda have each committed to developing new engines tailored to electrification and the pursuit of carbon neutrality. With these engines, each of the three companies will aim to optimize integration with motors, batteries, and other electric drive units. While transforming vehicle packaging with more compact engines, these efforts will also decarbonize ICEs by making them compatible with various carbon-neutral (CN) fuels (Fuels with net zero CO2 emissions into the atmosphere across their lifecycle, from manufacture to use. These include e-fuel, made from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and biofuels derived from biomass (plants, etc.).).

In pursuing decarbonization, all three companies have focused on carbon as the enemy and sought to expand options by acting with passion and purpose. This mindset has driven efforts to ensure a future for the supply chains and jobs that underpin engines. Under the extreme conditions of racing, the companies have worked to broaden powertrain and fuel options by competing with vehicles running on liquid hydrogen and CN fuels.

This process has clarified the role that future engines will play in achieving carbon neutrality. With the next generation of engines, the three companies will seek to not only improve standalone engine performance but also optimize their integration with electric drive units, harnessing the advantages of each.

While being highly efficient and powerful, the new engines will also revolutionize vehicle packaging by being more compact than existing models. Smaller engines will allow for even lower hoods, improving design possibilities and aerodynamic performance while contributing to better fuel efficiency. The development will also emphasize compliance with increasingly strict emissions regulations.

At the same time, the new engines will be made carbon neutral by shifting away from fossil fuels and offering compatibility with various alternatives, including e-fuel (synthetic fuel), biofuels, and liquid hydrogen. In doing so, these engines will contribute to the broader adoption of CN fuels.

Upon this announcement, the CEOs of the three companies made the following comments:
"Achieving a carbon-neutral society is a challenge that must be undertaken by all of Japan's industries and society as a whole. As we continue to refine electrification technology, we will also enhance our horizontally-opposed engines with an aim to use carbon-neutral fuels in the future. Moving forward, the three companies sharing the same aspiration will continue to advance the pursuit of sustainable excellence in Japanese car manufacturing."
(Atsushi Osaki, Representative Director, President and CEO, Subaru Corporation)

"In order to provide our customers with diverse options to achieve carbon neutrality, it is necessary to take on the challenge of evolving engines that are in tune with the energy environment of the future. The three companies, which share the same aspirations, will refine engine technologies through friendly competition."
(Koji Sato, President, Member of the Board of Directors and CEO, Toyota Motor Corporation)

"We will continue to offer customers exciting cars by honing internal combustion engines for the electrification era and expanding the multi-pathway possibilities for achieving carbon neutrality. Given the rotary engine's compatibility with electrification and carbon-neutral fuels, Mazda will continue to develop the technology through co-creation and competition to ensure it can contribute broadly to society."
(Masahiro Moro, Representative Director, President and CEO, Mazda Motor Corporation)

Even as Subaru, Toyota, and Mazda compete in the product arena with unique engines and cars, the companies have a shared dedication to achieving carbon neutrality through a multi-pathway approach. Together with like-minded partners similarly skilled and passionate about engines, they will work to create the future of Japan's auto industry.

Source: https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/co.../40850156.html

Personally I believe BEVs to be only a part of the solution to the climate crisis and not the only solution. It'll be interesting to see the actual output of the above partnership.

[PreludeSH]

Not sure the current demand for EVs necessitates one to enter the market. One day it might but is far off. There are lot of problems that need to be solved for that to happen in terms of price and infrastructure.

I don't think getting into EVs would be a great technological challenge either. They will keep investing to perfect and use the latest batteries, motors etc but not at scale needed for market penetration.

[SKC-auto]

including e-fuel (synthetic fuel), biofuels, and liquid hydrogen

Efuels and Hydrogen are very costly, does not work for normal cars, E fuels may be for motorsports, Liquid Hydrogen are they even serious.

Biofuels may be useful but totally unnecessary for cars, they can be used for Aircraft and Ships.

This partnership is nothing but a cartel to resist EVs.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by kiku007

these efforts will also decarbonize ICEs by making them compatible with various carbon-neutral (CN) fuels (Fuels with net zero CO2 emissions into the atmosphere across their lifecycle, from manufacture to use. These include e-fuel, made from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and biofuels derived from biomass (plants, etc.).).

The E in e fuels comes from the electricity running the carbon capture machines, which is the biggest bottleneck of E fuels.

In addition to that, the Hydrogen needed for e fuel synthesis also made from splitting water into H2 and O2 from electrolysis itself. Else using grey or black hydrogen kills purpose of e fuels.

Some people make the assertion that EVs will break the grid. I see absolute overlap in the people who propose e fuel and hydrogen as the solution.

Allow me to do some math for this group.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/commen...els_76_kwh_of/

Before counting the 25kWh electricity needed for the 0.5kg H2 needed as input, we still need 20kWh for production of per litre of efuel.

For 20kWh, Tiago EV can drive 150km (real range)

1 litre of e fuel will still not increase the mileage, as only production methods differ, not fuel or its combustion itself. Best case, 20km from 1 litre of e fuel in Tiago petrol.

I fail to see how we can supply 20kWh electricity to an e fuel production ultimately driving merely 20km compared to charging an EV driving 150km on same energy. If EVs break the grid, e fuel destroys it to the core since it uses 7.5x more electricity to travel same distance.



That also ties into the pricing of the fuel. After all, the final product can never be cheaper than the sum of its parts. In this case being the $36/kg hydrogen and $3.5 for the electricity needed for e fuel. Before counting any profits or transportation or distribution, that alone makes up $20/litre for e fuel.

Well, the math check out as it happens : https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/tran...sso_ott=D2rGO3

The cost of producing synthetic gasoline from green hydrogen and CO2 captured from the atmosphere could fall from €50 (53.80) per litre today

It costs double when you factor profit and other overheads. At in the end, it won’t even solve local pollution in cities as the ICE engine using e fuel makes one and same emissions as ICE engine using fossil fuel.

While being highly efficient and powerful, the new engines will also revolutionize vehicle packaging by being more compact than existing models.

It will still remain an ICE car at end of day and the efficiency will not exceed that of Carnot cycle. Merely changing how the FUEL is MADE will not impact the efficiency of the engine itself.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg...ndex=1&pp=iAQB

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egTCIy...ndex=2&pp=iAQB

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Efuels and Hydrogen are very costly, does not work for normal cars, E fuels may be for motorsports, Liquid Hydrogen are they even serious.

This partnership is nothing but a cartel to resist EVs.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

The E in e fuels comes from the electricity running the carbon capture machines, which is the biggest bottleneck of E fuels.

Thanks for the detailed analysis. Appreciate it.

I would like to share my thoughts which are beyond the scope of this specific thread.

Are companies exclusively promoting BEVs really holier than companies that sell a range of powertrain options?
I suppose the primary purpose of any business or business partnership is to make profits and they will do anything they can to protect their interests. I don't see any difference between Tesla and Toyota on that aspect. I'm not entirely convinced on the implied narrative that EV carmakers are going to save the world, while companies like Toyota are probably going to destroy it. Why is Tesla selling Carbon credits to other carmakers? For $.

If we take a holistic approach to sustainability, then cars like the Cybertruck and Hummer EV represent consumerism dressed up in a nice, greenwashed wrapper.

Both Toyota and Tesla are corporate entities feeding our consumerist desires. IMHO one is not holier than the other.

When will the world be ready for 100% BEVs?
I really wonder about the below,

• Which year will the last fossil fuel powered personal car be sold in this world?
• Which year will the last fossil fuel powered personal car stop operating in this world?

I think we are a long way away from achieving 100% electrification of personal cars. Don't get me wrong. I would like it to happen. I'm just questioning the time it will take to get there. The market needs other options until then. I agree that e-fuels are prohibitively expensive now. However, I don't mind if companies invest in exploring alternative technologies such as e-fuels and possibly even find a breakthrough.

Reliable, comfortable and cost-effective public transport running on renewable energy > personal cars.
I believe governments should focus on improving and incentivizing public transport to encourage people to move away from their cars to using public transport (powered by renewables), rather than forcing individuals to replace their ICE cars to BEVs. The former is better than the latter.

The Queensland government in Australia recently announced a 6-month trial in which all public transport in the state will only cost 50 cents/trip, irrespective of the distance. Basically, it’s free!! They need to charge the 50 cents to make people tap-on/tap-off to gather usage metrics. The announcement is closely linked to the upcoming election and to provide relief to people from the increasing cost of living. Regardless, I’m keen to look into the data that comes from this trial.

The government is expected to spend $150 million for this trial. I suppose that’s worth it considering the positive outcomes. This could force people to think before taking their car keys. The current infrastructure needs to be upgraded, and I hope the increased patronage will justify the investments in this area.

If you are living in an emerging market like India, really think about what your government should be focusing on. Forcing you to replace your perfectly good 10 yo diesel/15 yo petrol car or focus on providing you with good public transportation.

Final thoughts:
The industry and policy makers have traditionally gaslit the automobile community by letting us argue around petrol vs. diesel or BEVs vs Hybrids etc. I want automakers to provide the best powertrain options that they can possibly provide and let people buy what suits their use case. A Tesla Model 3 / BYD Seal is a no-brainer choice for the inner city and a turbo-diesel Toyota Landcruiser is a more practical and efficient option for the outback in the near future.

The top-selling Tesla Model Y is now cheaper than a Toyota RAV4 Hybrid in Australia after the third price cut in two months. Did people see that coming? Don't write off the Japanese automakers as yet.

[SKC-auto]

I have no issues with the questions you have raised, below are my thoughts.

Let Toyota do what they wanted to do, as in a business everyone has their strategies which may also include lobbying govt officials, threatening countries, filing cases against States, introducing study material for small children, paying for sham studies. Just don't say Tata is crying when they lobby against Hybrids.

Yes, public transport is the best, we should move to public transport that too electric where ever this is feasible.

Yes, cybertruck and hummer EVs are stupid idea, just like the Toyota Mirai. We should make our cars smaller, then again somebody will say give the user what they want, who are we to stop someone buying a CT or Hummer.

Why H2 and E fuels are hailed as next big thing when the actual solution is seen with lots of scepticism. The questions which, I or Shresth raised are technical, how does H2, E fuels, Liquid H2 are a climate solution for cars?

Giving choice to users is fine, but those choices should be compatible with our climate goals, I don't know how Efuels, H2 or Hybrids fit in this goal.

[wocanak]

Originally Posted by kiku007

I think we are a long way away from achieving 100% electrification of personal cars. Don't get me wrong. I would like it to happen. I'm just questioning the time it will take to get there. The market needs other options until then. I agree that e-fuels are prohibitively expensive now. However, I don't mind if companies invest in exploring alternative technologies such as e-fuels and possibly even find a breakthrough.

If it is taking time to switch to 100% electric, then it is best to continue with existing ICE cars, ICE technology (including hybrids) and ICE infrastructure instead of fundamentally flawed alternatives like e-fuels/hydrogen (as explained by SKC-Auto and Shresth_EV).

Note that the anit-EV lobbying and fud is also partially causing the delays.

Originally Posted by kiku007

The top-selling Tesla Model Y is now cheaper than a Toyota RAV4 Hybrid in Australia after the third price cut in two months. Did people see that coming? Don't write off the Japanese automakers as yet.

It would be naive to expect any new technology adoption to be a smooth growth curve, there will always be ups and downs. Unfortunately every dip (or just slow down in growth) will be used to declare downfall of that technology, conversely every increase in growth will be used to declare the imminent death of the older technologies.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Why H2 and E fuels are hailed as next big thing when the actual solution is seen with lots of scepticism. The questions which, I or Shresth raised are technical, how does H2, E fuels, Liquid H2 are a climate solution for cars?

Giving choice to users is fine, but those choices should be compatible with our climate goals, I don't know how Efuels, H2 or Hybrids fit in this goal.

Absolutely, perhaps the only place where they may have a role is very hard to electrify applications like aviation. But even there its not a clear winner, alternatives like just burning the fossil fuel and doing carbon capture may turn out to be efficient.