281–290 of 315 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fairer, they were very early to the party too. They bet on electric, very early in the game and more than one kind too!
Toyota bet on Electric and Hydrogen, then proceeded to double-down on hydrogen. Then never really went all-in on electric and this sadly lost them their early lead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Surely there are other EV efforts that would benefit from Toyota's manufacturing prowess and capacity. They are not actually that exceptional anymore. At best they are marginally better. Tesla new architecture of structural cells in a pack connected to massive castings is far better then Toyota EV have. > Solid hydrogen fuels will be the next wave. I really don't think that will be the cast. > Imagine we hit "peak"…
I agree with you that betting against lithium is dumb. The ceiling is probably a lot higher yet. I forget the rationale for why Toyota (and by extension Japan) bet on hydrogen. Probably something to do with access to resources. Constraints that apply to many economies. We simply have to get off fossil fuels. Zero carbon will involve hydrogen. Maybe not personal transportation. But definitely agriculture. And maybe ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be good but no one (in America) wants 48 miles. People complain about the range on current EV’s during winter. A nice round number like 100 has a much better chance of appealing to consumers.
Right but the advantage of a PHEV is that it can switch to using its ICE. With a full tank you should have a range of 1000km+. Theoretically (if it works well) it’s an EV for short trips combined with an ICE for longer trips in a single car. That should overcome the range and charge time objections to BEVs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol no. business decisions are driven by economic incentives. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but that’s the way the world works today. you have the authority to decide only to the point of electing politicians that push what you consider to be the right thing. This takes time. How would you feel if you would personally be targeted in an effort to reduce global warming? While at the same time other actors (that ba…
> you have the authority to decide only to the point of electing politicians that push what you consider to be the right thing. This takes time. Funny, a few posts ago you were talking about moral authority. Oh how the goal posts move! Also, as a society we’ve already decided to use our legal authority to incentivize EVs, that’s what Toyota is whining about! They have lost both the political and the social (“hearts a…
Toyota produces 850k cars each month. Tesla 500k per year. Do you think if Toyota straight up replicated what Tesla does they could keep up with the demand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
48 miles is probably good enough for 95%+ of people. Also worth noting that that’s higher than any other PHEV in its class (SUV).
The rav4 Prime is sufficient at nearly 50 miles of electric range, but it sucks that it took 2 decades to get there when even GM had the technology basically perfected a decade ago with the Volt. It’s literally better than their hydrogen vehicles. Even if you had to synthesize the small amount of gasoline they might use. Longer range plug in hybrids plus electrically synthesized liquids beat pure hydrogen vehicles in…
The Volt is tiny car with limited utility. The RAV4 EV has vastly more cargo and passenger space.
For a single person going from point A to point B it might not matter, but the technical challenge of battery range plus utility isn't the same as battery range disregarding utility.
The Japanese car companies have done pretty poorly in the 2010's in supporting the energy transition. Toyota has been extremely slow to adapt after the Prius, which makes sense because of their ridiculously large volume of sales of basic, gas-efficient passenger vehicles. I give Toyota big props for the Prius, which was the original Green Vehicle 15-20 years ago, and still is a HUGE player in the efficiency space. II…
Those arguments are true in some part but meaningless or misinformation in some part. I agree that LCA CO2 regulation is win for EU/China and lose for Japan car industry, and now EU car manufacturer become able to make BEV in clean energy so EU pushes the regulation, but decarbonization is now obviously justice so blaming it is nonsense. We're stuck in small land/grid and against nuclear for now.
They also hype about hydrogen cars. Hydrogen seems to good to investigate for truck or other industry vehicle, or dedicated storage, but they overly hype about car with fuel cell or even ICE burning hydrogen. Maybe because who read such article loves ICE.
I think Toyota and Honda did well for decarbonization until the solution become making BEV that needs massive amount of Li-ion (material and power intensive battery).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rav4 Prime is sufficient at nearly 50 miles of electric range, but it sucks that it took 2 decades to get there when even GM had the technology basically perfected a decade ago with the Volt. It’s literally better than their hydrogen vehicles. Even if you had to synthesize the small amount of gasoline they might use. Longer range plug in hybrids plus electrically synthesized liquids beat pure hydrogen vehicles in…
> GM had the technology basically perfected a decade ago with the Volt. The Volt is tiny car with limited utility. The RAV4 EV has vastly more cargo and passenger space. For a single person going from point A to point B it might not matter, but the technical challenge of battery range plus utility isn't the same as battery range disregarding utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GM had the technology basically perfected a decade ago with the Volt. The Volt is tiny car with limited utility. The RAV4 EV has vastly more cargo and passenger space. For a single person going from point A to point B it might not matter, but the technical challenge of battery range plus utility isn't the same as battery range disregarding utility.
I have a Volt and it's awesome. It's a hatchback with lots of cargo space (5 seats in the Gen 2 Volt, too). Don't know that you mean about "limited utility." The Volt powertrain would've worked fine in a crossover vehicle like the Rav4 with only a small scale-up.
It has 10.6 ft³ of cargo space. A Yaris (a subcompact) hatchback has 15.4 ft³, Prius Prime has 19.8 ft³, Honda Civic Hatchback has 24.5 ft³, RAV4 Prime has 33.6 ft³ (for models with folding seats, those are all without seats folded.) The Volt doesn't have “lots” of cargo space, it has miserably small cargo space whether compared against other compact cars or other PHEVs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US would most likely invest the money, either partially or fully into the war machine.
People like to rip on the US war machine, but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender. Also, the entire world benefits from the US army, which helps protect global trade routes. For example the US patrols for pirates off the coast of Africa, protecting ships that are taking goods from one country to another in which the US has no involvement in any of it.
The great thing about statistics is you can maneuver them to support your conclusion. Here's some that support mine: in real numbers, "The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined."
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
That's a lot of money to fight pirates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an argument that can be made (whether good or not, not sure) that politicians represent the interest of people including whether they want Toyota to flourish or not, and represent the employee of Toyota, etc. Banning giving money to politicians is fixing a symptom rather than the root cause. Better is ban government from directing market competition. Why is the gov telling people and companies what to make w…
> There is an argument that can be made (whether good or not, not sure) that politicians represent the interest of people including whether they want Toyota to flourish or not, and represent the employee of Toyota, etc. We supposedly live in a democracy, where the people are supposed to be in charge, not abstract constructs like companies, unions, or trade associations. People vote, not companies. People should be fu…
In an ideal world, everyone is looking for each other. But this is not an ideal world. CEOs, politicians, employees, and even the people who vote are all looking for themselves: they all have demands that benefit themselves. Everyone wants more money. I want free education, free transportation, etc. Why think that my wants, are somehow, on a higher ground, that the wants of the CEO? Why think that my wants, if they are the wants of more people, are somehow better the society at large than the wants of a CEO? I feel that might be making many assumptions that are not very obvious, or that I am misreading you.
> Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
I apologies if I am understood that way. That is certainly not my intention. I mean that banning the transfer of money from a company to a politician will not solve the problem, because there will always be a loophole.
> Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers.
Given that the US is not a democracy, people only have a say on who they elect. Politicians decided it is ok to break the market and control it, and they decided it is ok to lobby. Politicians also don't necessarily represent the people of their district/state in the strictest (by the simple fact that many did not vote for them). If it was up for the people, it is hard to say that it will be a better government, because people, like politicians, are looking for themselves and not necessarily for the overall society over time.
>It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government.
Can't agree anymore. It is a system that gave birth to some great things and some terrible things.