[panick21_]

HEV are just slightly more efficient, they still use 100% fossil fuels and still produce harmful emissions right in places where humans breath it.

In terms of 6 PHEV to 1 EV. This math comes with a lot of issues. First, it only works if people actually plug in their PHEV constantly and evince shows that they don't. And if you don't a PHEV is just a ICE vehicle with a shitty engine.

Plus the issue with PHEV is that they are expensive and complex to produce. Most car companies don't really like them because its hard to make any money on them and unlike with BEV there isn't a path to making money on them in the future. Specially as the ICE supply chain increasingly goes away.

Also even if Toyota thinks PHEV are good, there clearly is a large demand for BEV and Toyota is large enough that they could have done both just fine. Had they just invested in BEV instead of Hydrogen maybe they could be a leading player in HEV, PHEV and BEV.

[fwungy]

Most of the energy for BEVs is produced from fossil fuels as well.

The Gorilla in the Room for fossil fuel emissions is Russia and OPEC. Are Russia and OPEC going to walk away from trillions of dollars of oil wealth?

Are the developing nations, like India, going to walk away from cheap ICE technologies, for more expensive and complex green technologies?

If not, all the aggressive switching by the OECD nations is for naught.

Toyota believes the developing world will still want ICEs for a long time, and the oil nations will still want to sell it.

[panick21_]

> Most of the energy for BEVs is produced from fossil fuels as well.

Globally yes, but in many places where there is lots of BEV takeup, this isn't the case.

Additionally you are ignoring that a vehicle with a 25 year lifetime will have improving carbon efficency.

You are also ignoring the single most important thing, pollution of case and coal plants are not produced right in cities where lots of people breath.

> Russia ... India

I'm not sure why you are expanding the discussion to these topics.

> If not, all the aggressive switching by the OECD nations is for naught.

This is a bad attitude. You can't just lose all hope and never do anything because India exists.

Proving green technology on large scale and driving down cost will have an impact on India and other nations too. EV cars are constitutionally simpler then ICE vehicles and have the potential to be cheaper eventually.

The emissions in city alone make switching worth it. The cars are also just straight better in terms of driving.

> Toyota believes the developing world will still want ICEs for a long time, and the oil nations will still want to sell it.

That's a straw man argument. I never said they should stop developing ICE or stop selling ICE in the developed world or even stop selling them in the West.

I said Toyota should stop bullshitting, pretending the EV isn't already a gigantic market and that lots costumers want EVs. Toyota basically claims EV currently are trash and nobody wants them (that is true for their own EVs).

Toyota clearly wanted to be innovative and focused on Hydrogen and it went nowhere (except for the government money going to their pocket). Toyota while claiming they are pro environment is pushing against all emissions regulation, wonder why that is.

[Shaanie]

What's the car company revenue in the modern west vs India and other developing nations? I'm sure the developing world will still want ICE vehicles, but is that really where the money is?

[fwungy]

There are billions of people in the developing world, China, India, Africa. Their income is low per capita, but the combined numbers are so high.

Petroleum fuels are easy to store and transport in low infrastructure environments. Many areas don't have strong electric grids, they don't have 24hr electricity, and even if they do it's not reliable. They rely on inexpensive two and three wheeled vehicles extensively, much more than developed nations.

Mobility is needed for them to feed themselves and progress. It isn't a "nice-to-have", it's a necessity for life. This isn't going to change anytime soon.

[seanmcdirmid]

Most of those countries don’t have access to their own oil reserves, so are at the mercy of importing, and unless they can get a deal an sanctioned Iranian or Russian oil, they have to pay the same as other countries. In contrast, they have many more ways to generate electricity, even locally off the grid, that don’t require imports. I’ve stayed in places in China that have electricity via a water wheel (not reliable for sure, but enough to charge a bike), and no gas station for hundreds of miles around given low population density.

[_hypx]

FCEVs are also EVs. People are simply being short-sighted about hydrogen. It will eventually replace BEVs.

[somewhat_drunk]

FCEV "well to wheel" systemic efficiency is significantly lower than equivalent BEV systemic efficiency, and FCEVs are much more complex than BEVs. FCEV's only advantages over BEVs are faster charging times and moderately greater range, both of which are fast dwindling and will soon be gone. Hydrogen is a dead end, a decarbonization distraction being pushed by oil companies, policymakers engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, and those who would benefit financially from a widespread adoption of the tech.

Shame on all who continue to push hydrogen tech for selfish reasons.

https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7a...

https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/63-paul-marti...

>FCEVs are also EVs

This is a meaningless statement within the context of the FCEV vs BEV discussion. You keep saying it, so presumably you think it makes you sound clever? It doesn't. It has the opposite effect.

[_hypx]

That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple. A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs. They will cost no more than conventional hybrid cars to build.

BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy. When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.

In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.

[panick21_]

> That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple.

Funny how despite it being so simply all car companies still struggle to actually produce a fuel cell car at sane costs.

> A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs.

This is just factually wrong.

And in the cases its true its because the company selling them is actually losing absurd amounts of money per car. While on the other hand Tesla has a 20% margin on their BEVs.

Lets compare in the real world. I just checked, I can get a Long Range Tesla Model 3 for the same price as a Toyota Mirai and Tesla has far, far cheaper fuel costs and many extras not included in the Toyota.

Tesla live cycle cost are far lower, this isn't up for debate, its a simple fact.

> BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy.

Funny how there are many millions of BEV sold and Toyota can barley sell a few 1000s highly subsidies FCEVs.

And how every industry prediction is suggesting 50% growth over the next couple years for BEV and barley and growth for FCEV.

> When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.

You are a hilarious joker. Pretty much every car company in the world not in Japan is fully committed to transitioning to BEV and are investing 1000s of billion.

FCEV isn't even a rounding error. Tesla produces more Model Y per week then Toyota FCEV sales per year.

> In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.

Everybody knows that FCEVs are EV but FCEV are so irrelevant in the real world that nobody even considers talking about them. Its like saying Birds are dinosaurs, ok I guess that's strictly speaking true but its simply a irrelevant fact for 99.99999999% of the population.

FCEV for cars is dead. You sound like time traveler from early 2000s who has been left behind.

[_hypx]

Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost. They cost around the same as regular luxury cars despite being made in tiny numbers.

The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make. Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars. Making it a far better economic choice.

Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion. It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s. Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.

FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea: A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery. That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.

[panick21_]

> Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost.

I'm sorry but evaluating production cost when only a few 1000 are produced is pointless.

No independent company has done a public costing of these cars.

The sales price is not reflective of production cost on such low volumes.

> The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make.

You are just straight up disagreeing with every automotive engineer that I have seen talking about this topic.

It literally has every interface a BEV has plus a lot of very, very complex stuff on top of that.

> Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars.

Assertions without evidence.

> Making it a far better economic choice.

The fuel cost alone will make sure its never the economic choice.

> Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion.

The lithium ion battery is the innovation and that has been commercialized in 1991. Fuel cells have been commercialized for far, far, far longer.

> It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s.

Except you know, like totally different batteries, far more advanced electronics and so on.

Its just an utterly silly comparison. The range was the issue with BEV in 1900 and now we have better batteries. And as a bonus far better electronics.

> Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.

Exact that the fundamental weakness was that batteries back then were heavy, short range and slow charge. And now batteries are comparatively far lighter, have a range that is more then sufficent and charge rates have gone up by a gigantic amount.

So quite literally ever issue has been addressed.

And reality reflects this, as today millions of EV are sold every year.

> FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea

Yeah a revolution from 1960 rather then 1920. How advanced.

> A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery.

FCEV do need a battery. Jesus have you actually at how a FCEV works in the real world?

> how loudly you boast about the BEV

> That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.

I'm not 'boast', I'm just point out basic facts.

The real world and the real world has already decided. The technology race is over, you are like somebody advocating for Betamax in the late 1990s.

We are not even talking about a 10x difference, not 100x difference more like a 1000x difference in total sales. Pretty much ever car maker except those in Japan have made up their mind. Research in FHEV has essentially collapsed.

You are literally living in a delusional fantasy land you have constructed in your had that is just utterly devoid of reality.

[seanmcdirmid]

FCEV requires lots of compression, that compressed tank doesn’t come for free, and a lot of energy is lost to compression.

[_hypx]

Compressed gas is its own energy storage method. This is not a fundamental problem.

Also, it does not take that much energy to compress gas. Advancements in technology will reduce this to a tiny amount: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...

[fwungy]

FCVs are projected to be cheaper than BEVs by all the modeling in the literature.

Going with a lower pressure tank saves money at the cost of reduced range. The problem is booting a hydrogen station network big enough to support a low range FCV (< 200 miles).

But even building expensive carbon fiber high pressure tanks is going to eventually be much cheaper than huge batteries filled with semi-rare minerals that will increase in price as battery market demand increases. We should talk about what peak <Battery Mineral> will mean alongside Peak Oil.

[seanmcdirmid]

Those compressed tanks are still expensive, comparable to a battery in cost. Right now power return is like 38% given electricity - hydrogen - compression - convert back to electricity costs.

Sure it can get better, so can BEVs. I don’t see hydrogen winning though, electricity is just so pervasive while the infrastructure for hydrogen would have to be built out, and people might not want to go back to the gas station model after they are used to just charging at home.

They might work out for truck transport given the weight savings, and easier deployment of hydrogen infrastructure at truck stops.

[panick21_]

Yes, yes and so are vehicles running with flux capacitors and anti gravity devices and those have about the same relevance in the car market. Even the most pro hydrogen people have essentially given up on the car market. Hydrogen vehicles have failed so spectacularly in the market that anybody who still believes in them now is either straight up delusional or has some vested interest.

The hope remains alive in the heavy duty truck market but even there is not looking good and just like in cars they will get their ass kicked.

So my advice for the pro hydrogen crowed, is start claiming hydrogen is great for trucks for a few years and once that gig stops being credibly move on to ships.