Those who chastise Toyota for not going all in on fully EV vehicles forget that Toyota is a truly global company and any technology it commits to has to work in the developing world as well as the industrialized west. While a fully EV vehicle might be wonderful in a suburban North American city, it could not function in most developing countries, both in terms of charging infrastructure and energy production. A better option in both contexts would be plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that require lower amounts of lithium (given their smaller batteries) yet for most commuters would function as if they were fully electric vehicles (given the short distance of most commutes). In addition, I am sure that they are aware of the impossibility of building out a supply chain that provides batteries for a fully EV world.
Finally, someone who gets it. Toyota isn't avoiding EVs because they are all in on hydrogen, it just didn't make sense financially. Their large hybrid line up speaks for it's self.
Until short term EV demand is filled (years from now?) these arguements are irrelevant. Meanwhile Tesla, BYD, NIO and other Chinese manufacturers already have the factories and supply chains in place for high volume profitable WORLDWIDE EV DELIVERY...ICE manufacturers offer only excuses and more debt.
@@stevennelson7518 Tesla - barely profitable and needs to trade crypto to remain profitable some quarters. BYD and NIO - beneficiaries of stupidly aggressive financial incentivising that would probably be impossible under a liberal democracy. You can hate on ICE manufacturers all you want, but Toyota is making the right calls.
Facts are facts electric cars pollutes more nvironment and people can't afford them and the fact those cars burn your house while charging and while not charging. 😣👎👎👎👎👎👎
I actually think Toyota is smart. Hybrid makes more sense right now. The fact that governments are pushing for all electric when our infrastructure isn't ready yet is insane.
Because the climate change is NOT gonna wait and we've waited long enough not to do anything. That's the whole reason for the EV adoption, but governments should focus on lessening the cars rather than making it electric.
Cars account for a small percentage of green house gases … they would be better making all cars hybrid and figuring out how to make cruise ships and planes more efficient….
@@hurbrowns5397 too bad the production of the electricity powering your EVs and batteries completely negates the benefits of EVs over combustion engines.
@@Aether52 I don't give a fuck. Read again. Less cars is much more suitable and effective in downing CO2 emissions and government should make a proper public transport if that to happen. Electrification of cars won't do much shit, certainly continuing with ICE cars is even worse, even if It's hybrid.
the idea that "Nuclear bad, Solar/Wind good" is exactly what brought us to the energy crisis that we're going through now. the best thing abt hybrids is that you have your own generator, you don't need to depend on the grid, be it the dirtiest or the cleanest.
to make things worse, they vehemently refuse to listen to any argument for nuclear while ignoring the many drawbacks and environmental disasters of wind and solar.
@@thatguybrody4819 environmental disasters of wind and solar? i ain't believing that one. yeah, wind and solar cause very unbalanced grids, but they are still the best option 90% of the time. i agree that nuclear has been completely slandered and naively taken down because of extremely overblown public perception. Nuclear is safe, only stupid decisions and lack of oversight make them dangerous. same or worse is true of all power sources, including wind. we shouldn't give up because it is hard.
@@xymaryai8283 oh yeah. Environmental disasters. The land that needs to be cleared and flattened for solar farms only for them to heat up and sometimes melt and/or shatter leaving vast fields of broken glass and unusable panels not to mention the toxic production cycle that goes into solar panel production that spills out toxic chemicals and materials into the environment once they start to go bad and then there are the mass wind turbine landfills because it is hard and expensive to both maintain and recycle them. All for options that only produce power half the time
@@xymaryai8283 The 50's were right. Nuclear was the future until idiots got in power. Now we have to conserve electricity because of these rich hipster ass holes and their Teslas sucking up all the electricity. Nuclear literally destroys solar/wind 10 fold. If we replaced every solar panel farm with a small nuclear power plant, we would be in excess of electricity, and electricity would be extremely cheap. Solar panels and wind turbines also destroy bird populations. I dont think nuclear power plants have any negative affects on wildlife other than the land being taken for the plant.
And those who do it first and keep learning and improving will generally make it best. Toyota are taking a huge risk if they assume they can catch up to others who have been building pure EVs for a decade.
They might’ve not been first, but they’ve been making EVs since 1997. This video is full of misinformation and lies. Look into the two generations of RAV4 EVs they’ve produced.
@@UmmYeahOk that is both kind of true, and slightly misses the point. Toyota did make a few EVs to meet Californian requirements. Then they stopped for something like a decade. Then made a few more for a few years. The EVs they produced in that time frame were made in very low volumes in North America, not Japan or any other country. Toyota own about 70 plants by the looks, and have nearly 30 others in joint ventures. The idea that the knowledge and skills gained in the one or two plants that built a very small number of compliance vehicles with a 10 year gap between - the idea that those knowledge and skills have been both retained and spread around the nearly 100 Toyota plants, is pretty unrealistic. All up Toyota manufactured about 4,000 RAV4 EVs over the entire period. They make over 9,000,000 cars every year. Again, the idea that the skills needed to make the EVs will both have been retained and spread seems very unrealistic. They might have made some others also, but the numbers are tiny in comparison to their ICE vehicles. People and companies become good at what they do, not what they barely do. Toyota’s experience with hybrids has to help, but their experience with EVs… is so little/small that I think it is, in effect, irrelevant.
@@glennjgroves well, to be honest hydrogen powered cars are around since more than a decade ago. But electric cars got hyped a lot promising there's little maintenance and money to spend compared to combustion engine cars (not mentioning that it's almost impossible to work on that sort of car yourself btw), so all the other car companies decided to delay hydrogen fuel cell and hydrogen combustion engine cars. Right now it is the best time to finally get rid of overpriced batteries.
@@ChummiaChan actually the fact that Toyota has been working on hydrogen for a long time is relevant; a hydrogen car is an electric vehicle, I had sort of forgotten that. I would be very surprised if hydrogen light vehicles were remotely successful in their own right - it is more expensive and more difficult to produce and transport hydrogen than electricity. But, they are relevant in terms of Toyota’s experience with EVs.
They haven't refused, Toyota's first EV launched this year and Lexus's first EV will launch at the end of the year and they want to be all electric by 2030 - 2035. They're still exploring things like fuel cell though because assembling car batteries still isn't actually great for the environment
Hahahaha you are so funny. Yes Toyota launched its electric car but then had to issue a recall of all those sold. It’s so bad they offered people to buy the car back at full price plus give them additional incentives. The reason being that the wheels could literally fall off due to poor engineering not accounting for the higher weight of the battery.
@@fltfathin Plastics are worthless. Li-ion battery components are highly valuable. That is why you see companies like Redwood Materials come into existence. They see the opportunity in Li-ion battery recycling. It will be a profitable business. Recycling plastics is not profitable.
One thing to note about the Fukushima disaster was that the Onagawa plant that was subjected to similar if not worse had basically no issues in 2011 due to its better design and better management.
Yeah this is a very important point, if the reactor backup generators had not been placed in the flood vulnerable basement, the whole disaster could have been avoided. Japan needs to pivot back to Nuclear if they want energy independence.
@@skylerstevens8887 There have been multiple reports before the incident made by nuclear safety organizations showing that were was a significant flaw of the design in a case of a tsunami, one report even managed to predict the situation that happend the during the incident but the company owning the powerplant and the Japanese government choose to ignore the reports because it would have been expensive to fix the flaw.
Up to this moment, its my guess that Toyota wants to see where the battery development will lead to which may either reach a peak and hault, or continue developing and improve drastically. Synthetic fuels are a way more realistic temporary solution, but for now nothing beats ICE cars. A Toyota Prius may be capable of a 800km range, but so can a VW Golf non hybrid. Hydrogen cars are still far away from mass production, but until Toyota makes the perfect recipe, it wont enter competition for the sake of it. Toyota perfects its products over time, hence why new technology delays against the competition.
Toyota is well and good. It is not without reason that they have the biggest car producer for a time. Still e-fuels are still not close. As well as Toyota all the other car makers have hybrids in the portfolio this is not that special anymore.
Hydrogen will never be viable because energy costs are extremely high (8$ a gallon) and the cars are expensive. They also get less range. Also will be very hard to have a network of “gas stations” for hydrogen.
This explanation is as good as any. However, it's also possible that Toyota goes against the grain again because they can see the problems with EVs. They may be simply waiting for what will happen after 2035 (the date after which, in many countries, new ICE vehicles will no longer be sold) and how the battery technology will progress: 1. If someone comes out with some battery breakthrough that will make them cheap, durable, light, and able to be charged in 10-15 minutes, Toyota will convert some of their hybrids to EVs fast. 2. On the other hand, if no battery breakthrough happens, EVs will continue to cost an arm and leg, and their range and charging time will suck... it will be a completely different ball game. In that case, the legislators will have to take a step back. Toyota is probably betting that when that happens, other alternatives will be rushed back on the table - especially hydrogen AND plug-in hybrids. Frankly, at the moment, their bet has a high chance of paying off. It's one thing to scream, 'We will ban ICE cars after 2035!' right now, but once transport-related social exclusion becomes a real possibility for millions of people, politicians will be forced to sing a different tune.
ICE won't ever be banned for real IMO, none of past vehicles are getting fully banned, probably the requirements become stricter and results on even more efficient ICE cars and no big CO2 converter cars like lamborghini and SUV running on road.
Nope, there’s no ban on ice vehicles. Just ban on petrol ice vehicles. Hydrogen ice is okay because it’s not petrol. This only applies to California. The other states dissing us.
@@maxiummadface It's not just California. It applies to other liberal hell holes like New York and Illinois because they follow Californias emissions standards. Glen Youngkin right now is working very hard with the legislature to repeal a law that the Democrats passed that forces Virginia to follow California emissions and thus ban ICE cars in 2035
Your assumption about BEV’s is in error. A BEV is more durable than any ICE, batteries will last longer than the cars they are in, especially those with LFP chemistries which is rapidly becoming the de-facto standard. No ‘battery breakthroughs’ are needed, the incremental improvement yoy has seen energy densities rise from 147 Wh/Kg (my 2019 Kia e-Niro with NMC chemistry) to 250 Wh/kg in the latest CATL NMC Qlin batteries, while previously ‘lowly’ LFP at 155 Wh/kg is where my NMC based car was 3 years ago. LFP is also 30% cheaper to make...see what happens over the next 24 months as LFP cells start to arrive from new plants in China and SK....and the subsequent drop in the prices of new EVs. My now ‘old’ EV has a range of 450 km, more than I can drive before taking a break...it’s peak charging rate is 75 kW, which was thought pretty good in 2019 but is now considered slow. Newer cars from Hyundai, Kia, Ford, VW and of course Tesla can charge 2, 3 even 4 times faster...so adding 100 km in 10 minutes is pretty standard now...we tend to stop for 30 to 40 minutes on a long drive, take lunch and carry on. We have driven from our home in South West France to the UK, Germany and Switzerland, though I never like to do more than 800 km in a day. EVs are holding their value on the used car market better than any premium branded ICE car which cost €100 a fill up these days. Yes our EV was more expensive to buy than the hybrid version of the Niro but we have saved I reckon €6,500 in fuel and another €1,000 in servicing so far. For people on a tight budget a used EV is the only way to go.
@@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270 People on a tight budget are buying used cars for under $15-20k. Until electric cars get that cheap while maintaining quality, 50-80% of people cannot buy one while being financially responsible (ie no 80 month loans). Western power grids cannot even sustain the current usage and we are highly dependent on China for raw materials. If China ever decides to go AWOL and our governments keep being corrupt and incompetent in regards to energy generation, ev's will be a pipedream for the average person.
Toyota is now the # 1 company in vehicle sales in the USA. They make solid well made vehicles that are reliable. Consumers want reliability. That is what the Toyota/Lexus brands stand for.
No one knows how these 2022 all EV vehicles will run 10 years from now. What Toyota does know is the reliability of their current models. They will continue down this path and in 10 years if all EV is reliable they swap to it. If not they continue with what they have. That’s what it means to come from humble beginnings.
Has nobody ever considered that going "all in" with EVs is going to tank the power infrastructure? Going all in on EVs won't be viable until nuclear power becomes more widely used.
This video show how Japan and USA have political reasons to promote vehicles. Still hybrids were just what the world needed and we just disposed of it.
If only we had great big batteries that could store cheap renewable energy and use that later on… OH, WAIT… an EV is a battery on wheels. Power grids only operate at peak for short periods. Any time other than peak is fine for charging a large number of EVs. Right now. As more renewables come on line there will be even more power available off peak. As long as smart charging is used there is no issue.
In hindsight, the fukushima disaster could have been mitigated if some seemingly "minor" design mistakes weren't made. Many of the emergency diesel generators that were supposed to keep the coolant flowing to prevent a thermal runaway were far too low in elevation making them very much at risk of tsunami damage, so that in the event that there was a tsunami that could breach the protective sea walls, they were going to get flooded and destroyed. So... I think that disaster could have been mitigated even with that specific monster earthquake+tsunami.
If anyone is reading this comment and wants to learn more check out Kyle Hill on RUclips. He has a half life series where he breaks down the science of nuclear disasters and why the media surrounding them is generally fear mongering and how public perception of nuclear power has been affected
TEPCO was warned several times by nuclear safety agencies and governments spanning a couple of decades about this exact problem, its pretty damning. The only change that was ever made was replacing doors, they were too lazy to relocate the diesel backup generators to a safer location. When the two biggest nuclear disasters (as well as most others) occurred due to mismanagement/known flaws, you would think self reflection would be more productive than the vilification of this technology.
An Errant Photon: Right. Instead of panicking re nuclear, respecting the safety needs and doing it RIGHT would make FAR more sense than pretending it doesn't exist. Of course, doing it RIGHT, like storing the waste properly (and away from the reactors) would be more EXPENSIVE -- and these things often come down to economics in the end.
@@rogergeyer9851 ? Nuclear fuel isn't actually that dangerous so long as you store it correctly or transport correctly. Heck because people were so damn afraid of it they even made a container that's stronger than most military grade equipment or armor. Not to mention they are only dangerous while at high temperatures for the waste, so once it's cooled off (which you need to do anyways before shipping it) most of the high/extreme danger is gone. Yeah it's still radioactive, but that's no were near a actual danger level, not to mention it will only be unshielded long enough to put it into a transportation container and also to put it in it's final resting point
I can agree with that. That's my problem with full EVs where if youre stranded, you're sol. Having gas being the power reserve when you need it makes it less of a headache.
@Mitchell Couchman No he's right, the cars that do 30 miles real world range have like 13kWh (hatchback) to 17 kWh (SUV) batteries as Plug in Hybrids only get around 2 miles per kWh compared to around 4 from a full EV. EV's dont typically have 170 kWh batteries, the average is around 50-60 kWh.
@Mitchell Couchman real world range is exactly what it says real world range. Yes it would apply to an electric car also like my Mini Electric has a claimed 145 mile range, does it get 145 miles on a charge? No. Same for mpg figures. Your Prius may have an estimated range of 25 miles like the VW Golf GTE has a range of 38 miles. But I can tell you from driving these cars they don't get that claimed range figure.
Johnny Boy: Absolutely. Both HEV's and PHEV's are GREAT as a TRANSITIONAL vehicles. The problem is, in a decade or two if they don't have serious competitive BEV offerings, they won't be competitive. And so it will be game over for Toyota if they don't change with the reality of the rise of battey tech. And I say this as a big Toyota van who as an American was GLAD I had Japanese cars vs. US cars, re quality, durability, and value. But I'm NOT going to buy cars from Toyota because I feel sorry for them if they don't compete well in BEV's over time.
@@hunterrrdrives Bullshit. I just drove one 1200 miles and I had to refill it every 300 miles with its 12 gallon tank. I wasn’t racing or anything. Just commuting.
8:10 dont think thats accurate. From what understand, the back up generator was flooded because it was badly placed, and that cause the failure. its not like the plant was broken in half or something. This was totally avoidable
This is absolutely correct. Before the incident there have been multiple safety reports reporting that in the case of a tsunami the emergency generators would be flooded due to them being located in the basement and the reports suggested this to be fixed in case a tsunami would occur. They knew this was a tsunami prone area. And they knew shii whould hit the fan when it would happen.
I'm so glad Toyota exists. I'm so thankful for their reliability. They're the poor man's brand and I'm proud of it. They just don't break while every other car owner I know have spent thousands on their cars to repair them.
@@aimxdy8680 yup i have a hyundai elantra n line it’s quick enough for me and i can eat up all those cars you mentioned off the line and get 3x better gas mileage
I think going "All in" on electric vehicles it terrifying. When investing it's best to have a broad portfolio. I would have liked to see a pretty even split between diesel, gas, hybrid, electric and hydrogen by 2035, not 100% EV. Watching recent videos on similar channels I see that like Japan, America and the West are not doing this because it's the right thing to do, we have our interests too, and that is reducing OPEC and Russia's control over our energy.
I have to disagree here. There's a reason we went all in on Gasoline burning vehicles a century ago, it's because the technology was clearly superior at the time. So of course we're going to go all in on BEV's in the coming decades, because the technology is clearly better then the alternates, especially when you consider how fast it's continuing to improve (like the cost and efficiency of the batteries). The superior technology usually puts the other inferior competitors out of business in a free market.
@@shadowninja6689 I'd have to disagree with you EVs have there own problems with production in terms of carbon with lithium and all that sure most of hydrogen produced isn't clean but it gets the job done just as good as EVs
@@manjoring5944 battery metals are highly recyclable. Once the grid sources cleaner energy, you can’t beat it. Especially with how expensive hydrogen infrastructure is, makes no sense
I think that in order to solve our energy issue that we have to accept nuclear as a viable option. Yes, there have been some hiccups along the way with it, but it’s much better than coal or natural gas. Renewables could supplement this and help charge EVs while people are charging during the daytime. Technology Connections said he thinks hydrogen will replace diesel as the fuel for large trucks and I agree with him on that. A fully electric semi truck would have to haul so much extra weight in batteries it wouldn’t be very feasible.
Nuclear is just too expensive and slow to build out to play a major role anytime soon. However, we definitely should keep existing plants running (assuming they are in good working order of course). Right now we're moving to a more decentralized grid based on wind, solar, hydro, and storage... With gas peaking plants for a while until storage gets a bit cheaper. Maybe "advanced nuclear" will finally come along several decades down the road, but it isn't a realistic option without those decades of development. I do wish we had started back in the 80s or 90s so it would be an option now :(
Good luck convincing companies to invest into the nuclear option when Nuclear Reactors take upwards of a decade to build and even longer before you start seeing any kind of returns, not to mention all of the liability. That is why the private sector hasn't touched Nuclear at all. No money in it compared to Fossil Fuels and alternative energy. Cold hard logistics has killed nuclear power.
LFTR are the new generation of nuclear reactors with over 90 percent effiency. Type "Thorium reactors" if you want to know more about it. Its the future ni doubt.
A fully practical mass market EV will need 3 characteristics. 1) Range of 300 miles on a single charge. 2) Charging time of less than 1 hour on a 240v ac charger. 3) Cost less than 40k before tax write-offs. It's not there yet. A hybrid would be more practical for inner city and suburban commuters. You don't have to worry about finding charging facilities and a battery pack with a 25-50 mile range is sufficient for office commutes and errands.
What you explained is the MG4 long range, though I have to ask why do you need 1 hour charging on AC for. Thats charging at home, to which you can just charge while you're asleep, so why do you need it so fast?? Also a hybrid with a 25-50 mile range would be a plug in hybrid so would still need charging facilities to fill the duty you claim. They can only charge at about 3.6 kWh max and to get 25 miles real world range will need around a 13 kWh battery so would take around 3 hours or more to charge. My EV could get over 80 miles of range from an AC charger in 3 hours. Also the issue with lithium batteries is the number of charge cycles as that causes degradation. To make plug in worth while you have to plug it in and to get the range for day to day use, it will need plugging in daily. Thats at least 260 charges a year going from 0-100% on a 5 day commute, appose to around 30-40 full charges a year from a full EV to cover the same distance. You will therefore notice degradation in a plug in hybrids battery much quicker than in a full EV and therefore will need the battery replacing much sooner due to the higher number of charge cycles per year.
8:00 This is false, Kyle Hill did a video on this and it turns out they only prepared for one disaster, but not a combination of both. They were warned to build safeguards against the possibility but were ignored.
Kei cars mostly only work well inside of Japanese cities, but I don't see Japanese companies trying to force the rest of the world to drive Kei cars. Toyota also sells full sized pickup trucks, but they aren't available inside of Japan. Why can't they do that with EV's? Hell, they didn't even design the EV components for their new EV. The Chinese company BYD did.
Not really, I think kei car are still selll well in other country that have small narrow road like Europe, India, or southeast Asia. Even small "Kei car" Like hongguan mini EV are outselling Tesla in china
@@Fauzanarief-n7i It's not that there's no interest either, there are people in the USA that have imported a kei car. Kei cars actually make really good BEVs because of their smaller size and lighter weight, they get more range out of their battery than full-sized BEVs and their smaller battery takes less time to charge.
The thing with Fukushima is that it actually was preventable, there had been suggestions put forth to make changes like raising the sea walls which would have prevented the disaster. These suggestions were ignored
I think Honda deserves as much or more praise. It has done a good deal in this space as timely or even earlier than Toyota, and it's the "little guy" on the block and made proportionately larger efforts.
I honestly don't understand why they keep pushing HFC vehicles when HFC is way more suited to static, non-moving generators. Hydrogen ain't exactly known for being stable under changing pressure. Not to mention it fucking sucks in terms of actual energy output. Worse than just basic electricity.
For the consumer it is also wonderful that they persue hydrogen, if it fails, the consumer have all the other that have bet on electric, and if eletric is troublesome, there is someone working on alternative
Toyota is a massive, capable, and highly talented organization. They understand that electric vehicles are not the answer and to continue working on hybrids and internal combustion engines for the short-term is the best option. Toyota is banking on hydrogen fuel cell. Despite being a rather conservative corporation, Toyota will make massive leaps beyond all competition.
yes, because ignoring a market thats grown 50% every year without slowing down is a "highly talented" idea. How do they compete once they do want to make evs? they are stuck at the back of a long line for materials
An EV battery pack is roughly 40x bigger than a hybrid pack. If one EV saves 10L/100km and one HEV 3L/100km, then the batteries are much better spent on hybrids than EVs since battery production is the bottleneck to electrification. With that, Toyota’s focus on HEVs is arguably much more effective for CO2 reduction until battery production significantly improves. Speaking of batteries, Toyota is a major player in solid-state batteries and it would make sense to wait for the new tech before going harder on EVs. Just because Toyota is not jumping on the bandwagon, it doesn’t mean they’re behind.
But Toyota HAS jumped onto the EV bandwagon - have you not heard about their Toyota bZ series? 100% electric battery. Hydrogen fuel is a TERRIBLE idea - its 75% inefficient; more than 3/4 the energy used to create, store, transport, pump into cars and be used, is LOST & it costs a FORTUNE - the only reason its not already abandoned is that super-rich corporations want to force us to use a consumable which THEY control, just like petrol. Electric car batteries are 95-99% efficient, & you can charge them for FREE, cleanly, from your solar roof.
@@andrewdubose9968 why on Earth would you need to replace them? The Sun is the ultimate nuclear fusion reactor, which is already the energy source for ALL life on Earth. It makes 100% sense to use it for all energy on Earth as well. And remember, solar panels can last 30 years plus, at ZERO cost after setup.
Yeah, but the question is how long will each charge take? And you know that the ultimate downside is the toxic batteries we currently make. Also, electric cars will use more electricity. So you're gonna need more electricity. Which means producing more electricity meaning more fossil fuel use. Also, right now, making cities with cars in mind is a terrible idea. Your ultimate solution to going green would be to make walkable cities, more densely and mixed zones in cities, having more trains integrated into cities (you're not beating trains in green energy or moving stuff around), etc. A car needs much, much more infrastructure than a train. Your ultimate goal should be city redesign. Electric cars simply should replace petrol/diesel cars. Not be a used to encourage people to buy more cars.
@@siyzerix firstly batteries are FAR less "toxic" than they used to be; the main problem was the rare earth element boron mining, but that is no longer used - they switched to lithium phosphate instead. And you can generate electricity 100% from renewable sources, for example, if you had a fully solar roof & house battery, you could charge your electric car for FREE with ZERO emissions, at home. The idea is you charge them overnight at home - just pop them on charge when you get home (takes no more time than putting your phone on charge) & you will have a full charge by the next time you go out). If you get a car with a 300+ mile range, and you don't drive more than 300 miles PER DAY (with most of us never do) then you would never need to spend time charging it, so it SAVES time compared to spending 10 minutes at a petrol station - no queing up, no waiting for the car to fill, no queing up to pay, etc.. And even if you DID, on a very rare occassion, drive over the 300+ miles in a single day, there are super charges all over the place which can give you an 80% charge in 15 mins (240+ miles), which is only about 5mins more than people typically spend at a petrol station! The argument "make do with less" to stop climate change has been unsuccessfully used for DECADES - we have known about climate change for about a century and that way of thinking has completely failed to stop CO2 levels from already dangerously changing our climate, with MILLIONS going to do if we don't do something drastic NOW! Using green technology is a positive way to do it, and doesn't ask people to make their lives harder. If we install fully solar roofs, house batteries, vertical ground source heat pumps, decent insulation and electric cars, we can cut TOTAL climate emissions by over 2/3rds in next to no time, without people having to give up anything! Also, people keep forgetting, ICE (petrol) cars emit a lot more things than just CO2, things which cause thousands of premature deaths per year (don't believe me? Try sitting in your ICE car with the engine running and windows open in a closed garage - people commit suicide that way. But if you did it in an electric car, you would be fine), and that's not including the HUGE amount of energy used, and toxins emitted, in mining, processing and transporting the petrol (gasoline) in the first place!
The 2011 fukushima nuclear accident was also negligence. There were warnings that the wave breaks weren't big enough and they were ignored. It wasn't a record breaking earthquake, just a big one in a bad position
The power grid going out also affects gas stations, even more so than the ability to charge an EV. What usually follows after power outages are shortages at gas stations accompanied with long lines. Interestingly enough, if you actually knew more about EVs you’d know that Tesla Superchargers remain in operation due to on-site solar generation and battery storage. Gas stations *may* have backup generators that use gas, thus exacerbating the gas shortage that will likely ensue.
This video was one of the hardest to hear your voice in, due to the volume/choice of background music, especially in the first 20-30%. Otherwise, your videos are continuing to improve over time. Thanks for posting!
Toyota will most likely be the pioneers in hydrogen fuel. They have already made a car the runs on it, but the infrastructure and the method of creating hydrogen needs to evolve to compete with electric.
I think the Hydrogen/EV Hybrid would be the best option because you would have a Battery that you can charge for small commutes and a Hydrogen Tank for longer commutes. And yes Hydrogen cars are already basically EV Hybrids but they dont have Charging Port.
Fun story: That's how Hydrogen cars work. The fuel cell charges a small battery that drives the wheels. They're just a lot smaller, somewhere in the 5 kWh range.
8:12 - Plus Fukushima was a way-antiquated, 1960s design (construction began in 1967). Hydrogen for fuel cells are ultimately just another kind of battery, and a very inefficient one at that. Nobody “has hydrogen” in the sense that Saudi Arabia has oil. Hydrogen has to be separated out from water or methane by extremely-energy-intensive processes. Nevertheless, I drive a Prius Prime, and I understand the reasoning behind it: - Make the battery just big enough to cover virtually all of your day-to-day driving needs, and so that it has little impact upon supply and cost, - Make the car extremely efficient both on battery and on gas, - Burn gas only on those rare instances when you take a road trip.
In Congo mines, child laborers hand dig cobalt, the raw material for lithium-ion batteries. What do you think about the current situation where EVs cost more than three times as much without child slaves?
@@wojciechmuras553 Hybrid's head pirates had the better option of the 2 you weren't reliant on one option but it's also hard to remember all of the information but this was like 4 years ago. Pretty much I did gas versus electric cars. And found out of the 2 hybrids were considered the best option
Yeah, they even make car with combution engine that use hydrogen as the fuel. But it is race car, maybe for test purpose and keep the development. I have hope for that.
The buses is what shocked me the most cause I realized in the Las Vegas areas all their large buses run on Hydrogen & they just approved changing the large school buses into them as well. Now considering Vegas has one of the most used bus systems in the US, it makes sense but I was just thinking about the cost of all those buses (and double decker) maintenance cost
You are wrong about the Fukushima disaster, they were told before the disaster to build bigger floodwalls that would've been big enough to stop it but they didn't.
The rest on the list....are used in mostly developed or semi-developed nations.... Toyota is the bedrock of Africa.... I'm Nigerian and Toyota is everywhere....... Toyota is truly the only Real Global Automobile company in the world. A durable company with durable products... EV is chicken innovation for them and they know it....they know where they sell their products and don't need to rush into something they'll eventually dominate.
Unlike Tesla, Toyota don't want to make faulty vehicles and ruin their image. I'm sure they're looking at the long term and waiting for technology to mature in their r&d facilities before deployment
Ravarsen: When Tesla can't sell BEV's because they're too "faulty", be sure and get back to us. Meanwhile in the real world, they can't possibly meet demand, even as they RAPIDLY ramp production every year.
you mean like the bz4x where they were recalled because the tires can fall off and are now offering to buy them all back i guess its good they didn't sell more that would have really ruined their image
My problem with hybrid based companies like Toyota and Honda, is that they don't make enough hybrids. Which kinda undercuts their entire justification for their hybrid over EV direction.
“It’s not like the disaster was caused by mismanagement or negligence.” I love Japan (studied abroad there for a semester and love a lot of things about it), but I want to correct a point you made. Fukushima-Daiichi could have in fact been at least partially prevented had TEPCO followed earlier recommendations to relocate their backup generators or increase the height of the seawall around the plant. These warnings were ignored, which I believe could fairly constitute negligence.
I don’t get why plug in hybrids are more populars which Toyota does have a large foothold in. You use battery power for most of your daily needs and on longer trips you can use gas or hydrogen or something similar. You can use the same amount if lithium to make double, or triple the amount of vehicles.
@Mitchell Couchman To get 50 miles of range you'd need a 20-25 kWh battery at least so no not 1/10th 😂. Tesla doesn't have a 500 mile EV, their longest range car the Tesla model S has a 405 mile estimated range and has a 100 kWh (95kWh usable) battery. Take a look at the Golf GTE, 13 kWh battery and 22-25 miles real world range.
@Mitchell Couchman Now you are showing how little you understand about EVs 😂 I have driven a Plug in Hybrid with that 13 kWh battery and it gets a real world, from my experience and reviewers tests, 25 miles of range. Plug in Hybrids don't achieve the same miles per kWh efficiency as a full EV as the electric motor isn't as strong. A Tesla will easily average 4 miles per kWh as can be seen in Tesla reviews. The Model 3 with its just over 60 kWh battery can easily get over 250 miles or range. My Mini electric with its 28.9 kWh battery can easily get over 130 miles of range and in the summer achieve higher than its WLTP cycle range rating getting over 5 miles per kWh. But you lack of understanding on the BEV and Hybrid category was cemented when you claimed a hybrid would need 1/10th the size battery to go 50 miles 😂😂.
I actually thought Toyota was waiting for the evolution of the electric vehicle to reach a refinement great enough to invest in. In other words, I thought Toyota was playing the safe and conservative approach of learning from where their competition failed to succeed best when the time comes. This perspective was on a completely different level. I did not realize just how serious Japan's energy crisis was until now.
SPOILER: Because they spent 20 years developing hydrogen powered cars, sinking tons of money into it. And now they discovered that EVs developed much faster than hydrogen.
The statement that Japan couldn't have avoided the Fukushima nuclear disaster without abandoning nuclear entirely is factually wrong. TEPCO was warned on several occasions about the risks of a tsunami disabling Fukushima Daichii's cooling systems by several actors years before the accident but failed to act on those warnings.
Because it has carbon. It eventually converts to CO2 when chemically processed, which is also the same problem with methanol and formic acid (which was also considered as alternative fuel in the past). And methane is also pretty hard to store for a truly ubiquitously-scaled application (certainly harder than that of i.e. ammonia).
2Snouser: Their hybrid (both HEV and PHEV) vehicles with the modern Toyota hybrid system are GREAT. And they'll be GREAT transitional vehicles for a decade or two. But they MUST get serious about BEV tech. to be able to compete with the likes of Tesla and BYD (current leaders) in the longer run. Once BEV batteries are cheap, durable, long range, and plentiful, and the charging infrastructure matures a lot (with 20 years), the hybrids will no longer be able to compete. Toyota needs to transition before then, or go bankrupt soon after.
Hydrogen would make sense if it didn't take so much energy to make and store and transport. Usually more energy than you'd get back from it. Unless they've pioneered a new way of doing those things first, it would be pretty counterintuitive to go that direction. It would make more sense if they were using only renewable energy to produce Hydrogen... but in a country with excellent infrastructure, public transportation and being a relatively small pop. dense island, going in the extreme and ditching ICE for EV's while investing in safer nuclear power generation, renewables and battery tech (things that are already being done) is actually economically practical... more so than in large continental nations like US and China. I really don't think that's the reason here
On-site hydrolysis solves the transport issue and much of the storage. Dihydrogen monoxide is stable, non-toxic and environmentally friendly, so it can be piped thousands of miles from places with too much, or it can be condensed from the atmosphere and filtered to help remove harmful particulates from the air before being split into pure hydrogen for fuel and pure oxygen to release back into the atmosphere.
Heavy vehicles can not run on electric, excavators, cranes etc... have to run on Hydrogen, the thing is no one is perfecting the hydrogen process so it costs.
@@twocansams6335 They could run on electricity, just not using a battery for anything more than a backup. Those beasts need a lot of power, so they'd need to be able to hook directly into the power grid or have a large portable powerplant (which will probably end up being diesel, not hydrogen, for reliability) Another concern is military, you simply cannot get any serviceable range using hydrogen or batteries to move around all that heavy armor. M1A2 comes in at around 70 tons and gets a whole 250 miles of range from almost as many gallons of fuel, swap the engine for a hydrogen powerplant or batteries and you're looking at a range of less than 50 miles. Then there's aviation. Planes need to keep their propulsion system as weight efficient as possible, you go converting them to any kind of purely electrical system and you'll be hamstringing planes everywhere. The jet and turbofan engines that make high-speed travel possible rely on combustion and don't work without it, that leaves old-school propeller craft which are painfully slow by comparison and have a much lower operational ceiling.
Honestly in the long run I see hydrogen being more viable it’s not as harmful to the environment as BEVs, you get way better range, re-fueling is much faster and is relatively inexpensive, and it doesn’t cause stress on the electrical grid
The Prius was legendary, I mean seeing one when they first came out was like “damn that things kind of ugly…but also some interesting technology is in there”
@@Isamu1013 Honestly replacing how we get fuel seems easier than replacing the whole gas supply chain with battery supply chain which arent 100% reusable. Buuuut im also a car enthusiast and i just can not live with the thought of having all cars replaced with boring economy cars where even their "sport" versions are soulless shells of cars
@@arni21 I understand that it seems that way, but creating synthetic fuels uses 4 times more energy compared to just using it in a BEV. Plus, you would need to centralize production instead of the much better local supply option possible with BEV's. Also, you lose one of the great points which is no local emissions. It's just the worst to be in a city and one asse drives by which removed his catalytic converter. Regardless of that I understand that some of you think all EV's are soulless, I don't quite understand why but I guess change isn't for everyone, but then we could make synthetic fuels for the "weekend cars" which you take out of the cities on to racetracks or overland streets where they are actual fun. And for the normal driving where we just wanna go from point A to B we take something that doesn't hurt the people around us.
@@arni21 Forgot to mention most synthetic fuels also need some sort of biomass such as sugar cane, which would again diminish our ability to feed all the people here, especially when the chemically produced fertilizer runs out.
My lab is working in a project with them in hydrogen infrastructure, so I can understand their standpoint in this regard. I think the whole point of the idea is that the car industry is just one of the sectors they will be playing in if we consider a long-term time horizon. It's just one piece of the entire system, which encompasses energy generation and district heating (with hydrogen or hydrogen carrier such as ammonia as direct combustion or to lesser extent as SOFC fuel), other types of mobility sector especially maritime shipping, and industrial use (including currently hard-to-decarbonize cement and steel productions). If Toyota can hold and scale the hydrogen and hydrogen carrier supply chain and infrastructure, the transition of mobility sector can be a lot easier because the infrastructure, system, and hydrogen/ammonia as fuel demand for wider use will be already in place and ubiquitous enough.
Japan is not theee country that could be taken as a raw model in anything ... the Carlos Ghosn tragedy exposed the country that we once thought is on another planet, adding to this many more social disasters boiling under the surface like racism and the slave work culture and many many more.
EVs are a phase that we will collectively get past when we realise that lithium supplies are limited and mostly cornered by the Chinese already. How are these batteries going to be disposed?
Let's be honest, the _real_ solution would be to abolish private car ownership and provide a highly efficient and functioning public transport system. Something Japan has some solid experience with.
When it comes to the sustainable vehicle market its always hydrogen or bev’s i don’t understand why no one talks about bio fuels. Formula 1 is investing big into bio fuels. They want to have their 2026 engines running on a 100% biofuel hybrid system. Wish more people would talk about this. It would truly be more cost effective than any other sustainable option as most of the infrastructure is already built (including the developing world). New refineries may be the one thing necessary. It also doesnt suffer from the plethora of issues bev’s have. Namely the huge cost to the power grid, and lithium mining and recycling.
Does suffer from lack of farmland and destruction of forests to make way for more farmland though. Unless it can be made using algae in tanks/pools/tubes that could be much more space-efficient. Truth is, neither EVs or biofuel are remotely environmentally-friendly at the moment anyway, but planning for the future yeah bio and synthetic fuel might be the best. Especially because there's no need to replace perfectly-working ICE cars then. Throwing away things that still work fine is one of the worst things we do to the environment, and imo this push for EVs with government incentives to scrap ICE cars is so wasteful.
With the infinite increase of demand since the demand of vehicles never end biofuel would be concluded disposing our dead to create fuel and the world isn't there yet to make extreme decisions to feed the infinite demand on vehicles.
@@DaFinkingOrk They're primarily looking at algae-based fuels, but an old alternative is syngas which can be made through gasification of any biomass. Gasification isn't new, it was invented back in 1609, and it can turn everything from wood, to lawn clippings, to pork fat into synthetic natural gas which can be burned in unmodified gasoline engines more cleanly than gasoline.
This is Toyota we’re talking about. Even their in cabin options tend to lag behind by a decade. They’re slow to adopt new tech but when they do it’s usually perfect.
The only reason anyone wants hydrogen is to maintain the current model almost 1 for 1. Elecrtic cars themselves are energy agnostic, they can be powered by whatever you feed the grid. That makes the whole system much more likely to be efficient and integrated.
If you live in a area where there is not enough sunlight to have solar panels be efficient, and electricity produced by coal, and storm takes out grid or there is overload like in CA during fire season and heat wave occurring...then EV vehicle is a liability, not a asset.
Every home would need rooftop solar to sustain an electric vehicle per family of 2-5 people. What about high density cities? They won't have the solar surface are to maintain charge everyday for vehicles kept in apartment carparks. So they would need to buy the excess from rooftop solar, which wouldn't be enough at times or any at all other times. So they would need to source power from major solar and wind powerplants and maybe import from other countries or states if weather is not optimal. What I'm getting at is that electricity will skyrocket in price if there were a sharp uptake in electric vehicles which would lead to an influx of fossil fuel produced electricity to both take advantage of the demand and also fill in for the supply shortage. The fact that in most countries, electricity is scarce as it is due to climate change counteraction targets, electric vehicles don't have much room for movement in the electrical energy consumption market nor will they be anywhere near carbon neutral overall.
Even though they took awhile to build EVs and they factor in all markets around the world. They're influential, just think about it, Why do we have good hybrids, because of Toyota. They could push the BEV market in a impactful direction, as Tesla is still popular amongst only tech enthusiasts and early adopters.
They realize China doesn't like the Japanese and going all in on a market that they supply is insane. Being hit with a rare earth mineral boycott from China would be devastating if they went full EV.
I am from a so called "developed" country. Toyota takes care of our needs best than any other car maker. We don't care about decarbonisation. We care about transportation. The need to go from point A to point B quicker. A luxury for you is an essential need for us. Toyota till I die..
I drive a Venza hybrid. It is a great car with a range of over 580 miles in summer. Within the city and on downhill drive, I could literally get more than 100 miles a gallon if I don't speed above 55 mph (which I rarely have to). Hybrids are an adequate solution for climate change. That way you never get a range scare. And at the same time you can enjoy your drive with 5 mins of stopping at the pump. Every hour has a monetary value and despite Tesla being so good for the environment, the time spent on charging while on a ride to Miami from Orlando is not worth it.
Toyota sells only 1.4m cars in Japan and 10m worldwide. The premise of your theory is flawed. Why would Toyota make a global decision based on Japanese needs when the ratios of domestic to export is massively lopsided? When you make a hybrid you’re making two systems for one car it is onerously inefficient
It's simple, they're not lemmings and they have the wisdom to see that the technology is not even close to being viable for pure EV. Ask California if you doubt the wisdom of this statement.
The thing about Fukushima is that the architects intentionally chose to not make the flood walls higher. If they spent the extra money which they chose not to, the disaster would not have occurred. The seawalls were 19 feet and in 2008 they were warned about Tsunamis 33 feet or higher. It was gross negligence.
I’m much more on the hybrid train myself. I live in the coldest city in the lower 48 and all electric is not practical. We have a 2021 Venza hybrid that has been absolutely flawless for the first 40k miles and gets 35-40+ mpg all the time. Battery life is around 200k and I will trade it before then so I’m not concerned. Saves us a ton of money!
Every country dream is not to overly dependent on other countries but we can't stop others take advantage of this opportunity & Koreans will make more advanced EVs & main rival of Japan. But for normal Japanese people it doesn't matter because they use smaller engine like 800cc less 100hp cars.
Excellent video, super informational. I am a technician at a Toyota dealership and whenever we got sent to official training classes the instructors would ask us what we thought about Hydrogen power. I figured that indicated a company-wide stance that somewhat opposed EV technology but I never knew why until now, so thank you for the video!
@@buildmotosykletist1987 no I didn't go check his facts at 4am. But considering you had enough evidence to accuse this creator of lying, then couldn't you just supply us with the first instance of fudged numbers that you found?
@@Embargoman Not entirely true; an example would be the Civic, its pretty much obsolete in Japan specially with how low sales the 10th gen Civics were (even stopped production there, now the 11th gen is being made in Thailand), the competitor Corolla is doing very well, though there are reasons for the Honda's decline like the size dimension tax, or even political ones.....
@@AHondaCivicEX Yeah the Honda Civic last time where built in the UK, but yet Honda is making the Civic SI now in the US for the North American market, I bet their are Honda Civics that are made in Brazil for certain Latin American markets.
@@PPaul03 In a way as Toyota is pushing Hydrogen, then things could go around even Nissan invested in electric cars, I believe Toyota will be late in the game.
A hybrid 15 years ago was pretty meh, but now, they are the perfect blend of effiency and power. imo, way more practical and reliable than throwing in a turbo. Still accelerates like an ev. With the added bonus of ev mode driving around town.
Because they spent billions developing Hydrogen, and are loath to lose that investment. They are way behind the curve when it comes to EV's. and are set to lose a ton of market share in the new EV future. You snooze you lose. Toyota are going to lose big time.
You also have to consider that ATM, a hybrid is cheaper and gives way more miles per tank compared to an EV. My 2014 Prius gives around 410 miles per tank and it drives at around 50-60 mpg. And each tank is around $30-40. Idk, that’s just my perspective at least
your hybrid is probably cheaper to buy, but I don't think it's cheaper to drive, at least in the US. For example, a tesla model 3 can do around 4 miles/kWh, and electricity is around on average 15 cents/kWh, so to get the same 410 miles takes 102.5 kWh and $15.38.
@@chaklee435 Yeah, that's true, but for most people who can only fit a 30-40k car in their budget, at the moment, only Kia or Hyundai offers affordable options that are around 40k or under. That extra 10-15k+ that most EVs cost is just out of budget and unrealistic for many people. I do agree in the long run, the EV is cheaper and more efficient. You also have to consider that EVs have to charge way more often than filling a hybrid. My Prius lasts around 2 weeks per tank, and I'm driving around every other day. So considering that, I think a hybrid is cheaper IMO. For EVs, their only issue right now is price. If good reliable EVs start going in the market for 30-40k or under, I think EVs will have way more potential. that's just me though, I'm not an expert on the matter by far, so if I'm wrong in some things, my b.
I thought it was because “When Toyota goes full EV, it will do it RIGHT!” But this video explains the many intricacies as of why. So well made. Thanks.
Toyota knows that the electricity for charging will be at least 10 x more expensive in the not-so-distant future. Whereas Hydrogen will get cheaper if more is made.
Toyota is brutally bulletproof and reliable. I have visited to remote jungle in africa, arabs desert and Nepal hill climb they will always be Toyota as the main vehicle. The most boring vehicle is always that will last long miles.
There isn't a storage problem, there is a production problem due to the cost but over time that will come down as better methods for producing it are created.
@@iamthepotato4312 Well, If you have solved the storage problem you should tell people how. You could make millions. Heck you could make millions just from NASA.
@@iamthepotato4312 while the production might turn greener, you will always need to cool and pressurize it. Thats the storage problem and its inherent to the matter. No way around it
Toyota likes to let others do the R&D for how to properly make something before they themselves reverse engineer what others have done then learn to make it more reliable. It's what Lexus used to be when it first came out (Target Mercedes customers by showing them the same stuff but doesn't break as much) though IDK about now. Would be interesting to see if this is what they're doing with EV as they already have hybrids.
I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. The ls400 when it came out was quieter faster and cheaper than all the competition. Also happened to be one of the most reliable cars ever made
If Toyota really wants to be a carbon neutral company, then I find it obvious that they wouldn’t go “all in” with EV’s since the actual production of batteries is harmful for the environment and the energy that is used to power the cars is mostly generated through burning fossil fuels or other types of methods that are not environmentally friendly. I also agree with the idea that Toyota is probably aware of all the markets they operate in not only the ones in developed countries. Finally, they certainly know that at this point EV’s are not really efficient. The technology may or may not evolve enough to make it viable for every type of commuter to own an EV. These are some other points of view, the video was great and your point were valid as well.
If a company want to be really carbon neutral it shouldn't hire carbon based creatures to work for them. The EV is to reduce the use of gas to make USA able to increase the export of gas. The hydrogen in Japan is to reduce the import of gas. This clashes with USA since 69% of economy is based on gas export. China want to increase the friction between both countries and the reason why China invest in hydrogen, What China hates more than Japan is USA and if Japan help China to defeat USA it's a win,win scenario.
I think the ship has already sailed away on this one. Hydrogen is basically a dead end at this point as it's still in basically the same position today as it was when I was 5. I remember even seeing hydrogen fuel cell cars at the local bike racing stadium and they drove it out of there too. But to this day it's still basically a pipe dream and in many cases actually looks worse than originally promised. Great example is that while it fuels as fast as a gas car, it only has the same range or less by weight of a normal EV. The Toyota Mirai shows this directly only having around 400 miles of range at 4,300 pounds. The only EV with similar range and also a sedan is the Tesla Model S, and that weighs only 400 pounds more. Most EVs have worse range mainly because they're crossovers. Also from insider stuff I've heard, the Mirai is wholly unprofitable. The fuel cell inside of it alone costs over $20K and they are selling the cars at a loss in the hopes of spreading adoption. But they've been doing this for over 10 years now and just aren't catching up. Fuel cells also by nature have a limited lifespan as the process of running them wears out the cathode used in the reaction. In a fuel cell this is made of platinum and replacing it alone costs $8K.
Actually it cost me almost $20 every time I charge up my Tesla. Don't let them lie to you. It's not as expensive as gas but once you factor in how much I overpaid just to get an Eevee and the fact that in 10 years it will be worthless and it still cost me almost $20 to fill up compared to a regular sedan which would cost about $50, so it does save some money at the gas pump but at the end of the day I'll say it's not worth it, the next car I get is going to be a gas powered car
@@Fauzanarief-n7i You'd have to factor in a few different things, what if you do deferred maintenance on your new ICE car vs EV etc. That's when it gets hard to quantify.
Those who say, "Our electrical grid isn't up to charge millions if EVs," doesn't realize just how much electricity oil discovery, refining, and transportation actually uses.
Although hydrogen is going to have an impact on transport vehicles that needs very high energy density like passenger and freight planes. Electricity is so much more flexible and readily available than Hydrogen would ever get so I think Toyota is betting on the wrong horse.
The best thing you can do during an inflation is nothing. Sit tight and wait it out. The US economy always recovers. And if you have any cash on hand, start buying into The crypto market, it is on sale! These are the times when wealth is created.
8:06 except there was actual negligence and mismanagement involved. There are records going back years prior that some subsystems should be hardened to withstand situations like the tsunami that led to the meltdown.
Those who chastise Toyota for not going all in on fully EV vehicles forget that Toyota is a truly global company and any technology it commits to has to work in the developing world as well as the industrialized west. While a fully EV vehicle might be wonderful in a suburban North American city, it could not function in most developing countries, both in terms of charging infrastructure and energy production. A better option in both contexts would be plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that require lower amounts of lithium (given their smaller batteries) yet for most commuters would function as if they were fully electric vehicles (given the short distance of most commutes). In addition, I am sure that they are aware of the impossibility of building out a supply chain that provides batteries for a fully EV world.
Finally, someone who gets it. Toyota isn't avoiding EVs because they are all in on hydrogen, it just didn't make sense financially. Their large hybrid line up speaks for it's self.
Every unprofitable low volume newly developed EV sold canabalizes an ICE vehicle sale, this is the real reason they dont produced EVs. Match set game.
Until short term EV demand is filled (years from now?) these arguements are irrelevant. Meanwhile Tesla, BYD, NIO and other Chinese manufacturers already have the factories and supply chains in place for high volume profitable WORLDWIDE EV DELIVERY...ICE manufacturers offer only excuses and more debt.
@@stevennelson7518
Tesla - barely profitable and needs to trade crypto to remain profitable some quarters.
BYD and NIO - beneficiaries of stupidly aggressive financial incentivising that would probably be impossible under a liberal democracy.
You can hate on ICE manufacturers all you want, but Toyota is making the right calls.
Facts are facts electric cars pollutes more nvironment and people can't afford them and the fact those cars burn your house while charging and while not charging. 😣👎👎👎👎👎👎
I actually think Toyota is smart. Hybrid makes more sense right now. The fact that governments are pushing for all electric when our infrastructure isn't ready yet is insane.
100% !!
Because the climate change is NOT gonna wait and we've waited long enough not to do anything. That's the whole reason for the EV adoption, but governments should focus on lessening the cars rather than making it electric.
Cars account for a small percentage of green house gases … they would be better making all cars hybrid and figuring out how to make cruise ships and planes more efficient….
@@hurbrowns5397 too bad the production of the electricity powering your EVs and batteries completely negates the benefits of EVs over combustion engines.
@@Aether52 I don't give a fuck. Read again. Less cars is much more suitable and effective in downing CO2 emissions and government should make a proper public transport if that to happen. Electrification of cars won't do much shit, certainly continuing with ICE cars is even worse, even if It's hybrid.
the idea that "Nuclear bad, Solar/Wind good" is exactly what brought us to the energy crisis that we're going through now.
the best thing abt hybrids is that you have your own generator, you don't need to depend on the grid, be it the dirtiest or the cleanest.
to make things worse, they vehemently refuse to listen to any argument for nuclear while ignoring the many drawbacks and environmental disasters of wind and solar.
@@thatguybrody4819 environmental disasters of wind and solar? i ain't believing that one. yeah, wind and solar cause very unbalanced grids, but they are still the best option 90% of the time.
i agree that nuclear has been completely slandered and naively taken down because of extremely overblown public perception. Nuclear is safe, only stupid decisions and lack of oversight make them dangerous. same or worse is true of all power sources, including wind. we shouldn't give up because it is hard.
@@xymaryai8283 oh yeah. Environmental disasters. The land that needs to be cleared and flattened for solar farms only for them to heat up and sometimes melt and/or shatter leaving vast fields of broken glass and unusable panels not to mention the toxic production cycle that goes into solar panel production that spills out toxic chemicals and materials into the environment once they start to go bad and then there are the mass wind turbine landfills because it is hard and expensive to both maintain and recycle them. All for options that only produce power half the time
I always opt for cheap quick and dirty
@@xymaryai8283 The 50's were right. Nuclear was the future until idiots got in power. Now we have to conserve electricity because of these rich hipster ass holes and their Teslas sucking up all the electricity. Nuclear literally destroys solar/wind 10 fold. If we replaced every solar panel farm with a small nuclear power plant, we would be in excess of electricity, and electricity would be extremely cheap. Solar panels and wind turbines also destroy bird populations. I dont think nuclear power plants have any negative affects on wildlife other than the land being taken for the plant.
In the world of consumerism, it isn't about who does it first.
It is about who does it best.
And those who do it first and keep learning and improving will generally make it best. Toyota are taking a huge risk if they assume they can catch up to others who have been building pure EVs for a decade.
They might’ve not been first, but they’ve been making EVs since 1997. This video is full of misinformation and lies. Look into the two generations of RAV4 EVs they’ve produced.
@@UmmYeahOk that is both kind of true, and slightly misses the point. Toyota did make a few EVs to meet Californian requirements. Then they stopped for something like a decade. Then made a few more for a few years. The EVs they produced in that time frame were made in very low volumes in North America, not Japan or any other country. Toyota own about 70 plants by the looks, and have nearly 30 others in joint ventures. The idea that the knowledge and skills gained in the one or two plants that built a very small number of compliance vehicles with a 10 year gap between - the idea that those knowledge and skills have been both retained and spread around the nearly 100 Toyota plants, is pretty unrealistic.
All up Toyota manufactured about 4,000 RAV4 EVs over the entire period. They make over 9,000,000 cars every year. Again, the idea that the skills needed to make the EVs will both have been retained and spread seems very unrealistic.
They might have made some others also, but the numbers are tiny in comparison to their ICE vehicles. People and companies become good at what they do, not what they barely do. Toyota’s experience with hybrids has to help, but their experience with EVs… is so little/small that I think it is, in effect, irrelevant.
@@glennjgroves well, to be honest hydrogen powered cars are around since more than a decade ago. But electric cars got hyped a lot promising there's little maintenance and money to spend compared to combustion engine cars (not mentioning that it's almost impossible to work on that sort of car yourself btw), so all the other car companies decided to delay hydrogen fuel cell and hydrogen combustion engine cars. Right now it is the best time to finally get rid of overpriced batteries.
@@ChummiaChan actually the fact that Toyota has been working on hydrogen for a long time is relevant; a hydrogen car is an electric vehicle, I had sort of forgotten that. I would be very surprised if hydrogen light vehicles were remotely successful in their own right - it is more expensive and more difficult to produce and transport hydrogen than electricity. But, they are relevant in terms of Toyota’s experience with EVs.
They haven't refused, Toyota's first EV launched this year and Lexus's first EV will launch at the end of the year and they want to be all electric by 2030 - 2035. They're still exploring things like fuel cell though because assembling car batteries still isn't actually great for the environment
gotta agree on the battery problem, there's no plastic recycling equivalent of battery recycling, and look how plastic recycling goes.
Hahahaha you are so funny. Yes Toyota launched its electric car but then had to issue a recall of all those sold. It’s so bad they offered people to buy the car back at full price plus give them additional incentives. The reason being that the wheels could literally fall off due to poor engineering not accounting for the higher weight of the battery.
@@fltfathin Plastics are worthless. Li-ion battery components are highly valuable. That is why you see companies like Redwood Materials come into existence. They see the opportunity in Li-ion battery recycling. It will be a profitable business. Recycling plastics is not profitable.
I highly doubt that Toyota's decisions are being made for environmental reasons. They are still a car company, after all.
@@waynelewis9110 some companies are making fuel out of plastics
One thing to note about the Fukushima disaster was that the Onagawa plant that was subjected to similar if not worse had basically no issues in 2011 due to its better design and better management.
The plant that failed did only due so under extreme conditions though so either way still very impressive
Yeah this is a very important point, if the reactor backup generators had not been placed in the flood vulnerable basement, the whole disaster could have been avoided. Japan needs to pivot back to Nuclear if they want energy independence.
@@PsyK1c I wonder if LFTR type reactors would be a good fit for them? That's what India was going for if I'm not mistaken.
@@PsyK1c pretty sure Japan is still using nuclear energy and plans on commissioning more plants
@@skylerstevens8887 There have been multiple reports before the incident made by nuclear safety organizations showing that were was a significant flaw of the design in a case of a tsunami, one report even managed to predict the situation that happend the during the incident but the company owning the powerplant and the Japanese government choose to ignore the reports because it would have been expensive to fix the flaw.
Up to this moment, its my guess that Toyota wants to see where the battery development will lead to which may either reach a peak and hault, or continue developing and improve drastically. Synthetic fuels are a way more realistic temporary solution, but for now nothing beats ICE cars. A Toyota Prius may be capable of a 800km range, but so can a VW Golf non hybrid. Hydrogen cars are still far away from mass production, but until Toyota makes the perfect recipe, it wont enter competition for the sake of it. Toyota perfects its products over time, hence why new technology delays against the competition.
Toyota is well and good. It is not without reason that they have the biggest car producer for a time.
Still e-fuels are still not close.
As well as Toyota all the other car makers have hybrids in the portfolio this is not that special anymore.
@@paxundpeace9970 If F1 can utilize e fuels, then e fuels are much closer than we think we are.
Toyota couldn't even build an EV without a risk of the bloody wheels falling off.
Hydrogen will never be viable because energy costs are extremely high (8$ a gallon) and the cars are expensive. They also get less range. Also will be very hard to have a network of “gas stations” for hydrogen.
Battery advances are making EV range anxiety excuses obsolete, the last complaint existing for ICE vehicle continuation.
This explanation is as good as any. However, it's also possible that Toyota goes against the grain again because they can see the problems with EVs. They may be simply waiting for what will happen after 2035 (the date after which, in many countries, new ICE vehicles will no longer be sold) and how the battery technology will progress:
1. If someone comes out with some battery breakthrough that will make them cheap, durable, light, and able to be charged in 10-15 minutes, Toyota will convert some of their hybrids to EVs fast.
2. On the other hand, if no battery breakthrough happens, EVs will continue to cost an arm and leg, and their range and charging time will suck... it will be a completely different ball game. In that case, the legislators will have to take a step back. Toyota is probably betting that when that happens, other alternatives will be rushed back on the table - especially hydrogen AND plug-in hybrids.
Frankly, at the moment, their bet has a high chance of paying off. It's one thing to scream, 'We will ban ICE cars after 2035!' right now, but once transport-related social exclusion becomes a real possibility for millions of people, politicians will be forced to sing a different tune.
ICE won't ever be banned for real IMO, none of past vehicles are getting fully banned, probably the requirements become stricter and results on even more efficient ICE cars and no big CO2 converter cars like lamborghini and SUV running on road.
Nope, there’s no ban on ice vehicles. Just ban on petrol ice vehicles. Hydrogen ice is okay because it’s not petrol. This only applies to California. The other states dissing us.
@@maxiummadface It's not just California. It applies to other liberal hell holes like New York and Illinois because they follow Californias emissions standards. Glen Youngkin right now is working very hard with the legislature to repeal a law that the Democrats passed that forces Virginia to follow California emissions and thus ban ICE cars in 2035
Your assumption about BEV’s is in error. A BEV is more durable than any ICE, batteries will last longer than the cars they are in, especially those with LFP chemistries which is rapidly becoming the de-facto standard. No ‘battery breakthroughs’ are needed, the incremental improvement yoy has seen energy densities rise from 147 Wh/Kg (my 2019 Kia e-Niro with NMC chemistry) to 250 Wh/kg in the latest CATL NMC Qlin batteries, while previously ‘lowly’ LFP at 155 Wh/kg is where my NMC based car was 3 years ago. LFP is also 30% cheaper to make...see what happens over the next 24 months as LFP cells start to arrive from new plants in China and SK....and the subsequent drop in the prices of new EVs. My now ‘old’ EV has a range of 450 km, more than I can drive before taking a break...it’s peak charging rate is 75 kW, which was thought pretty good in 2019 but is now considered slow. Newer cars from Hyundai, Kia, Ford, VW and of course Tesla can charge 2, 3 even 4 times faster...so adding 100 km in 10 minutes is pretty standard now...we tend to stop for 30 to 40 minutes on a long drive, take lunch and carry on. We have driven from our home in South West France to the UK, Germany and Switzerland, though I never like to do more than 800 km in a day. EVs are holding their value on the used car market better than any premium branded ICE car which cost €100 a fill up these days. Yes our EV was more expensive to buy than the hybrid version of the Niro but we have saved I reckon €6,500 in fuel and another €1,000 in servicing so far. For people on a tight budget a used EV is the only way to go.
@@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270 People on a tight budget are buying used cars for under $15-20k. Until electric cars get that cheap while maintaining quality, 50-80% of people cannot buy one while being financially responsible (ie no 80 month loans). Western power grids cannot even sustain the current usage and we are highly dependent on China for raw materials. If China ever decides to go AWOL and our governments keep being corrupt and incompetent in regards to energy generation, ev's will be a pipedream for the average person.
Toyota is now the # 1 company in vehicle sales in the USA. They make solid well made vehicles that are reliable. Consumers want reliability. That is what the Toyota/Lexus brands stand for.
I second this i have a 1995 toyota tacoma that runs nice
No one knows how these 2022 all EV vehicles will run 10 years from now.
What Toyota does know is the reliability of their current models. They will continue down this path and in 10 years if all EV is reliable they swap to it. If not they continue with what they have. That’s what it means to come from humble beginnings.
@@fj7509 I have an EV from 2011 that runs like the day it was bought. EVs are much more reliable than ICE vehicles.
Overall, true- but they've had their missteps, too...
@@AHSRecords I call bullshit
Has nobody ever considered that going "all in" with EVs is going to tank the power infrastructure? Going all in on EVs won't be viable until nuclear power becomes more widely used.
If only we live in a timeline where nuclear fusion reactor is a thing
@@HyperVanilo if only everyone ignored the hippies
This video show how Japan and USA have political reasons to promote vehicles. Still hybrids were just what the world needed and we just disposed of it.
@@robertagren9360 The world never forced you to buy ev. Some goes hybrid and some goes ev. It has nothing with japan and usa.
If only we had great big batteries that could store cheap renewable energy and use that later on… OH, WAIT… an EV is a battery on wheels.
Power grids only operate at peak for short periods. Any time other than peak is fine for charging a large number of EVs. Right now. As more renewables come on line there will be even more power available off peak. As long as smart charging is used there is no issue.
In hindsight, the fukushima disaster could have been mitigated if some seemingly "minor" design mistakes weren't made. Many of the emergency diesel generators that were supposed to keep the coolant flowing to prevent a thermal runaway were far too low in elevation making them very much at risk of tsunami damage, so that in the event that there was a tsunami that could breach the protective sea walls, they were going to get flooded and destroyed.
So... I think that disaster could have been mitigated even with that specific monster earthquake+tsunami.
If anyone is reading this comment and wants to learn more check out Kyle Hill on RUclips. He has a half life series where he breaks down the science of nuclear disasters and why the media surrounding them is generally fear mongering and how public perception of nuclear power has been affected
TEPCO was warned several times by nuclear safety agencies and governments spanning a couple of decades about this exact problem, its pretty damning.
The only change that was ever made was replacing doors, they were too lazy to relocate the diesel backup generators to a safer location.
When the two biggest nuclear disasters (as well as most others) occurred due to mismanagement/known flaws, you would think self reflection would be more productive than the vilification of this technology.
@@randomaccount53793 Sadly they just factor in human incompetence to a point it's not worth it.
An Errant Photon: Right. Instead of panicking re nuclear, respecting the safety needs and doing it RIGHT would make FAR more sense than pretending it doesn't exist. Of course, doing it RIGHT, like storing the waste properly (and away from the reactors) would be more EXPENSIVE -- and these things often come down to economics in the end.
@@rogergeyer9851 ? Nuclear fuel isn't actually that dangerous so long as you store it correctly or transport correctly. Heck because people were so damn afraid of it they even made a container that's stronger than most military grade equipment or armor. Not to mention they are only dangerous while at high temperatures for the waste, so once it's cooled off (which you need to do anyways before shipping it) most of the high/extreme danger is gone. Yeah it's still radioactive, but that's no were near a actual danger level, not to mention it will only be unshielded long enough to put it into a transportation container and also to put it in it's final resting point
Plug in hybrid is so much better than full electric. You can use a battery 1/10th of the size and for most commuters drive less than 30 miles per day.
I can agree with that. That's my problem with full EVs where if youre stranded, you're sol. Having gas being the power reserve when you need it makes it less of a headache.
Good point but I think 1/10th is a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe closer to 1/4 to 1/6 the size
@Mitchell Couchman No he's right, the cars that do 30 miles real world range have like 13kWh (hatchback) to 17 kWh (SUV) batteries as Plug in Hybrids only get around 2 miles per kWh compared to around 4 from a full EV. EV's dont typically have 170 kWh batteries, the average is around 50-60 kWh.
but having both an ICE and electric motors with batteries increases complexity, and therefore cost of manufacturing, and especially maintenance
@Mitchell Couchman real world range is exactly what it says real world range. Yes it would apply to an electric car also like my Mini Electric has a claimed 145 mile range, does it get 145 miles on a charge? No. Same for mpg figures. Your Prius may have an estimated range of 25 miles like the VW Golf GTE has a range of 38 miles. But I can tell you from driving these cars they don't get that claimed range figure.
To be fair, Toyota has some kick-ass hybrids. That Rav 4 hybrid is very efficient.
do they actually plug it in and if so, how often?
@@fetB depends if you get the plug-in hybrid, or regular hybrid.
@@ilivedowntheroad oh, then whats the point. You'd be charging by using more gas then you'd otherwise and you're losing efficiency in the conversion
Johnny Boy: Absolutely. Both HEV's and PHEV's are GREAT as a TRANSITIONAL vehicles. The problem is, in a decade or two if they don't have serious competitive BEV offerings, they won't be competitive. And so it will be game over for Toyota if they don't change with the reality of the rise of battey tech.
And I say this as a big Toyota van who as an American was GLAD I had Japanese cars vs. US cars, re quality, durability, and value. But I'm NOT going to buy cars from Toyota because I feel sorry for them if they don't compete well in BEV's over time.
@@hunterrrdrives Bullshit. I just drove one 1200 miles and I had to refill it every 300 miles with its 12 gallon tank. I wasn’t racing or anything. Just commuting.
8:10 dont think thats accurate. From what understand, the back up generator was flooded because it was badly placed, and that cause the failure. its not like the plant was broken in half or something. This was totally avoidable
This is absolutely correct. Before the incident there have been multiple safety reports reporting that in the case of a tsunami the emergency generators would be flooded due to them being located in the basement and the reports suggested this to be fixed in case a tsunami would occur.
They knew this was a tsunami prone area.
And they knew shii whould hit the fan when it would happen.
I'm so glad Toyota exists.
I'm so thankful for their reliability.
They're the poor man's brand and I'm proud of it. They just don't break while every other car owner I know have spent thousands on their cars to repair them.
You don't even see a single toyota breakdown in the middle of intersection and in the middle of traffic
They aren’t poor mans brand. They are wise mans choice
@@SkylineFinesse I see rich suburbs with 2000s Corollas and camrys, and in poor neighborhoods it’s full of BMWs and benz and Scat packs
@@aimxdy8680 yup i have a hyundai elantra n line it’s quick enough for me and i can eat up all those cars you mentioned off the line and get 3x better gas mileage
RIP my 2006 honda element. To be fair, it's an oldish car. But dang it is it useful in what you can haul around
I think going "All in" on electric vehicles it terrifying. When investing it's best to have a broad portfolio. I would have liked to see a pretty even split between diesel, gas, hybrid, electric and hydrogen by 2035, not 100% EV. Watching recent videos on similar channels I see that like Japan, America and the West are not doing this because it's the right thing to do, we have our interests too, and that is reducing OPEC and Russia's control over our energy.
Fair enough
I have to disagree here. There's a reason we went all in on Gasoline burning vehicles a century ago, it's because the technology was clearly superior at the time. So of course we're going to go all in on BEV's in the coming decades, because the technology is clearly better then the alternates, especially when you consider how fast it's continuing to improve (like the cost and efficiency of the batteries). The superior technology usually puts the other inferior competitors out of business in a free market.
@@shadowninja6689 I'd have to disagree with you EVs have there own problems with production in terms of carbon with lithium and all that sure most of hydrogen produced isn't clean but it gets the job done just as good as EVs
@@manjoring5944 battery metals are highly recyclable. Once the grid sources cleaner energy, you can’t beat it. Especially with how expensive hydrogen infrastructure is, makes no sense
We can't negate that Opec and russia control most of the energy sector
I think that in order to solve our energy issue that we have to accept nuclear as a viable option. Yes, there have been some hiccups along the way with it, but it’s much better than coal or natural gas. Renewables could supplement this and help charge EVs while people are charging during the daytime. Technology Connections said he thinks hydrogen will replace diesel as the fuel for large trucks and I agree with him on that. A fully electric semi truck would have to haul so much extra weight in batteries it wouldn’t be very feasible.
EVs is a waste, its only good cause the consumers does not receive the chemicas to produce EVs as a raw materials.
Nuclear is just too expensive and slow to build out to play a major role anytime soon. However, we definitely should keep existing plants running (assuming they are in good working order of course).
Right now we're moving to a more decentralized grid based on wind, solar, hydro, and storage... With gas peaking plants for a while until storage gets a bit cheaper. Maybe "advanced nuclear" will finally come along several decades down the road, but it isn't a realistic option without those decades of development. I do wish we had started back in the 80s or 90s so it would be an option now :(
Good luck convincing companies to invest into the nuclear option when Nuclear Reactors take upwards of a decade to build and even longer before you start seeing any kind of returns, not to mention all of the liability. That is why the private sector hasn't touched Nuclear at all. No money in it compared to Fossil Fuels and alternative energy.
Cold hard logistics has killed nuclear power.
LFTR are the new generation of nuclear reactors with over 90 percent effiency. Type "Thorium reactors" if you want to know more about it. Its the future ni doubt.
I think we should embrace fusion instead.
Gas cars wouldn’t have been an issue if public transport was properly supported, too bad millions have it making it so harmful to the environment
"the 2nd worst nuclear accident since Chernobil"
number of deaths: 0
A fully practical mass market EV will need 3 characteristics. 1) Range of 300 miles on a single charge. 2) Charging time of less than 1 hour on a 240v ac charger. 3) Cost less than 40k before tax write-offs. It's not there yet. A hybrid would be more practical for inner city and suburban commuters. You don't have to worry about finding charging facilities and a battery pack with a 25-50 mile range is sufficient for office commutes and errands.
What you explained is the MG4 long range, though I have to ask why do you need 1 hour charging on AC for. Thats charging at home, to which you can just charge while you're asleep, so why do you need it so fast?? Also a hybrid with a 25-50 mile range would be a plug in hybrid so would still need charging facilities to fill the duty you claim. They can only charge at about 3.6 kWh max and to get 25 miles real world range will need around a 13 kWh battery so would take around 3 hours or more to charge. My EV could get over 80 miles of range from an AC charger in 3 hours. Also the issue with lithium batteries is the number of charge cycles as that causes degradation. To make plug in worth while you have to plug it in and to get the range for day to day use, it will need plugging in daily. Thats at least 260 charges a year going from 0-100% on a 5 day commute, appose to around 30-40 full charges a year from a full EV to cover the same distance. You will therefore notice degradation in a plug in hybrids battery much quicker than in a full EV and therefore will need the battery replacing much sooner due to the higher number of charge cycles per year.
bro just said
8:00 This is false, Kyle Hill did a video on this and it turns out they only prepared for one disaster, but not a combination of both. They were warned to build safeguards against the possibility but were ignored.
The only auto manufacturer that realizes the power grid will never be able to handle everyone owning an EV or two.
Not everyone will own EV tomorrow and by then grid will be upgraded which is decades.
@@User-actSpacing California/ NYC/ Toronto too.
Kei cars mostly only work well inside of Japanese cities, but I don't see Japanese companies trying to force the rest of the world to drive Kei cars. Toyota also sells full sized pickup trucks, but they aren't available inside of Japan. Why can't they do that with EV's? Hell, they didn't even design the EV components for their new EV. The Chinese company BYD did.
Not really, I think kei car are still selll well in other country that have small narrow road like Europe, India, or southeast Asia. Even small "Kei car" Like hongguan mini EV are outselling Tesla in china
@@Fauzanarief-n7i It's not that there's no interest either, there are people in the USA that have imported a kei car. Kei cars actually make really good BEVs because of their smaller size and lighter weight, they get more range out of their battery than full-sized BEVs and their smaller battery takes less time to charge.
The thing with Fukushima is that it actually was preventable, there had been suggestions put forth to make changes like raising the sea walls which would have prevented the disaster. These suggestions were ignored
I think Honda deserves as much or more praise. It has done a good deal in this space as timely or even earlier than Toyota, and it's the "little guy" on the block and made proportionately larger efforts.
Honda isn't exactly a "little guy" it's the worlds number one producer of internal combustion engines.
No they don't
The refueling speed and lighter vehicle weight is a plus for Hydrogen, but the storage and platinum requirements are big negatives
Delivery too.
I honestly don't understand why they keep pushing HFC vehicles when HFC is way more suited to static, non-moving generators. Hydrogen ain't exactly known for being stable under changing pressure. Not to mention it fucking sucks in terms of actual energy output. Worse than just basic electricity.
@@JustSomeDinosaurPerson Same could be said about electric cars energy output before Tesla changed it with all that R&D into battery's.
For the consumer it is also wonderful that they persue hydrogen, if it fails, the consumer have all the other that have bet on electric, and if eletric is troublesome, there is someone working on alternative
as a Toyota Hybrid owner I really couldn't imagine a better solution. it's the perfect balance between fuel saving and usability.
Toyota is a massive, capable, and highly talented organization. They understand that electric vehicles are not the answer and to continue working on hybrids and internal combustion engines for the short-term is the best option. Toyota is banking on hydrogen fuel cell. Despite being a rather conservative corporation, Toyota will make massive leaps beyond all competition.
yes, because ignoring a market thats grown 50% every year without slowing down is a "highly talented" idea. How do they compete once they do want to make evs? they are stuck at the back of a long line for materials
An EV battery pack is roughly 40x bigger than a hybrid pack. If one EV saves 10L/100km and one HEV 3L/100km, then the batteries are much better spent on hybrids than EVs since battery production is the bottleneck to electrification. With that, Toyota’s focus on HEVs is arguably much more effective for CO2 reduction until battery production significantly improves. Speaking of batteries, Toyota is a major player in solid-state batteries and it would make sense to wait for the new tech before going harder on EVs. Just because Toyota is not jumping on the bandwagon, it doesn’t mean they’re behind.
Lobbing = Corruption
Basically
India government is also trying to switch to both renewable energy and green hydrogen.
But Toyota HAS jumped onto the EV bandwagon - have you not heard about their Toyota bZ series? 100% electric battery. Hydrogen fuel is a TERRIBLE idea - its 75% inefficient; more than 3/4 the energy used to create, store, transport, pump into cars and be used, is LOST & it costs a FORTUNE - the only reason its not already abandoned is that super-rich corporations want to force us to use a consumable which THEY control, just like petrol. Electric car batteries are 95-99% efficient, & you can charge them for FREE, cleanly, from your solar roof.
Solar panels and batteries need to be replaced too.
@@andrewdubose9968 why on Earth would you need to replace them? The Sun is the ultimate nuclear fusion reactor, which is already the energy source for ALL life on Earth. It makes 100% sense to use it for all energy on Earth as well. And remember, solar panels can last 30 years plus, at ZERO cost after setup.
@@TimLongson weather, and (somewhat ironically) UV exposure cause degradation over time.
Yeah, but the question is how long will each charge take? And you know that the ultimate downside is the toxic batteries we currently make. Also, electric cars will use more electricity. So you're gonna need more electricity. Which means producing more electricity meaning more fossil fuel use.
Also, right now, making cities with cars in mind is a terrible idea. Your ultimate solution to going green would be to make walkable cities, more densely and mixed zones in cities, having more trains integrated into cities (you're not beating trains in green energy or moving stuff around), etc. A car needs much, much more infrastructure than a train. Your ultimate goal should be city redesign. Electric cars simply should replace petrol/diesel cars. Not be a used to encourage people to buy more cars.
@@siyzerix firstly batteries are FAR less "toxic" than they used to be; the main problem was the rare earth element boron mining, but that is no longer used - they switched to lithium phosphate instead. And you can generate electricity 100% from renewable sources, for example, if you had a fully solar roof & house battery, you could charge your electric car for FREE with ZERO emissions, at home.
The idea is you charge them overnight at home - just pop them on charge when you get home (takes no more time than putting your phone on charge) & you will have a full charge by the next time you go out). If you get a car with a 300+ mile range, and you don't drive more than 300 miles PER DAY (with most of us never do) then you would never need to spend time charging it, so it SAVES time compared to spending 10 minutes at a petrol station - no queing up, no waiting for the car to fill, no queing up to pay, etc.. And even if you DID, on a very rare occassion, drive over the 300+ miles in a single day, there are super charges all over the place which can give you an 80% charge in 15 mins (240+ miles), which is only about 5mins more than people typically spend at a petrol station!
The argument "make do with less" to stop climate change has been unsuccessfully used for DECADES - we have known about climate change for about a century and that way of thinking has completely failed to stop CO2 levels from already dangerously changing our climate, with MILLIONS going to do if we don't do something drastic NOW! Using green technology is a positive way to do it, and doesn't ask people to make their lives harder.
If we install fully solar roofs, house batteries, vertical ground source heat pumps, decent insulation and electric cars, we can cut TOTAL climate emissions by over 2/3rds in next to no time, without people having to give up anything!
Also, people keep forgetting, ICE (petrol) cars emit a lot more things than just CO2, things which cause thousands of premature deaths per year (don't believe me? Try sitting in your ICE car with the engine running and windows open in a closed garage - people commit suicide that way. But if you did it in an electric car, you would be fine), and that's not including the HUGE amount of energy used, and toxins emitted, in mining, processing and transporting the petrol (gasoline) in the first place!
The 2011 fukushima nuclear accident was also negligence. There were warnings that the wave breaks weren't big enough and they were ignored. It wasn't a record breaking earthquake, just a big one in a bad position
“Charging EVs are much less expensive.” Not when you have the power grid going out
The power grid going out also affects gas stations, even more so than the ability to charge an EV. What usually follows after power outages are shortages at gas stations accompanied with long lines. Interestingly enough, if you actually knew more about EVs you’d know that Tesla Superchargers remain in operation due to on-site solar generation and battery storage. Gas stations *may* have backup generators that use gas, thus exacerbating the gas shortage that will likely ensue.
@@waynelewis9110 yet gas stations don’t put additional like EV’s
Blame your bad government, either build better public infrastructure or build better energy infrastructure
@@Thunderbolt22A10 Additional what?
@@HyperVanilo strain, blame my phone for not putting it in
This video was one of the hardest to hear your voice in, due to the volume/choice of background music, especially in the first 20-30%. Otherwise, your videos are continuing to improve over time. Thanks for posting!
Thank you for the feedback TMI, I really appreciate it!
Toyota will most likely be the pioneers in hydrogen fuel. They have already made a car the runs on it, but the infrastructure and the method of creating hydrogen needs to evolve to compete with electric.
I think the Hydrogen/EV Hybrid would be the best option because you would have a Battery that you can charge for small commutes and a Hydrogen Tank for longer commutes. And yes Hydrogen cars are already basically EV Hybrids but they dont have Charging Port.
Plus the fun of driving a piston engine unless your talking about the fuel cell. In that case Hyundai is already on that
@@code54crunchy50 Hydrogen ICE is just a waste of time.
Fun story: That's how Hydrogen cars work. The fuel cell charges a small battery that drives the wheels. They're just a lot smaller, somewhere in the 5 kWh range.
8:12 - Plus Fukushima was a way-antiquated, 1960s design (construction began in 1967).
Hydrogen for fuel cells are ultimately just another kind of battery, and a very inefficient one at that. Nobody “has hydrogen” in the sense that Saudi Arabia has oil. Hydrogen has to be separated out from water or methane by extremely-energy-intensive processes.
Nevertheless, I drive a Prius Prime, and I understand the reasoning behind it:
- Make the battery just big enough to cover virtually all of your day-to-day driving needs, and so that it has little impact upon supply and cost,
- Make the car extremely efficient both on battery and on gas,
- Burn gas only on those rare instances when you take a road trip.
In Congo mines, child laborers hand dig cobalt, the raw material for lithium-ion batteries. What do you think about the current situation where EVs cost more than three times as much without child slaves?
Almost half of all new EVs use no cobalt. But the fossil fuel industry still uses extremely large amounts of cobalt for fuel refining.
I did the study of electric vs hybrid cars when is was in high school. Pretty much every study showed that hybrid cars were better overall.
How so?
@@wojciechmuras553 Hybrid's head pirates had the better option of the 2 you weren't reliant on one option but it's also hard to remember all of the information but this was like 4 years ago. Pretty much I did gas versus electric cars. And found out of the 2 hybrids were considered the best option
Yeah, they even make car with combution engine that use hydrogen as the fuel. But it is race car, maybe for test purpose and keep the development. I have hope for that.
The buses is what shocked me the most cause I realized in the Las Vegas areas all their large buses run on Hydrogen & they just approved changing the large school buses into them as well.
Now considering Vegas has one of the most used bus systems in the US, it makes sense but I was just thinking about the cost of all those buses (and double decker) maintenance cost
His figures are totally false. Just look them up.
You are wrong about the Fukushima disaster, they were told before the disaster to build bigger floodwalls that would've been big enough to stop it but they didn't.
The rest on the list....are used in mostly developed or semi-developed nations....
Toyota is the bedrock of Africa....
I'm Nigerian and Toyota is everywhere.......
Toyota is truly the only Real Global Automobile company in the world.
A durable company with durable products...
EV is chicken innovation for them and they know it....they know where they sell their products and don't need to rush into something they'll eventually dominate.
Unlike Tesla, Toyota don't want to make faulty vehicles and ruin their image. I'm sure they're looking at the long term and waiting for technology to mature in their r&d facilities before deployment
That has always been their reputation.
Ravarsen: When Tesla can't sell BEV's because they're too "faulty", be sure and get back to us. Meanwhile in the real world, they can't possibly meet demand, even as they RAPIDLY ramp production every year.
I hate to bash on Toyota as I do like them but they literally had wheels falling off from they attempt at an EV, never heard that from a Tesla.
@@Anomize23 In the 90s and early 2000 they had the reputation of being an innovative car company. Nothing left from that time sadly.
you mean like the bz4x where they were recalled because the tires can fall off and are now offering to buy them all back i guess its good they didn't sell more that would have really ruined their image
My problem with hybrid based companies like Toyota and Honda, is that they don't make enough hybrids. Which kinda undercuts their entire justification for their hybrid over EV direction.
Damn, Japan can't catch a break 😶
“It’s not like the disaster was caused by mismanagement or negligence.”
I love Japan (studied abroad there for a semester and love a lot of things about it), but I want to correct a point you made. Fukushima-Daiichi could have in fact been at least partially prevented had TEPCO followed earlier recommendations to relocate their backup generators or increase the height of the seawall around the plant. These warnings were ignored, which I believe could fairly constitute negligence.
Hybrid is the future.
Run on gas or electric.
I don’t get why plug in hybrids are more populars which Toyota does have a large foothold in. You use battery power for most of your daily needs and on longer trips you can use gas or hydrogen or something similar. You can use the same amount if lithium to make double, or triple the amount of vehicles.
@Mitchell Couchman To get 50 miles of range you'd need a 20-25 kWh battery at least so no not 1/10th 😂. Tesla doesn't have a 500 mile EV, their longest range car the Tesla model S has a 405 mile estimated range and has a 100 kWh (95kWh usable) battery. Take a look at the Golf GTE, 13 kWh battery and 22-25 miles real world range.
@Mitchell Couchman Now you are showing how little you understand about EVs 😂 I have driven a Plug in Hybrid with that 13 kWh battery and it gets a real world, from my experience and reviewers tests, 25 miles of range. Plug in Hybrids don't achieve the same miles per kWh efficiency as a full EV as the electric motor isn't as strong. A Tesla will easily average 4 miles per kWh as can be seen in Tesla reviews. The Model 3 with its just over 60 kWh battery can easily get over 250 miles or range. My Mini electric with its 28.9 kWh battery can easily get over 130 miles of range and in the summer achieve higher than its WLTP cycle range rating getting over 5 miles per kWh. But you lack of understanding on the BEV and Hybrid category was cemented when you claimed a hybrid would need 1/10th the size battery to go 50 miles 😂😂.
I actually thought Toyota was waiting for the evolution of the electric vehicle to reach a refinement great enough to invest in. In other words, I thought Toyota was playing the safe and conservative approach of learning from where their competition failed to succeed best when the time comes. This perspective was on a completely different level. I did not realize just how serious Japan's energy crisis was until now.
That's why they are the number one car company in the world right now they know something we don't. The electrical grid will collapse over time.
SPOILER: Because they spent 20 years developing hydrogen powered cars, sinking tons of money into it. And now they discovered that EVs developed much faster than hydrogen.
The statement that Japan couldn't have avoided the Fukushima nuclear disaster without abandoning nuclear entirely is factually wrong. TEPCO was warned on several occasions about the risks of a tsunami disabling Fukushima Daichii's cooling systems by several actors years before the accident but failed to act on those warnings.
SpaceX uses methane.
SLS uses hydrogen.
Japan uses methane to convert to hydrogen.
Hmm. Why not just use methane?!
Hahaha, no clue
Because it has carbon. It eventually converts to CO2 when chemically processed, which is also the same problem with methanol and formic acid (which was also considered as alternative fuel in the past). And methane is also pretty hard to store for a truly ubiquitously-scaled application (certainly harder than that of i.e. ammonia).
Theres a need for ice and hybrid during the transition, its a good plan
Fair enough
If that the case, why don't Toyota bluid aa plug in hybrid? Not a hybrid that you can't charge
@@Fauzanarief-n7i they did. The Prius prime and rav 4 prime are plug in hybrids
@@Fauzanarief-n7i dude you are way behind they do have plug-in hybrid.
2Snouser: Their hybrid (both HEV and PHEV) vehicles with the modern Toyota hybrid system are GREAT. And they'll be GREAT transitional vehicles for a decade or two. But they MUST get serious about BEV tech. to be able to compete with the likes of Tesla and BYD (current leaders) in the longer run.
Once BEV batteries are cheap, durable, long range, and plentiful, and the charging infrastructure matures a lot (with 20 years), the hybrids will no longer be able to compete. Toyota needs to transition before then, or go bankrupt soon after.
Hydrogen would make sense if it didn't take so much energy to make and store and transport. Usually more energy than you'd get back from it.
Unless they've pioneered a new way of doing those things first, it would be pretty counterintuitive to go that direction.
It would make more sense if they were using only renewable energy to produce Hydrogen... but in a country with excellent infrastructure, public transportation and being a relatively small pop. dense island, going in the extreme and ditching ICE for EV's while investing in safer nuclear power generation, renewables and battery tech (things that are already being done) is actually economically practical... more so than in large continental nations like US and China.
I really don't think that's the reason here
On-site hydrolysis solves the transport issue and much of the storage. Dihydrogen monoxide is stable, non-toxic and environmentally friendly, so it can be piped thousands of miles from places with too much, or it can be condensed from the atmosphere and filtered to help remove harmful particulates from the air before being split into pure hydrogen for fuel and pure oxygen to release back into the atmosphere.
Heavy vehicles can not run on electric, excavators, cranes etc... have to run on Hydrogen, the thing is no one is perfecting the hydrogen process so it costs.
@@twocansams6335 They could run on electricity, just not using a battery for anything more than a backup. Those beasts need a lot of power, so they'd need to be able to hook directly into the power grid or have a large portable powerplant (which will probably end up being diesel, not hydrogen, for reliability)
Another concern is military, you simply cannot get any serviceable range using hydrogen or batteries to move around all that heavy armor. M1A2 comes in at around 70 tons and gets a whole 250 miles of range from almost as many gallons of fuel, swap the engine for a hydrogen powerplant or batteries and you're looking at a range of less than 50 miles.
Then there's aviation. Planes need to keep their propulsion system as weight efficient as possible, you go converting them to any kind of purely electrical system and you'll be hamstringing planes everywhere. The jet and turbofan engines that make high-speed travel possible rely on combustion and don't work without it, that leaves old-school propeller craft which are painfully slow by comparison and have a much lower operational ceiling.
Toyota is big enough to bet on multiple horses. And don't forget about their solid state investments, resulting in many patents.
Honestly in the long run I see hydrogen being more viable it’s not as harmful to the environment as BEVs, you get way better range, re-fueling is much faster and is relatively inexpensive, and it doesn’t cause stress on the electrical grid
The Prius was legendary, I mean seeing one when they first came out was like “damn that things kind of ugly…but also some interesting technology is in there”
I dont think EVs will ever replace cars as synthetic fuels seem much more reasonable
why do you think so?
@𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐬a𝐩𝐩 𖧐𝟏𝟔𝟓7-𝟓𝟐𝟑-𝟏0𝟖𝟏
Did you change the profile pic to the same as this channel in hope I would think you are Logically Answered?
@@Isamu1013 Honestly replacing how we get fuel seems easier than replacing the whole gas supply chain with battery supply chain which arent 100% reusable. Buuuut im also a car enthusiast and i just can not live with the thought of having all cars replaced with boring economy cars where even their "sport" versions are soulless shells of cars
@@arni21 I understand that it seems that way, but creating synthetic fuels uses 4 times more energy compared to just using it in a BEV. Plus, you would need to centralize production instead of the much better local supply option possible with BEV's. Also, you lose one of the great points which is no local emissions.
It's just the worst to be in a city and one asse drives by which removed his catalytic converter.
Regardless of that I understand that some of you think all EV's are soulless, I don't quite understand why but I guess change isn't for everyone, but then we could make synthetic fuels for the "weekend cars" which you take out of the cities on to racetracks or overland streets where they are actual fun.
And for the normal driving where we just wanna go from point A to B we take something that doesn't hurt the people around us.
@@arni21 Forgot to mention most synthetic fuels also need some sort of biomass such as sugar cane, which would again diminish our ability to feed all the people here, especially when the chemically produced fertilizer runs out.
My lab is working in a project with them in hydrogen infrastructure, so I can understand their standpoint in this regard. I think the whole point of the idea is that the car industry is just one of the sectors they will be playing in if we consider a long-term time horizon. It's just one piece of the entire system, which encompasses energy generation and district heating (with hydrogen or hydrogen carrier such as ammonia as direct combustion or to lesser extent as SOFC fuel), other types of mobility sector especially maritime shipping, and industrial use (including currently hard-to-decarbonize cement and steel productions). If Toyota can hold and scale the hydrogen and hydrogen carrier supply chain and infrastructure, the transition of mobility sector can be a lot easier because the infrastructure, system, and hydrogen/ammonia as fuel demand for wider use will be already in place and ubiquitous enough.
Japan is not theee country that could be taken as a raw model in anything ... the Carlos Ghosn tragedy exposed the country that we once thought is on another planet, adding to this many more social disasters boiling under the surface like racism and the slave work culture and many many more.
EVs are a phase that we will collectively get past when we realise that lithium supplies are limited and mostly cornered by the Chinese already. How are these batteries going to be disposed?
This video should be called “why my next car might be a Toyota”
All the info he gave really went over your head? Damn you're thick
very nice
Let's be honest, the _real_ solution would be to abolish private car ownership and provide a highly efficient and functioning public transport system. Something Japan has some solid experience with.
When it comes to the sustainable vehicle market its always hydrogen or bev’s i don’t understand why no one talks about bio fuels. Formula 1 is investing big into bio fuels. They want to have their 2026 engines running on a 100% biofuel hybrid system. Wish more people would talk about this. It would truly be more cost effective than any other sustainable option as most of the infrastructure is already built (including the developing world). New refineries may be the one thing necessary. It also doesnt suffer from the plethora of issues bev’s have. Namely the huge cost to the power grid, and lithium mining and recycling.
Does suffer from lack of farmland and destruction of forests to make way for more farmland though. Unless it can be made using algae in tanks/pools/tubes that could be much more space-efficient.
Truth is, neither EVs or biofuel are remotely environmentally-friendly at the moment anyway, but planning for the future yeah bio and synthetic fuel might be the best. Especially because there's no need to replace perfectly-working ICE cars then. Throwing away things that still work fine is one of the worst things we do to the environment, and imo this push for EVs with government incentives to scrap ICE cars is so wasteful.
With the infinite increase of demand since the demand of vehicles never end biofuel would be concluded disposing our dead to create fuel and the world isn't there yet to make extreme decisions to feed the infinite demand on vehicles.
@@DaFinkingOrk They're primarily looking at algae-based fuels, but an old alternative is syngas which can be made through gasification of any biomass. Gasification isn't new, it was invented back in 1609, and it can turn everything from wood, to lawn clippings, to pork fat into synthetic natural gas which can be burned in unmodified gasoline engines more cleanly than gasoline.
This is Toyota we’re talking about. Even their in cabin options tend to lag behind by a decade. They’re slow to adopt new tech but when they do it’s usually perfect.
Hydrogen for cars is a dead end due to energy loss. However, hydrogen could really work for planes and trains tho
Energie loss isn’t a concern at all.
The only reason anyone wants hydrogen is to maintain the current model almost 1 for 1. Elecrtic cars themselves are energy agnostic, they can be powered by whatever you feed the grid. That makes the whole system much more likely to be efficient and integrated.
This guy gets it
If you live in a area where there is not enough sunlight to have solar panels be efficient, and electricity produced by coal, and storm takes out grid or there is overload like in CA during fire season and heat wave occurring...then EV vehicle is a liability, not a asset.
Every home would need rooftop solar to sustain an electric vehicle per family of 2-5 people. What about high density cities? They won't have the solar surface are to maintain charge everyday for vehicles kept in apartment carparks. So they would need to buy the excess from rooftop solar, which wouldn't be enough at times or any at all other times. So they would need to source power from major solar and wind powerplants and maybe import from other countries or states if weather is not optimal.
What I'm getting at is that electricity will skyrocket in price if there were a sharp uptake in electric vehicles which would lead to an influx of fossil fuel produced electricity to both take advantage of the demand and also fill in for the supply shortage.
The fact that in most countries, electricity is scarce as it is due to climate change counteraction targets, electric vehicles don't have much room for movement in the electrical energy consumption market nor will they be anywhere near carbon neutral overall.
@@sofascialistadankulamegado1781 hydrogen power stations that supply the grid....
Hydrogen can be generated using electricity though?
Even though they took awhile to build EVs and they factor in all markets around the world. They're influential, just think about it, Why do we have good hybrids, because of Toyota. They could push the BEV market in a impactful direction, as Tesla is still popular amongst only tech enthusiasts and early adopters.
Tesla quality is so shit
They realize China doesn't like the Japanese and going all in on a market that they supply is insane. Being hit with a rare earth mineral boycott from China would be devastating if they went full EV.
I am from a so called "developed" country. Toyota takes care of our needs best than any other car maker. We don't care about decarbonisation. We care about transportation. The need to go from point A to point B quicker. A luxury for you is an essential need for us. Toyota till I die..
I drive a Venza hybrid. It is a great car with a range of over 580 miles in summer. Within the city and on downhill drive, I could literally get more than 100 miles a gallon if I don't speed above 55 mph (which I rarely have to). Hybrids are an adequate solution for climate change. That way you never get a range scare. And at the same time you can enjoy your drive with 5 mins of stopping at the pump. Every hour has a monetary value and despite Tesla being so good for the environment, the time spent on charging while on a ride to Miami from Orlando is not worth it.
Toyota sells only 1.4m cars in Japan and 10m worldwide. The premise of your theory is flawed. Why would Toyota make a global decision based on Japanese needs when the ratios of domestic to export is massively lopsided? When you make a hybrid you’re making two systems for one car it is onerously inefficient
It's simple, they're not lemmings and they have the wisdom to see that the technology is not even close to being viable for pure EV. Ask California if you doubt the wisdom of this statement.
The thing about Fukushima is that the architects intentionally chose to not make the flood walls higher. If they spent the extra money which they chose not to, the disaster would not have occurred. The seawalls were 19 feet and in 2008 they were warned about Tsunamis 33 feet or higher. It was gross negligence.
I’m much more on the hybrid train myself. I live in the coldest city in the lower 48 and all electric is not practical. We have a 2021 Venza hybrid that has been absolutely flawless for the first 40k miles and gets 35-40+ mpg all the time. Battery life is around 200k and I will trade it before then so I’m not concerned. Saves us a ton of money!
Every country dream is not to overly dependent on other countries but we can't stop others take advantage of this opportunity & Koreans will make more advanced EVs & main rival of Japan.
But for normal Japanese people it doesn't matter because they use smaller engine like 800cc less 100hp cars.
Excellent video, super informational. I am a technician at a Toyota dealership and whenever we got sent to official training classes the instructors would ask us what we thought about Hydrogen power. I figured that indicated a company-wide stance that somewhat opposed EV technology but I never knew why until now, so thank you for the video!
Then you'll also recognise the huge errors in his figures and false assumptions.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 well can you expound on this allegation? That would be helpful for debate's sake
@@Jmasta7 ; Yeah, just fact check any of his numbers. Very easy to do.
@@Jmasta7 : Did you check ???
@@buildmotosykletist1987 no I didn't go check his facts at 4am. But considering you had enough evidence to accuse this creator of lying, then couldn't you just supply us with the first instance of fudged numbers that you found?
Japan is switching to hydrogen, that's why Toyota is pushing it.
HONDA
HONDA
HONDA!
That is Toyota main fear in Japan is called Honda.
Honda will sell more cars than bikes in Japan!
@@Embargoman Not entirely true; an example would be the Civic, its pretty much obsolete in Japan specially with how low sales the 10th gen Civics were (even stopped production there, now the 11th gen is being made in Thailand), the competitor Corolla is doing very well, though there are reasons for the Honda's decline like the size dimension tax, or even political ones.....
@@AHondaCivicEX Yeah the Honda Civic last time where built in the UK, but yet Honda is making the Civic SI now in the US for the North American market, I bet their are Honda Civics that are made in Brazil for certain Latin American markets.
@@Embargoman sorry Toyota is 1st 2nd Honda and 3rd is Nissan!
@@PPaul03 In a way as Toyota is pushing Hydrogen, then things could go around even Nissan invested in electric cars, I believe Toyota will be late in the game.
A hybrid 15 years ago was pretty meh, but now, they are the perfect blend of effiency and power.
imo, way more practical and reliable than throwing in a turbo. Still accelerates like an ev. With the added bonus of ev mode driving around town.
because they know that lithium powered electric car batteries are not sustainable in the long term
Because they spent billions developing Hydrogen, and are loath to lose that investment. They are way behind the curve when it comes to EV's. and are set to lose a ton of market share in the new EV future. You snooze you lose. Toyota are going to lose big time.
You also have to consider that ATM, a hybrid is cheaper and gives way more miles per tank compared to an EV. My 2014 Prius gives around 410 miles per tank and it drives at around 50-60 mpg. And each tank is around $30-40. Idk, that’s just my perspective at least
your hybrid is probably cheaper to buy, but I don't think it's cheaper to drive, at least in the US. For example, a tesla model 3 can do around 4 miles/kWh, and electricity is around on average 15 cents/kWh, so to get the same 410 miles takes 102.5 kWh and $15.38.
@@chaklee435 Yeah, that's true, but for most people who can only fit a 30-40k car in their budget, at the moment, only Kia or Hyundai offers affordable options that are around 40k or under. That extra 10-15k+ that most EVs cost is just out of budget and unrealistic for many people. I do agree in the long run, the EV is cheaper and more efficient. You also have to consider that EVs have to charge way more often than filling a hybrid. My Prius lasts around 2 weeks per tank, and I'm driving around every other day. So considering that, I think a hybrid is cheaper IMO. For EVs, their only issue right now is price. If good reliable EVs start going in the market for 30-40k or under, I think EVs will have way more potential. that's just me though, I'm not an expert on the matter by far, so if I'm wrong in some things, my b.
I thought it was because “When Toyota goes full EV, it will do it RIGHT!” But this video explains the many intricacies as of why. So well made. Thanks.
The video is just plain wrong. Fact check his numbers, they are totally false.
Toyota knows that the electricity for charging will be at least 10 x more expensive in the not-so-distant future. Whereas Hydrogen will get cheaper if more is made.
How so, if hydrogen requires even more electricity to be produced?
It's because hybrids are better than electric cars. They can go on road trips but also use very little gasoline.
Toyota is brutally bulletproof and reliable. I have visited to remote jungle in africa, arabs desert and Nepal hill climb they will always be Toyota as the main vehicle. The most boring vehicle is always that will last long miles.
Always top content, Great Job!
Thanks man!
Interesting. But yes, Until they solve the Hydrogen storage problem they shouldn't be betting on it.
Yeah, quite a gamble really
@@LogicallyAnswered It does smell of some government bureaucrat dictating what they must do while not understanding what they are talking about.
There isn't a storage problem, there is a production problem due to the cost but over time that will come down as better methods for producing it are created.
@@iamthepotato4312 Well, If you have solved the storage problem you should tell people how. You could make millions. Heck you could make millions just from NASA.
@@iamthepotato4312 while the production might turn greener, you will always need to cool and pressurize it. Thats the storage problem and its inherent to the matter. No way around it
Toyota likes to let others do the R&D for how to properly make something before they themselves reverse engineer what others have done then learn to make it more reliable. It's what Lexus used to be when it first came out (Target Mercedes customers by showing them the same stuff but doesn't break as much) though IDK about now. Would be interesting to see if this is what they're doing with EV as they already have hybrids.
I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. The ls400 when it came out was quieter faster and cheaper than all the competition. Also happened to be one of the most reliable cars ever made
@@zadeoooo True they still carry a premium today on the used car market bc they're now known to be bulletproof
If Toyota really wants to be a carbon neutral company, then I find it obvious that they wouldn’t go “all in” with EV’s since the actual production of batteries is harmful for the environment and the energy that is used to power the cars is mostly generated through burning fossil fuels or other types of methods that are not environmentally friendly. I also agree with the idea that Toyota is probably aware of all the markets they operate in not only the ones in developed countries. Finally, they certainly know that at this point EV’s are not really efficient. The technology may or may not evolve enough to make it viable for every type of commuter to own an EV. These are some other points of view, the video was great and your point were valid as well.
There is no such thing as "Carbon Neutral" stop using buzzwords you don't know what it means.
If a company want to be really carbon neutral it shouldn't hire carbon based creatures to work for them. The EV is to reduce the use of gas to make USA able to increase the export of gas. The hydrogen in Japan is to reduce the import of gas. This clashes with USA since 69% of economy is based on gas export. China want to increase the friction between both countries and the reason why China invest in hydrogen, What China hates more than Japan is USA and if Japan help China to defeat USA it's a win,win scenario.
This is why Toyota is one of the few non-domestic car companies to have my true respect as an American.
I think the ship has already sailed away on this one. Hydrogen is basically a dead end at this point as it's still in basically the same position today as it was when I was 5. I remember even seeing hydrogen fuel cell cars at the local bike racing stadium and they drove it out of there too. But to this day it's still basically a pipe dream and in many cases actually looks worse than originally promised.
Great example is that while it fuels as fast as a gas car, it only has the same range or less by weight of a normal EV. The Toyota Mirai shows this directly only having around 400 miles of range at 4,300 pounds. The only EV with similar range and also a sedan is the Tesla Model S, and that weighs only 400 pounds more. Most EVs have worse range mainly because they're crossovers.
Also from insider stuff I've heard, the Mirai is wholly unprofitable. The fuel cell inside of it alone costs over $20K and they are selling the cars at a loss in the hopes of spreading adoption. But they've been doing this for over 10 years now and just aren't catching up. Fuel cells also by nature have a limited lifespan as the process of running them wears out the cathode used in the reaction. In a fuel cell this is made of platinum and replacing it alone costs $8K.
Damn, Think I'll be sticking with Electric for the foreseeable future.
Actually it cost me almost $20 every time I charge up my Tesla. Don't let them lie to you. It's not as expensive as gas but once you factor in how much I overpaid just to get an Eevee and the fact that in 10 years it will be worthless and it still cost me almost $20 to fill up compared to a regular sedan which would cost about $50, so it does save some money at the gas pump but at the end of the day I'll say it's not worth it, the next car I get is going to be a gas powered car
And you don't factor a maintenance cost like oil change or engine repair? EV car are very cheap on repair because they have less of moving part.
@@Fauzanarief-n7i You'd have to factor in a few different things, what if you do deferred maintenance on your new ICE car vs EV etc. That's when it gets hard to quantify.
Those who say, "Our electrical grid isn't up to charge millions if EVs," doesn't realize just how much electricity oil discovery, refining, and transportation actually uses.
Although hydrogen is going to have an impact on transport vehicles that needs very high energy density like passenger and freight planes. Electricity is so much more flexible and readily available than Hydrogen would ever get so I think Toyota is betting on the wrong horse.
The best thing you can do during an inflation is nothing. Sit tight and wait it out. The US economy always recovers. And if you have any cash on hand, start buying into The crypto market, it is on sale! These are the times when wealth is created.
Strap into crypto these are times wealth are created
Crashes are best time to get rich.
Take care.
Just shove it into CRYPTO you will be wealthy in the long run
Yeah this is absolutely the best time to buy and Invest
I agree
8:06 except there was actual negligence and mismanagement involved. There are records going back years prior that some subsystems should be hardened to withstand situations like the tsunami that led to the meltdown.