> But even if all drivers were totally ready to leap to EVs, Toyota argues hybrids would still make sense. Because their batteries are so much smaller, a company can build far, far more hybrids than EVs from the same battery resources.
This is an interesting question, and depends on how readily available battery materials are, and what environmental harm is done by mining them rapidly.
For example, it's possible that Toyota can use X amount of battery to increase the mileage on 10 hybrids from 30 mpg to 40 mpg, whereas a single EV would use the same amount of battery and increase the gas mileage from 30 mpg to infinity. Depending on how much that one EV is driven, versus the 10 hybrids, it could reduce emissions further to go the hybrid route.
An alternative hypothesis: Toyota loves just-in-time delivery in its manufacturing process. Maybe they're doing the same thing here, at a larger scale. Once there are plenty of charging stations and consumer demand, they'll build EVs (but no sooner!).
Toyota is under stating it because they don’t want to draw the attention of the green mob. Hybrid with a fully electric drive train is the best and most efficient vehicle choice for the environment and consumer in most cases. Sorry I don’t have a link, feel free to ignore me for not having a source.
Right. There really are people who need to tow a truckload 300+ miles on a charge at highway speeds with the AC running. Or camping for a day or two without refueling out remote. Telling such people their use case’s don’t matter or are unrealistic is a losing strategy. Those arguments are naive of a large part of the world. Then there’s apartment dwellers-in the boonies.
I think in many cases, pragmatically they are the only viable choice for someone who wants to ditch pure ICE cars because EVs are not there yet, not necessarily because of the EV (though I have reservations over the long term and resale value) but because of the lack of infrastructure.
Theres a world of difference between "classic" hybrids (a whole ICE drivetrain with an electric motor slapped on it) and the Chevy Volt style hybrids (a full electric drivetrain with a gas generator slapped on it).
The later is far less polluting for many reasons, while also retaining some benefits of ICE (smaller batteries, lower vehicle mass/BOM, "infinite" range). TBH its probably more environmentally friendly than a Tesla style full electric car.
I 100% agree with you, except I do BELIEVE hybrids are less polluting than both options. Reduce gas by 90% since most communites are around 25 miles. That means a battery that’s 1/10th size, which means mining is substantially lower. Toxic metals also need to be considered and often are not.
The problem I think other people forget is that we don’t actually need to end fossil fuels we just need to substantially reduce the amount we burn. So if vehicles were 90% more efficient then that’s basically all we need in that sector anyway.
Great comment Bruce! I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking like you.
7 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 27.4 ms ] threadThis is an interesting question, and depends on how readily available battery materials are, and what environmental harm is done by mining them rapidly.
For example, it's possible that Toyota can use X amount of battery to increase the mileage on 10 hybrids from 30 mpg to 40 mpg, whereas a single EV would use the same amount of battery and increase the gas mileage from 30 mpg to infinity. Depending on how much that one EV is driven, versus the 10 hybrids, it could reduce emissions further to go the hybrid route.
An alternative hypothesis: Toyota loves just-in-time delivery in its manufacturing process. Maybe they're doing the same thing here, at a larger scale. Once there are plenty of charging stations and consumer demand, they'll build EVs (but no sooner!).
The later is far less polluting for many reasons, while also retaining some benefits of ICE (smaller batteries, lower vehicle mass/BOM, "infinite" range). TBH its probably more environmentally friendly than a Tesla style full electric car.
The problem I think other people forget is that we don’t actually need to end fossil fuels we just need to substantially reduce the amount we burn. So if vehicles were 90% more efficient then that’s basically all we need in that sector anyway.
Great comment Bruce! I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking like you.
- Full ICE vehicles or "budget" mild hybrids
- Heavy, luxurious, expensive full electric vehicles.
Its as if a tiny gas generator in the car would "taint" it, but hauling all that battery and luxury junk around does far more harm.