4 ms·

> Toyota’s top executives, including billionaire CEO Akio Toyoda, have been on the record calling the trend toward electric vehicles “overhyped” in part because

> Toyota’s top executives, including billionaire CEO Akio Toyoda, have been on the record calling the trend toward electric vehicles “overhyped” in part because of emissions associated with power plants — which is a favorite talking point used by the oil and gas industry. How is this just brushed off as NBD? Where do people think the energy is going to come from for these electric vehicles (especially if everyone drives one/fossil fueled vehicles are restricted)?

jmoss20 5y ago
It's easier to build solar farms than solar cars. (wind farms than wind powered cars, nuclear plants than nuclear powered cars...)
ryeights 5y ago
Switching to electric vehicles is a necessary but not sufficient condition to eliminate fossil fuel emissions.
exhilaration 5y ago
But Toyota is pushing hydrogen as a superior alternative, which isn't any cleaner. Most hydrogen is made from steam-methane reforming using equally vast amounts of natural gas. Source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-na...
- kalleboo 5y ago
  Isn't this the same argument Toyota is making? With electricity depending on where you live you could say "Most electricity is made from coal! So an electric car is way worse for the environment!"
dubcanada 5y ago
Who says it's a "NBD"? Do you think we should stop selling electric cars because electricity is dirty? Someone has to start, and it's not exactly easy to convert every power grid, it's a lot easier to start using it more and more and new power sources are green and older dirty is phased out slowly.
- rglover 5y ago
  In context of the article it was implied.
zelos 5y ago
Because it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact that the carbon intensity of EVs is already significantly lower than ICE vehicles, and the gap is only going to widen as more renewables (and possibly nuclear) come online.
- josh2600 5y ago
  One of my favorite facts of recent note is the rapid decrease in the price of solar. This article by Ramez Naam puts the whole thing into perspective: https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/ https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c...
- rglover 5y ago
  You don't need to be snarky. My point isn't the vehicles themselves, it's the energy required to power those vehicles.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    The power plants are already there. They are already polluting however they are polluting. So are ICE vehicles. If you remove the ICE vehicles, that pollution goes away. Why is this hard?
    - rglover 5y ago
      Why do you need to be snarky? It's hard because every time I ask questions or challenge the narrative, I get the same passive aggressive bullshit response (especially so on HN). Your comment is a veiled "you're an idiot," which immediately makes me disregard what you're saying.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        It wasn't meant as snark. I honestly want to know why people disregard the effect that removing ICE pollution would have. We have seen direct evidence of this when the pandemic lockdown went into effect. People in LA could see the sky again. Similar stories from all over like this. Stop driving polluting cars, and the air gets cleaner. I was shocked at just how fast, but mother nature is impressive. I think your snark meter could use some recalibrating. I read the parent comment you also claimed being snarky, yet I'm not reading any snark in it. Also, I've never met you, so I'd never call you an idiot or anyone I don't know.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Major power stations are far more efficient than a million individual engines. Even if the power stations literally ran off petrol we’d still be in a better position than before.
- selimnairb 5y ago
  Not sure this is right. Coal plants are at best 40% efficient, combined-cycle natural gas 60%. Then you have transmission losses (2-13%), and then inefficiency in EV chargers. Atkinson-cycle engines (often used in hybrids like the Prius) can reach 40% efficiency. Seems like a wash to me in terms of efficiency. On the other hand, if using solar or wind, efficiency becomes a little less interesting because the fuel is "free".
  - zelos 5y ago
    There’s also a significant amount of emissions from the production and transportation of petrol/diesel for use in vehicles you have to factor in.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    I meant in terms of emissions, rather than simple mechanical efficiency. Power stations at scale can have complex emissions management. Car engine's don't.
positr0n 5y ago
Because it is misinformation. An electric car on dirty power still produces less pollution than an ICE car. Power plants are very efficient. And even if they weren't the case it would still be a good strategy to tackle both problems simultaneously instead of waiting until one problem is solved until you start solving the other one.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
So, the issue is that, as a talking point, it's silly, because we're simultaneously pushing for greener power plants. And economies of scale presumably can make even dirty power plants more efficient than little power plants packed in cars and sold as cheap as humanly possible. From a human health standpoint, it's probably also better to concentrate our environmental impact in places we can directly combat it, rather than emit garbage all over the place right next to where humans live and work and inhale. It's absolutely true that buying an electric car may not reduce your carbon footprint today. (It may actually increase it, if your old car was still working just fine, because the carbon cost of car production is very high.) But it's an important step on the path forward.
jliptzin 5y ago
ICE cars will always burn fossil fuels. Electric cars can consume any kind of energy as long as it is converted to electricity to first charge its battery. Maybe right now most electricity is generated via fossil fuels but you have to be really unimaginative to see how in the future that might not be the case and we’re going to be very happy with our cars being electrified instead of still burning oil.
- rglover 5y ago
  The conflict I see is the aversion to the greener tech that will actually make that possible (nuclear). It's a question of capacity. Assuming EV production becomes the rule rather than the exception over say, the next 10 years (the timeline for many of the climate initiatives), it's not crazy to think that, okay, that means we're going to need _more_ energy, not less, and the only thing capable of producing consistent electricity on that timeline is fossil fuels (or nuclear). I'm not saying that it won't be possible eventually (that'd be naive), but do the timelines align? If not, is the hysteria/doomerism around climate change warranted? That's what I'm getting at.
- r00fus 5y ago
  You can always install solar on your home, power your EV and remove your electric bill and it'll pay for itself in about 8-10 years.
brezelnbitte 5y ago
Excellent article and visualization explaining how EVs have less lifetime impact than ICEs. https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/ https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better...
tw04 5y ago
Producing clean electricity is NBD. Distribution is where the real problem has a potential to arise. But that is literally just a political problem. Infrastructure investment and subsidies for home solar panels will fix that issue. The only thing government will really need to get creative on is road taxes. Today you pay via gas, at some point they’re going to need a non-intrusive way to do it via your odometer I suppose.
xedeon 5y ago
Renewables already surpassed coal power since 2019, at least in the U.S. This is a trend that will continue over the next few years. Also, a good number of EV drivers already have solar. "U.S. renewable energy consumption surpasses coal for the first time in over 130 years" https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895

jmoss20 5y ago

It's easier to build solar farms than solar cars. (wind farms than wind powered cars, nuclear plants than nuclear powered cars...)

ryeights 5y ago

Switching to electric vehicles is a necessary but not sufficient condition to eliminate fossil fuel emissions.

exhilaration 5y ago

But Toyota is pushing hydrogen as a superior alternative, which isn't any cleaner. Most hydrogen is made from steam-methane reforming using equally vast amounts of natural gas. Source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-na...

kalleboo 5y ago
Isn't this the same argument Toyota is making? With electricity depending on where you live you could say "Most electricity is made from coal! So an electric car is way worse for the environment!"

dubcanada 5y ago

Who says it's a "NBD"? Do you think we should stop selling electric cars because electricity is dirty? Someone has to start, and it's not exactly easy to convert every power grid, it's a lot easier to start using it more and more and new power sources are green and older dirty is phased out slowly.

rglover 5y ago
In context of the article it was implied.

zelos 5y ago

Because it's pretty easy to use google and look up the fact that the carbon intensity of EVs is already significantly lower than ICE vehicles, and the gap is only going to widen as more renewables (and possibly nuclear) come online.

josh2600 5y ago
One of my favorite facts of recent note is the rapid decrease in the price of solar. This article by Ramez Naam puts the whole thing into perspective: https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/ https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c...
rglover 5y ago
You don't need to be snarky. My point isn't the vehicles themselves, it's the energy required to power those vehicles.
- dylan604 5y ago
  The power plants are already there. They are already polluting however they are polluting. So are ICE vehicles. If you remove the ICE vehicles, that pollution goes away. Why is this hard?
  - rglover 5y ago
    Why do you need to be snarky? It's hard because every time I ask questions or challenge the narrative, I get the same passive aggressive bullshit response (especially so on HN). Your comment is a veiled "you're an idiot," which immediately makes me disregard what you're saying.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      It wasn't meant as snark. I honestly want to know why people disregard the effect that removing ICE pollution would have. We have seen direct evidence of this when the pandemic lockdown went into effect. People in LA could see the sky again. Similar stories from all over like this. Stop driving polluting cars, and the air gets cleaner. I was shocked at just how fast, but mother nature is impressive. I think your snark meter could use some recalibrating. I read the parent comment you also claimed being snarky, yet I'm not reading any snark in it. Also, I've never met you, so I'd never call you an idiot or anyone I don't know.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Major power stations are far more efficient than a million individual engines. Even if the power stations literally ran off petrol we’d still be in a better position than before.

selimnairb 5y ago
Not sure this is right. Coal plants are at best 40% efficient, combined-cycle natural gas 60%. Then you have transmission losses (2-13%), and then inefficiency in EV chargers. Atkinson-cycle engines (often used in hybrids like the Prius) can reach 40% efficiency. Seems like a wash to me in terms of efficiency. On the other hand, if using solar or wind, efficiency becomes a little less interesting because the fuel is "free".
- zelos 5y ago
  There’s also a significant amount of emissions from the production and transportation of petrol/diesel for use in vehicles you have to factor in.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I meant in terms of emissions, rather than simple mechanical efficiency. Power stations at scale can have complex emissions management. Car engine's don't.

positr0n 5y ago

Because it is misinformation. An electric car on dirty power still produces less pollution than an ICE car. Power plants are very efficient. And even if they weren't the case it would still be a good strategy to tackle both problems simultaneously instead of waiting until one problem is solved until you start solving the other one.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

So, the issue is that, as a talking point, it's silly, because we're simultaneously pushing for greener power plants. And economies of scale presumably can make even dirty power plants more efficient than little power plants packed in cars and sold as cheap as humanly possible. From a human health standpoint, it's probably also better to concentrate our environmental impact in places we can directly combat it, rather than emit garbage all over the place right next to where humans live and work and inhale. It's absolutely true that buying an electric car may not reduce your carbon footprint today. (It may actually increase it, if your old car was still working just fine, because the carbon cost of car production is very high.) But it's an important step on the path forward.

jliptzin 5y ago

ICE cars will always burn fossil fuels. Electric cars can consume any kind of energy as long as it is converted to electricity to first charge its battery. Maybe right now most electricity is generated via fossil fuels but you have to be really unimaginative to see how in the future that might not be the case and we’re going to be very happy with our cars being electrified instead of still burning oil.

rglover 5y ago
The conflict I see is the aversion to the greener tech that will actually make that possible (nuclear). It's a question of capacity. Assuming EV production becomes the rule rather than the exception over say, the next 10 years (the timeline for many of the climate initiatives), it's not crazy to think that, okay, that means we're going to need _more_ energy, not less, and the only thing capable of producing consistent electricity on that timeline is fossil fuels (or nuclear). I'm not saying that it won't be possible eventually (that'd be naive), but do the timelines align? If not, is the hysteria/doomerism around climate change warranted? That's what I'm getting at.
r00fus 5y ago
You can always install solar on your home, power your EV and remove your electric bill and it'll pay for itself in about 8-10 years.

brezelnbitte 5y ago

Excellent article and visualization explaining how EVs have less lifetime impact than ICEs. https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/ https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better...

tw04 5y ago

Producing clean electricity is NBD. Distribution is where the real problem has a potential to arise. But that is literally just a political problem. Infrastructure investment and subsidies for home solar panels will fix that issue. The only thing government will really need to get creative on is road taxes. Today you pay via gas, at some point they’re going to need a non-intrusive way to do it via your odometer I suppose.

xedeon 5y ago

Renewables already surpassed coal power since 2019, at least in the U.S. This is a trend that will continue over the next few years. Also, a good number of EV drivers already have solar. "U.S. renewable energy consumption surpasses coal for the first time in over 130 years" https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895