Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Toyota CEO: ‘Silent Majority’ Of Automakers Skeptical of Making Electric Vehicles a ‘Single Option’

Toyota CEO: ‘Silent Majority’ Of Automakers Skeptical of Making Electric Vehicles a ‘Single Option’

The faux emergency of a climate crisis does not lessen the technical issues associated with EVs.

Toyota Motor chief Akio Toyoda recently said that he remains skeptical of moving to only produce electric vehicles (EVs).

Toyoda also indicated that most people who work in the auto industry agree with him.

“People involved in the auto industry are largely a silent majority,” Toyoda said. “That silent majority is wondering whether EVs are really OK to have as a single option. But they think it’s the trend so they can’t speak out loudly.”

“Because the right answer is still unclear, we shouldn’t limit ourselves to just one option,” he added.

The remarks come as supply chain issues that were sparked by the coronavirus pandemic have continued to make it difficult for manufacturers to get the raw materials needed to make new cars, especially electric vehicles.

The Wall Street Journal recently published a detailed piece in support of Toyoda’s assertions. It provided numerous examples of technological problems and weaknesses inherent in EV use, including the fact that cold temperatures drop battery efficiency.

Maine notes in a plan submitted to the Federal Highway Administration this summer that “cold temperatures will remain a top challenge” for adoption, since “cold weather reduces EV range and increases charging times.”

When temperatures drop to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the cars achieve only 54% of their quoted range. A vehicle that’s supposed to be able to go 250 miles between charges will make it only 135 miles on average. At 32 degrees—a typical winter day in much of the country—a Tesla Model 3 that in ideal conditions can go 282 miles between charges will make it only 173 miles.

Imagine if the 100 million Americans who took to the road over the holidays were driving electric cars. How many would have been stranded as temperatures plunged? There wouldn’t be enough tow trucks—or emergency medics—for people freezing in their cars.

Beyond the technology, there is also a growing realization that EV batteries have special hazards that emergency services need to address. For example, New Jersey legislators proposed requiring firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) to undergo EV fire training following the death of a man trapped in his burning Tesla.

S2881 and A4476 seek a training course for firefighters that would cover the risks associated with EVs and how to safely and effectively manage EV fires as well as a course for EMTs about the risks associated with EVs and how to safely and effectively perform their duties when they’re called to the scene of EV fires.

“For the last 20 years, there has been increased interest in and use of electric vehicles,” the bills state. “While the risk of an electric vehicle fire is low, managing an electric vehicle fire requires specialized training since a lithium-ion battery can burn hotter and for a longer period of time than a gasoline engine.”

Climatologist Judith Curry recently published a great analysis of how the faux urgency associated with the climate crisis narrative harms our chances of building a strong and sustainable energy future.

Attributing extreme weather and climate events to global warming can motivate a country to attempt to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that eliminating emissions would have a noticeable impact on weather and climate extremes in the 21st century.

It is very difficult to untangle the roles of natural weather and climate variability and land use from the slow creep of global warming. Looking back into the past, including paleoclimatic data, there has been more extreme weather everywhere on the planet. Thinking that we can minimize severe weather through using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a control knob is a fairy tale.

…There is growing realization that these emissions and temperature targets have become detached from the issues of human well-being and development. Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century. However once we relax the faux urgency for eliminating CO2 emissions and the stringent time tables, we have time and space to envision new energy systems that can meet the diverse, growing needs of the 21st century.

The faux emergency of a climate crisis does not lessen the technical issues associated with EVs. Toyoda is bravely explaining the realities while countering the trendy narrative.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Tesla stock has declined in recent days. Most want to blame it on Elon Musk playing around with Twitter, but that is hogwash. The reason Tesla stock is declining is because the vehicles are beginning to approach the end of their useful life. The common conception is that the battery should last about 30 years, but this is hogwash. The heavier something is the more energy it consumes and Tesla knows this, which is why they only cover the battery for eight years. Beyond that, if you can get another eight years out of the battery you’re probably one of the lucky ones.

Instead, the cars are quickly ending up on the used car market where they are not holding their value. Who wants to buy a used Tesla, which has a partially depleted battery life cycle, only to have to spend another $20,000 minimum to replace the battery?

EVs are an inferior technology and that’s why so many car manufacturers never pursued it. Every car manufacturer knows this, including Tesla. But go ahead and keep thinking you’re saving the planet by driving an EV. All the slaves in the Congo who digs up the cobalt to power your car thanks you.

    Child slaves no less.

    healthguyfsu in reply to chrisboltssr. | December 29, 2022 at 3:17 pm

    It’s declining because of all of the liberal mouthpieces are no longer running cover for EV profitability (or lack thereof).

    They were doing it when they thought Musk was their dream guy. Now that they’ve fallen out of love all of the bad breakup petty plays are on. This is just one of many.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to chrisboltssr. | December 29, 2022 at 3:31 pm

    There may be a simpler answer. Everyone who wants one, bought or leased one.

    And, there’s some competition now.

    What the hell ‘common conception’ said the batteries could last 30 years?!?!?!?!?

    I’ve never seen ANYTHING that said they were going to last longer than 10 years at the most.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Olinser. | December 29, 2022 at 6:27 pm

      I wondered the same. I’ve heard of some Prius owners getting 12, but in mild climates like SoCal.

        chrisboltssr in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | December 29, 2022 at 9:36 pm

        I wouldn’t compare a Prius to a Tesla as the Prius still relies upon an internal combustion engine to do the majority of the work of the car. In fact, the Prius can operate without the electric battery component just fine.

      chrisboltssr in reply to Olinser. | December 29, 2022 at 9:34 pm

      I researched battery life before typing my response. I read most of the articles and they put the battery range for Teslas at 30 years. If you would like to research this yourself search “average lifespan of a Tesla battery”. So this isn’t my claim and I couldn’t find anything that alleged the battery only lasts at most ten years.

        I wonder if those articles you read were marketing propaganda and eco-propaganda published in mass market publications. I am skeptical that any currently available batteries last that long.

I make two lengthy trips each year. Around 1600 miles each. With a gas or diesel powered vehicle, Driving alone I can make the trip in a bit over 24 hours if I choose. It will be a cold day that I buy an overpriced EV, perhaps particularly because the government apparently wants me to do so.

Toyota is smart enough to realize the cart goes before the horse. While other automakers may silently agree the cart goes first, like CNN, NetFlix and Disney, they don’t give a shit what the customer wants.

Climate crisis my ass!
They are just adding another middleman to energy access.

It’s all a sad joke really, how effing stupid the average ‘consumer’ of news is.

Just a month or two ago we had the California state legislature pass a bill that will essentially outlaw ICE vehicles by 2035.

The exact same week the California electric grid regulator put out a PSA begging people not to charge their EV’s because of insufficient grid capacity to meet the demand.

Gee, I wonder what happens if the number of EVs increase 20X?

Derp.

    CapeBuffalo in reply to Paul. | December 29, 2022 at 6:26 pm

    This is the same legislature and governor that have restricted doctors first amendment rights and promoted child sexual exploitation.
    Progressive??????

Also, look at recent news coming out of Europe:

1) German regulators want to have centralized control over household thermostats and EV charging devices
2) They’re pushing the ’15 mile city’ concept and want to be able to regulate when, and if, you’re free to drive your car outside your 15 mile ‘bubble’

It’s the WEF ‘Great Reset’ and the UN ‘Agenda 21’ all rolled up into one hideous package.

    CapeBuffalo in reply to Paul. | December 29, 2022 at 6:32 pm

    California is doing the same. So called “Smart Meters” have been here for a long time, taxing driving mileage is near, limiting city access is on the front burner. We are the vanguard of the movement.

    #FJB <-- Disco Stu_ in reply to Paul. | December 30, 2022 at 5:58 am

    15-MINUTE cities, possibly?

    pst314 in reply to Paul. | December 30, 2022 at 8:58 am

    Do you mean “15 mile” or “15 minute”? I read about the latter being enacted in Oxford.

For the environmental consideration, Google lithium mine, images.

Factor in, here in NW Ohio, over Christmas, high temperatures in the teens. Basically, you ain’t goin’ nowhere, let alone in comfort.

I used to love the band Rush as a kid… a lot of the lyrics read like great Sci-Fi.

The song Red Barchetta seems especially prescient these days.

https://open.spotify.com/track/6UGHk2cmbDC1oidVjXcCKo?si=59e37d083579480c

No one bothers to point out that there is just not enough raw materials to produce batteries for 100 million vehicles.

Somehow, every grand scheme making a better world(tm) never improves the whatever promised, but always improves the snooping, permission, and rake-offs of some authoritah.

It’s like the meddlesome control of the livestock is the point; “Everything not compulsory is forbidden!”

EVs have their place, where what they do better matters more than what they do worse. They’re not always better in cost, reliability, range, payload, maintenance, convenience, and, well, the rest of the useful transport-y things people might want their transportation to have.

Perhaps it’s useful to look at what *always* pays off for EVs vs. the alternatives.

— The built-in centralized control of things electric seems to be a big deal. At any rate, the advocates are all about making the machines make you do this or that.

— Maybe new, highly-regulated supply chains, and increasingly disposal chains are the next payoff. Lots o graft for them, but no graft for you!

— Plus, of course, there’s the perma-joy of seeming righteous by demanding other people do something worse for them. But, that hardly makes EVs unique. (Those Dutch farmers had it coming, really. I mean, we’re way, way overdue for tulip reparations.)

Auto engineers know that current battery technology isn’t close to the energy density of gasoline. The internal combustion engine will be around a long time unless regulated out of existence.

I suppose I have to take issue with the apparent throw-away line in the article: “Yes, we need to reduce CO2 emissions over the course of the 21st century…” By what scientific determination has this “need” been proven to exist? The fact is that we have zero understanding of the sensitivity of the climate or anything else to CO2. But we know that plants need it, and that plants thrive in higher CO2 environments. I concede nothing without strong empirical evidence and conclusions supported by both proponents and skeptics.

An EV as a second household vehicle or the sole vehicle for a low mileage driver may make enough to consumers that they choose to purchase an EV. The insane route of mandatory EV some States are imposing will fail. The folks who back it are for the most part themselves urban dwelling, low mileage drivers. They don’t have any appreciation for how much rural drivers much less suburban/exurban drivers rely on internal combustion engine vehicles. I doubt these urban folks realize how much they themselves depend upon the deliveries and shipments via ICE vehicles.

Do a search for charging Tesla in very cold. Some owners can’t get their Tesla to charge if it too cold. One ending up missing Christmas with family.

One guy did a study. He left his Tesla at a super charger station in Colorado with temps below 0 F. When he plugged it in, it took 45 minutes to warn the battery so it could charge and then another hour to charge,

I suspect that people not being able to charge were probably not at a super charger..

Of course Toyoda is right. He’s going to sell cars no matter what, so there is little impediment not to be honest about reality.

Vocal majority of car drivers know EV is BS. A fraud and a dangerous obsession and fantasy. You want a practical alternative, work on hydrogen batteries. Spend a lot of money improving the tech. You want a better grid, work on modular miniature nuclear plants, aka Rickover Reactors.

The EV is like the windmill lie. Energy wise they will never offset the petroleum and coal used to produce them.

Anyone who puts any kind of a demand on his vehicle will be badly served by an EV.

Long-distance truckers and local delivery vehicles. Maintenance vehicles (tow trucks, manlifts, etc.). RVers and other trailer-towers. Uber drivers will rejoin the ranks of the unemployed as their rides’ forced them into downtime during hours when they need to be working to make ends meet.

    Customer: my EV has run out of power and is sitting in a snowdrift, come and recue me.

    Breakdown operator: That’s me just in front of (behind) you. Have you got a thermos of soup we can share while we wait for an ICE vehicle to come rescue us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk

The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles | Graham Conway | TEDxSanAntonio
———————————-
It’s all about control anyway. Remotely shut you down, social credit scores etc.

Through tax credits and related benefits, the government has again promoted the inefficient use of capital. A lot of money has been wasted on EV fantasies (as with solar and wind energy, too). The inefficient use of capital means that more deserving–more economically productive areas–have been left without capital or have had to pay too high a price for capital. In the end, it damages the economy. It’s a lesson that neither the government nor the people ever seem to learn. So history repeats.

As a driver of a Porsche and. Mercedes, lovey premium gas versions by the way, I laugh when I read that both manufacturers are bragging of their complete conversion to EVs in a few years. No mention of how stockholders feel about this. And no mention of their customers, who like me, will NEVER buy another car from them if they only offer electric vehicles. And I am not alone. EVs are a government pushed scam…like vaccines. I’m done with both of them.

Automakers should all be skeptical of the entire electric boondoggle.