Quote: "if Japan mandated a shift to all-electric vehicles — which have fewer components and are easier to manufacture — it could cost millions of jobs and destroy a whole ecosystem of auto parts suppliers."
This is the real reason i think, Japan is scared of the reduced complexity of electric cars meaning that their engineering and supply chain advantages are diminished. Also having a large existing ecosystem built for fossil cars means it is harder for them to change. China is the big winner from that (and consumers from cheaper electric cars hopefully).
This is also a reason I am not that fond of hybrids. It's a nice idea, but I would rather just have the electric engine that is less likely to have mechanical issues.
The dirty power plants are not the real problem, because when when coal/gas power generation is eventually taken offline this immediately benefits all the electric cars that use that power. Getting people to switch to electric should be be main focus, and mandating that fossil engines will not be sold in the future is the best way to do this.
Having worked with a car parts manufacturer in Japan, I disagree.
It's true there's a huge industry for white label car parts manufacturing in Japan. These companies are extremely agile. They will adapt. Taking contracts for novel new parts is their daily DNA. They already work extensively with foreign car companies, so they're not anchored to the foibles of Toyota and Nissan.
Furthermore, electric cars still need complex parts! Sensors of all types, electric windows and door locks, key fobs, air conditioners, steering wheels, windshield wiper motors, etc. The list is so very long.
I have one wild guess as counterpoint. Today's Japan would never mandate a shift to all-electric vehicles. Why? It would destroy their domestic car sales industry. In Japan, many people only keep their cars for a few years, then sell them back. Used Japanese domestic cars are worth a lot of money. These cars are exported to other countries around the world, where they're resold. I imagine Japan could no longer resell their domestic cars abroad, at such huge volume, if all their cars were electric. Many countries do not have the conditions or infrastructure to support large-scale deployment of EVs. Batteries would probably need to be replaced, lowering the profit on the resale. And so on.
Japan's business and bureaucratic culture continues to fascinate me. On the one hand, they're well known for agile lean manufacturing that can adapt, like you said. Also construction costs, extremely advanced trains, etc etc.. On the other hand, they're very resistant to change. See fax machines, website aesthetics, personal stamps (there's a Japanese word for these that I'm forgetting), tons and tons of paperwork, not leaving until your boss does, companies being run by families, the list goes on. I don't know if I really have a conclusion, it's just that I don't get how it all works together. And given their GDP growth, I'm not sure if "works" is really the right term either.
> And given their GDP growth, I'm not sure if "works" is really the right term either.
Japan's GDP growth is actually good for an advanced economy, when you index it to the size of the working-age population.[1]
Japan's working-age population has been shrinking for quite a while now.
(China's is peaking about now, so it can expect total growth to slow down. Hence the measures taken by the CCP to try to increase fertility: lifting the one-child policy to three children, introducing tax breaks, limiting for-profit tutoring, and most recently cracking down on alternatives to making babies: video games and on-line shopping and social media.)
One reason I've seen explained in very high detail in a reputable article I unfortunately can't recall the name of now, is that a lot of what they do that seems incredibly tedious (and well, is) somewhat acts as a type of gigantic social safety net in terms of not only income, but also socialization and for feelings of self-worth or that you're otherwise still contributing to your society (even though, as we are now discussing, it's likely holding some parts of societal advancement back).
Basically, if you for whatever reason become/are somewhat disabled, cognitively impaired, lose your family, are simply getting quite old and losing the ability to do what you used to, etc, there will always be some sort of job, often falling under the bloat of what you've listed after "on the other hand", that you'll be able to do if you want to, that will give you a stable income (even if small) and get you out of the house or whatever else and somewhere that you'll have a routine form of socialization amongst your co-workers and such.
A short explanation is that they set it up once after WW2 by copying from the US and Europe, but since then the countries they copied from got wise to the IP theft and copycat manufacturing and blocked the transfer of later tech and processes. So Japan is forced to keep up the old thing because it's the only way the know how to run.
They couldn't modernise from within. The Japanese economy has many traits of a cargo cult. Their culture around office work, the suits, the drinking, the smoking, the "entertaining your clients with prostitutes", the over hours doing "dara-dara" (grunting and head-scratching in front of an open Excel sheet) just for show, etc. is all straight from the Mad Men era as well.
US working culture is a cargo cult. Cover letters, anodyne non-descriptions of "challenges", "going offline" and "touching base", cookie-cutter Scrum methodologies... hence why we just call it "culture".
Of course! Especially in the "knowledge worker" departments, but the majority of white-collar employees and their families still kind of believes the "Japan #1" pipe dream. Japanese products are automatically "the best™", quality is highest in the world, and anyone who argues differently is a "Japan basher".
It's a strange mixture of arrogance with an inferiority complex, but it still works as sort of a mantra which I guess Japanese office workers are holding on to, in order to be able to keep on churning despite evidence that it's not working.
>A short explanation is that they set it up once after WW2 by copying from the US and Europe, but since then the countries they copied from got wise to the IP theft and copycat manufacturing and blocked the transfer of later tech and processes. So Japan is forced to keep up the old thing because it's the only way the know how to run.
1) the companies may be agile, but there is a very big difference between competency in mechanical device/metal working/plastic moulds etc and ramping up electrical / battery / material science / control systems. I see similar challenges in the global 3rd party parts suppliers being valid too. The % of value add of an electric vehicle that the existing infra can support is significantly less than a vehicle with an ICE engine / transmission.
2) Batteries, with the right thermal and charge management systems can last the life of the vehicle itself, with the whole set of components reaching 1 mil km in distance with 1.5 mil km (1 mil miles) in reasonable approach.
3) charging infrastructure can scale with the number of vehicles - other countries have power grids too!
Re: 1. I can only speak to the company I saw up close, Mitsuba [1]. They are already very sophisticated on all fronts you've described: mechanical, electrical, material. Even software. If I had to guess, they're licking their lips at the kinds of higher margin products that electric cars might represent for their business. And they're not alone in their capabilities among Japanese parts suppliers.
Re: 2 and 3. I'm sure you're correct. But we're talking about salesmanship here. Logic and facts don't always have a buyer. They would need to find ways to sell those used cars to potentially skeptical markets abroad, in huge volume, where they've already got a great racket with ICE cars.
> charging infrastructure can scale with the number of vehicles - other countries have power grids too!
Very few countries have made sustained investment in lots of charging stations, particularly not the ones that Japan normally exports to. According to Wikipedia:
> The most popular destinations for used cars from Japan are Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia, Brunei, Canada, Congo, Dominican Republic, Eswatini, Georgia, Guyana, Hong Kong, Ireland,Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
In the case of some of those countries like Kenya, Uganda, Congo, and Myanmar, not all households are electrified, so you can't reasonably expect them to have national charging grids.
> very big difference between competency in mechanical device/metal working/plastic moulds etc and ramping up electrical / battery / material science / control systems
1. Tesla uses Panasonic batteries. Japan already has quite a lot of domestic industry manufacturing those parts and the quality is also top notch.
2. Dunno about batteries, probably with proper management they can last long, but if you maximize performance they'll degrade just like horsepower pumped low capacity engines.
3. Remember Japan had the Fukushima nuclear accident and it has turned off nuclear powerplants and replaced the capacity with coal for almost 10 years. I don't know if the nuclear capacity they have left is even 100% back online.
Shallower discharge means reduced range. Or more batteries, but that increases mass of the vehicle which in turn increases energy consumption. Customers are going to see a car with substantially less range, or a much more expensive car with less usable space and heavier weight. And it might not even be able to reach the advertised mileage if the customer is in a hot climate.
Easily replaceable batteries is probably a better bet for preserving the retail value of electric cars. Purchases are probably going to be made assuming that the battery pack is worn, and can be replaced with a new battery pack which ideally makes use of more recent battery tech.
In practice, reduced range hasn't been a problem in the Used Car market to date. Outside of some well known issues with especially early model Nissan Leafs, the majority of EVs that have entered the used market have not seen dramatic reductions in range in their expected lifetimes. (If anything the used market is seeing the opposite problem: batteries are generally exceeding their expected lifetimes and in part because of that EVs are staying in the hands of first owners for far longer than comparable ICE models.)
Reduced range is far more a "PR problem" than a "real problem". For the most part, people extrapolate from the problems they have with battery life in smartphones, which are constrained by size and thermal management in ways a car isn't, and assuming it is a problem where it isn't one in practice.
The FUNDAMENTAL reality of any Japanese technology companies:
Do JAPANESE customers want it enough to pay for it?
If the answer is "no", nothing in existence can change the strategy, design or plans they have. That goes for industrial equipment, customer goods, and certainly for cars.
It doesn't matter who else does the alternative, or who else tries to shame them into something - it won't work. Gaijin opinions count for infinitely less than Nihongo opinions.
Anyone who's not Japanese and has done business with a Japanese business quickly finds this out. If you work for a US subsidiary, you quickly learn NOTHING you suggest will ever be adopted unless major Japanese markets says the same thing or think it's a good idea. And then it will only be implementing with a peculiar Japanese form.
> Do JAPANESE customers want it enough to pay for it?
Government policy has a number of levers to pull that determine what customers "want" (see Federal Tax Credit for Electric Cars, or Norway's vehicle tax regime). Governments can also limit the customers choices by declaring no new ICE will sold by the year 20X0, even if the customers want it.
> Furthermore, electric cars still need complex parts! Sensors of all types, electric windows and door locks, key fobs, air conditioners, steering wheels, windshield wiper motors, etc. The list is so very long.
Traditional cars already have all of those things. For a given volume of cars, the quantity you need doesn't increase for an electric car. They're the status quo, not a way to make up for the loss of some other production.
And electric cars don't have cam shafts, exhaust pipes, fuel pumps, transmissions, emissions control systems, alternators, oil pans, spark plugs. That list is so very long too, and all of that is going away and not being replaced with anything.
Sure. You’re ignoring that the global market for cars is rapidly growing. What they may lose in cam shaft sales, they may gain in EV part sales anyway. Battery sales. Time will tell.
This would be a good place to mention that even Tesla has long partnered with Panasonic to help with their supply of batteries.
> You’re ignoring that the global market for cars is rapidly growing.
"For a given volume of cars" still holds. If the world is buying more cars, the manufacturer of piston rings is losing the opportunity to expand their business instead of shutting it down, and is inclined to resist.
> What they may lose in cam shaft sales, they may gain in EV part sales anyway.
The whole point is that EVs have significantly fewer parts, and especially fewer moving parts that wear out.
> Battery sales.
The local supplier of bespoke transmission linkages for specific models of Toyota then has to enter into a global commodity market in competition with multi-billion dollar international companies like LG and Tesla and other commodity suppliers in China, South Korea, Germany or Texas.
> This would be a good place to mention that even Tesla has long partnered with Panasonic to help with their supply of batteries.
They did this when they were a tiny upstart with no internal production capacity. They're now constructing their own battery factories on three continents. Anyone converting their whole lineup to electric is likely to do the same because it's the single most expensive part of the car.
Sure, Panasonic will be fine (or at least able to compete).
Denso (34% of revenue in traditional thermal control, i.e. radiators, water pumps, etc., also famous for spark plugs) will take a hit.
The thousands of much smaller companies that specialise in precisely fabricating minor parts (say, exhaust pipe mounts or engine mounts), less so. The expertise is not so transferable.
If it is simply protectionism, it is a particularly foolish one in the annals of economics. EV / alternate energy / grid storage is in "mature production" stage of full industrial scale-up, and is basically already at price parity (EV vs ICE drivetrain) or dramatically cheaper (Solar/Wind vs Coal/Natural Gas). Some solid state battery will hit production, and economies of scale are still in growth phase.
I imagine Toyota, the largest US car maker and probably globally the largest, is in deep trouble and is in total denial about it. Hitching your future to hydrogen which at it's best is probably about equal to EVs in cost, and which is so far behind practical use as a fuel that by the time (10? 20? years) a generation, transport, and fuelling infrastructure was built out, EVs probably will be 1/2 the cost they are now.
I'm guessing Nissan, GM, and Tesla have fairly robust patent portfolios related to recent EV tech.
Toyota probably has some stuff to offer related to the electrical side of the hybrid drive, but it's probably a far weaker portfolio-- some of their stuff is near the end of the patent lifecycle, and some is only useful in the context of range extended or hybrid-electric designs.
That means they can't offer a compelling cross-license agreement. It might cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars per vehicle to license the patents at "market rates", particularly of other players see it as a way to hobble a huge competitor.
OTOH, if they can make hydrogen work, they probably hold a lot more cards to deal with other manufacturers.
I'm surprised there wasn't more two-pronged thinking though. The selling point of hydrogen fuel-cell was that it was less subject to range anxiety, but we knew there are clearly identifiable markets where that message was a non-starter. No point selling a 500km range to a city dweller whose longest journey is 25km, but you could sell them a vehicle with Ni-MH batteries left over from 1990s laptops and it would cover their needs.
This would have allowed them to focus on the markets where liquid/gaseous fuel would make its last stands. I'd think freight would be the big one-- even if there's a charging station every 100km along the interstate, business wants to minimize fueling stops, so being able to say "800km+ range-- a full shift of driving on one tank of hydrogen" would set the bar high for electric competition.
> In Japan, many people only keep their cars for a few years, then sell them back.
three major reasons for this, fairly separate from car-electrification.
1) mandatory (paid, around 900usd) motor-vehicle inspections at 3 years
2) cost of mechanical maintenance in Japan (few car shops, huge prices)
3) no tax reduction on older/vintage/used/low-cost vehicles (like the US value-based registration costs)
I don't disagree that the auto industry of Japan is likely also protecting their own interests -- but driving in Japan has always been a pretty big personal burden on people; I see no reason why electric cars are going to get a pass from the three things I listed, they require maintenance, have a high value, and fail inspections, too.
unless laws change those failed inspection cars are either getting exported , fixed, or destroyed. there is still an export element available there.
With fewer moving mechanical parts, and exhaust problems to inspect, what is there to even inspect at 3 years on an EV? That seems like an easy political fix.
Yeah I don’t get why people keep repeating that electric cars have fewer components. Most of the car is exactly the same. But batteries have thousands of parts and electrical connections. Motors and the attached gears also fail. Everything else is the same as IC.
The drive train is enormously different. And that's the part that breaks the most.
Here are a few differences, off the top of my head (I'm not an auto engineer):
Much simpler cooling. Extracting heat from batteries is easier than from an IC engine.
No need for high temperature moving parts like pistons and valves. No need for oil under high pressure to cool and lubricate those parts. No need for a turbocharger, spinning at 100,000 plus RPM.
No need for a complicated system of storing and delivering gasoline (tanks, pumps, injectors).
No need for pollution mitigation such as EGR and Urea injection.
No need for expensive catalytic converters. Around here, those are routinely stolen for the metals, in daylight, right off parked cars.
No need for a transmission. Except for exotics such as a Porsche Taycan.
No need for a transfer case. If there's a motor for each wheel then there's not even a need for a differential.
I think the totality of differences in the drive train is profound. The change isn't minor. To riff on something that Jules Winnfield said: ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport
Anecdotally: suspension and steering components wear a lot more than drivetrain components under northeastern US driving conditions. And electric cars will have springs, struts, dampers, sway bar links, tie rods, ball joints, and all the rest of the parts that are routinely exposed to dirt, salt, and water and subjected to all manner of forces from random angles.
By contrast, under normal operating conditions, most of the wear parts of the engine and driveline are running in a sealed environment, bathed in the appropriate lubricant, and, in the case of the engine, actively cooled to maintain optional running conditions.
Al the parts that make up an ICE are incredibly mature technology. The engineering work to get the tolerances and everything else worked out that has been done over the last hundred years is unreal. And it's happened in concert with work by chemists in the lubrication industry, and every other ancillary industry. The level of reliability under normal use with regular maintenance defies belief. Like, when was the last time you gave your spark plugs even a moment's thought? The progress in metallurgy, fueling and ignition systems has made them an all but lifetime part on modern cars.
I would actually wager that for most people, the least reliable and most aggravating part of their car is now the infotainment system.
least reliable is the battery. In texas, 60 month batteries only last 3 years. One day you try to start your car and it simply wont start. Thus requiring a jump start. I know what to do here, but many people I know have to get their car towed.
I carry a portable jumpstarter because you just dont know when your car will refuse to turn on.
The drivetrain in an EV has fewer components, but you're right about the rest of the car. But it doesn't really matter. Internal combustion engines made in the last 20 years are very reliable. Almost all the weaknesses have been identified and compensated for. I have a Ford Focus that's nearly 20 years old, it still starts and runs like a new car. Has never had a major engine or transmission issue, just a water pump and an alternator or two.
Will electric motors be more reliable than internal combustion engines? Probably. But it's a difference that's not going to be noticable by most people.
The difference I think people will notice is how much less service a BEV requires as opposed to an ICE car. The ICE needs constant changes of oils and filters to keep those advanced engines operational, and this turns into frequent service appointments that cost money.
Tesla Model 3 apparently has a 6 year service interval.
I drive a 2014 Toyota minivan daily for work and my total cost of oil changes is less than $100 per year. At some point charging stations will stop being free and I’m skeptical of whether BEV will really save people money compared to petrol cars.
Charging stations are not free. Only relatively early adopter Tesla owners have free charging and only at Supercharger stations, and that is a very small sliver of the market.
Electric cars are still greatly more efficient on energy usage compared to gasoline cars. You'd have to grossly overcharge for electricity to make the comparison anywhere close.
Use this calculator to see the difference in fuel vs. electric costs:
In the low cost US states ($0.12 per kWh) that's $0.036 per mile. In highest costs states (0.38 per kWh) that's $0.114 per mile.
Gas cost per mile at 30mpg @ $3.00/gal is $0.10.
In most cases, yes, it's going to save money. You'd need a high MPG car in an expensive electricity state that has somewhat cheap gas to really flip that.
It's reliable because you changed the fluids on time.
Also you lucked out with a particularly reliable model. I can guarantee you there are plenty of 20-year-old cars that are riddled with engine and tranny problems.
Almost never. EV motors and their gears don't have the problem of injected pollutants in the oil. This is why most are expected to last a million miles or more.
The lack of a transmission also eliminates a major point of failure (gear shifting)
> But batteries have thousands of parts and electrical connections.
Those aren't mechanical parts, that's the big difference. When people talk about EVs having fewer parts, they are referring to the moving parts. The parts that most commonly fail in ICE.
Tesla warranty for the drive unit is 8 years/120,000 miles. I doubt they'd set it that high if the expectation was that these drive units are going to fail all over the place.
Compare that to both ford and toyota which have a 5 years/60,000 miles powertrain warranty
> And batteries do also fail
They can due to manufacturing faults. However, both batteries and engines follow more of a washtub curve.
The citation is right over there, next to the citation for EV's having fewer parts and being more reliable. The correct statement would be that EV's have fewer moving parts which is correct but irrelevant because with EV's there are many thousands of non-moving parts that can also brick the vehicle.
Yeah I don’t get why people keep repeating that electric cars have fewer components.
But they are not cheaper, yet. Vehicles available in both IC and electric consistently cost much more for the electric model. The base model Chevy Spark is $13,600. The base model Chevy Bolt (which GM says is the successor to the electric version of the Spark) is $36,500. The base model Ford F-150 is $29,290. The base model electric Ford F-150 is about $40,000.
2022 is going to be interesting for electric vehicles. That's the year electric trucks, from Ford to Freightliner to Volvo, ship in volume. Possibly Tesla, too. Suddenly, electric vehicles will be very mainstream, doing routine jobs.
In Western Europe, it’s quite common to see tenders for electric public transport bus lines or more generic tenders being won by firms offering a solution using electric buses (not necessarily on costs, but on pollution, noise levels, and environmental grounds)
I think electric vehicles are mainstream there, already. It wouldn’t surprise me if all further winning bids were fully electric.
For example, googling “public transport bus tenders electric” gives me
A lot of these price differentials seem to be marketing ploys more than marginal costs realities (and/or bad amortization of [misspent hydrogen esp.] R&D funds or catch-up factory retooling costs). Chevy's Bolt for whatever reason is still marketed as "more luxury" than Chevy's Spark and comparing the base model Bolt to the base model Spark missing some configuration you'd need to get it closer to a similar base package. Chevy/GM here is teasing a mixup of things in the 2023 model year so I definitely agree that late 2022 is probably going to be really interesting for a lot of reasons when it comes to EVs (as Chevy is the big US manufacturer next most likely to feel like they've finished amortizing R&D costs across EV lines).
Meanwhile Ford is definitely playing catch up and the Electric F-150 seems like it's charging for all of the above ("luxury base package", R&D costs from too many years in the hydrogen wilderness, "new and innovative" model retooling costs, etc). (Ford's an interesting dark horse in the 2022/2023 statements crowd. I think they are hedging too many bets right now, and playing way to conservatively. Current estimates are that if they got their head in the game and cut the Electric F-150 base price in half they'd dominate the US market very quickly, and there's some sentiment that if they weren't playing dumb amortization games with themselves and very easily created a less luxury package base model they are possibly in a position to do exactly that. Based on current estimates of true marginal costs.)
The part that I find most interesting is that Chinese manufacturers with no ICE legacy are building cheaper cars than everyone else right now and it is amazing to watch. There are sub-$1000 cars on Alibaba today! Those sub-$1000 cars might not be strongly interesting to US market preferences right now (where "big" and "truck-like" dominate perhaps way too much), but if it is an early warning sign that the margin wars in EVs are about to get started then it is a really exciting and encouraging one.
I'm really excited about the new PHEVs (plug-in hybrids) coming out of Asia. I think that there is a much better chance that PHEVs are the road to mass adoption than pure electric in the short term (ie. 10-15 years).
Electric still has the issue that you have to charge for like 40 minutes on a long road trip, which personally seems more frequent than I would like. It takes a 6 hr drive from LA to SF and makes it a 7 hr drive, that's quite material when you're trying to get from one place to another.
The new Rav 4 Toyota Plug-in Hybrid is really amazing. 42 miles on electric, gas for the long road trips. It also is the fastest production Toyota (I think?).
42 miles is really a lot of miles for most daily commutes. In the near future we'll have electric chargers at most commuter destinations so that's really a 84 mile round trip which is hopefully enough for most daily commutes. I suspect as electric improves in general, PHEVs can also squeeze out more from their pure electric side.
With all that being said, I'm still drawn to the Tesla as my next vehicle only to support Elon and his manic missions to improve humanity. But all things being equal, it's hard to ignore the superior build quality and convenience of the new Japanese PHEVs.
"I think that there is a much better chance that PHEVs are the road to mass adoption than pure electric in the short term (ie. 10-15 years)."
I think you are correct - you just missed that the 10-15 years was 2010-2025. It has already happened.
We are on the verge of a hockey stick of adoption of purely electric cars.
The frustrating recalcitrance of incumbents (like Volvo and BMW) was their attempt to recoup billions in investments in the last 1-2 generations of vehicles - costs that had already been sunk.
That is why after 10 years of concept cars and "e-initiatives" and weird tron-cars we finally have actual electric cars coming out of Audi/BMW/Volvo.
Is that the case? My impression is that PHEVs have been very rare in the last 10-15 years. Even now the selection seems very small. I’ve just started looking into them and it seem like the market is just barely getting up and running with some decent 2021-2022 models.
The market seems so small in 2021-2022 in fact because so many models have already been shut down. That to me is a strong indicator that the PHEV transition window is already closing and anyone thinking about it in 2022 is late to the party. GM has very explicitly stated that about the Volt, it's PHEV model that pretty much exactly met this transition window, starting in 2010 and being discontinued in 2019. GM concluded that the need for a transition vehicle was over and people were going to buy pure EVs moving forward.
(Anecdotally, as a buyer that invested in a Volt in 2011, I feel the exact same way. The Volt was a wonderful choice for 2011 but in 2022 I see a lot fewer reasons you wouldn't just buy a full EV.)
It depends on the region. Local news in Australia is on how lack of incentives for electric vehicles means there are very few models available. The cars are there, just sold elsewhere where the market is. Crank up your emissions standards or carbon requirements and the cheaper electric cars appear, with the old petrol models dumped in the backwaters.
A Model S can do LA-SF without a stop. A Model 3 can do it with a very short recharge stop (20min).
The new EQS should be able to do it very easy non stop.
Are you really driving 6 hours without stopping for a drink and without any bio-break?
One thing to add here is that huge nonstop marathon drives are generally unsafe - most all people can’t maintain alertness for that long. I have done the 7-hour hell drive in the past, but I probably would have been better off had I been forced to stop for ten or twenty minutes every two hours or so.
Recently did an eight hour drive in a model 3. We stopped more frequently than the Tesla strictly required - once for a bathroom break and a quick coffee, once for food, and once for a more substantive charge.
The nice thing was that by timing the shorter stops to also be at a supercharger, we did the electric equivalent of a ‘splash and dash’ - we got ~2 x 15minutes of charging time ‘free’ - as we’d stopped anyway, and the additional time spent to plug in is about 30 seconds.
I suspect people who think that a Tesla would be substantively worse than an ICE car for long trips are either far edge-case car users… or are seriously underestimating them time they spend not driving during a long trip, and then compare that unrealistic best-case situation with the likely case for an EV.
I cope with long haul driving better than nearly anyone I know. I still find the gas stop every 3.5 hours or so essential. I get out of the car, walk around a bit, get something to drink and a snack to eat, and it makes a huge impact in how I feel and how alert I am. I have no problem doing 18 hour days multiple days in a row so long as I do this.
a break or breaks totalling at least 45 minutes after no more than 4 hours 30 minutes driving
They are professional drivers.
To speed up EV adoption, improve road safety and make an attainable mileage goal for EVs we could use legislation to require a 30 minutes break after three hours of car driving.
This would be unpopular and initially hard to enforce, but if you were in an accident after driving without a break for six hours then you would not do it again as the law would make you the dangerous driver and your insurance would not help.
Trucks have a tachograph, this could be mandated for cars too.
Well.. I would say something nasty to you for something so stupid, but I won't.
You want to force everyone to take a 30min break automatically? How about i want to drive somewhere that takes 3h50 ? Or whst if there are more drivers in the car and we can stop for a quick change of drivers? Or.. whatever. I agree that driving without pausing and resting is bad but your solution is worse. It is my car, i should be able to stop whenever i want to, not when some system tells me to.
Even if you can shorten the stop times by changing drivers, it is a big relief to get out of the car for at least a few minutes, literally stretch your legs, visit a bathroom and perhaps get a coffee or a snack.
I mean, you may find it a big relief to get out. I prefer to get to my destination faster. Or, if we do want to get out, plan to stop at a cool restaurant or something instead of at a random supercharger location.
BTW: Did you know you can bring snacks and even coffee with you in your car? Those don't have to be purchased on route. You'll even get lower prices and a wider selection.
> more and more restaurants see this as a business opportunity to offer charging while eating.
In the US, the infrastructure costs to get fast chargers next to most good restaurants is prohibitive. Especially good restaurants that are between major cities.
> As a German...
No wonder you are so opposed to the idea of a 6 hour journey without taking a break. In the US, a road trip usually involves planning to minimize total stops. It's not uncommon to bring snacks/drinks/coffee with you in thermoses/coolers.
(Also, nitpick, the word you want to use is "horrible" not "horrend" if you want to sound correct to the widest group of English speakers)
No wonder you are so opposed to the idea of a 6 hour journey without taking a break. In the US, a road trip usually involves planning to minimize total stops. It's not uncommon to bring snacks/drinks/coffee with you in thermoses/coolers.
(Also, nitpick, the word you want to use is "horrible" not "horrend" if you want to sound correct to the widest group of English speakers)
That was intentional, to create an exaggerated phrasing of the statement. Beyond stating a truth, that many Germans would consider it offensive to eat and drink in their cars, I also wanted to make some fun out of how protective some of them are, as well as making some fun of those, like Americans, who think their car is a great place to eat and drink :)
I am very aware of the differences in driving habits between Germany and the US, having driven in both (though not taken longer road trips in the US). There is certainly a significant size difference between the US and Germany, but considering how large the EU is and crossing borders inside the EU usually isn't any different from crossing state borders in the US, there would be large distances to drive in the EU too.
Still, I think road tripping is larger in the US. Might be interesting to consider the reasons for this. To a large part probably, because the open borders in the EU are a more recent thing. Also, because passenger trains are still a very important means of transportation. And in general, population density seems to be higher, it is very easy to find something interesting much more nearby.
For Germany specifically, you also have to consider driving speeds. If traffic isn't too heavy, there are still many sections of the Autobahn without limits, so travelling at 100-120mph is quite common. Which on the one side makes for quicker progress but also, you don't want to try to eat or drink at those speeds :)
many countries have regulations around fatigue driving, look them up and adapt them to your own driving schedule. Usually it's around a break every 3hrs of driving. Some countries have them longer possibly due to lobbying but often are justified also by their quality of road and landscape etc etc.
Charge speed is a lot faster than you think and getting better. Play with abetterrouteplanner.com where you can select the vehicle, conditions, and the route.
People also conflate 5 minutes of refueling with 5 minute stops. EVs charge while you go the bathroom, stretch your legs, eat, and anything else you and you passengers might do while stopped. I find in practice if you're roadtripping with more then 1 other person it's basically impossible to go longer than 3 hour legs and stop for less than 15-20 minutes. That's puts you right in range where you spend less than 10 minutes waiting for the car for every 3 hours travelled.
> People also conflate 5 minutes of refueling with 5 minute stops.
This is definitely something to emphasize. Because of the difference in the refueling too, gas refueling is by necessity a "serial" task: you need to watch the vehicle every minute of that refueling because it is a dangerous substance with bad edge case behaviors, including but not limited to accidental over-fills that at the very least are obnoxious for over-charging you (if not the immense physical danger it might put you and your vehicle in).
EV charging is an easy parallel task: just like you don't have to watch your phone for every minute that you plug it in. You aren't wasting 15-20 minutes staring at a gallon counter and checking your car for leaks of explosive liquids.
Obviously there are lots of unsafe drivers out there (and lots of us on our worst days where we feel such unsafety a calculated risk) that will risk it anyway and try to parallelize tasks while refueling with gasoline, but I know I have at least one story where that went wrong (a fuel line bust while buying snacks). Electricity is so much tamer in comparison.
Tesla's Model S has a range of over 400 miles and it can recharge 180 miles in about 15 minutes. So this is mostly a solved problem, all that is left is pushing these specs down to more economical models. I would be surprised if in say 3 years we do not see comparable specs in Tesla's baseline models. Everybody else will lag a few more years, but they will get there as well.
Isn't that for the city driving test? I am not sure which metric Tesla is using, highway or city, the website isn't clear, but at 30 MPH, on flat terrain and with the AC off, I would expect considerably more than 400 miles for their long range model.
With respect, I just don’t understand this use case. You focus on 42 miles as being a lot of range for most cases, but exclude the ~300mi range BEV because it’s… not enough?
Less than 5% of daily trips are over 30mi [1]. One study found 70+ mi trips are barely 1% of journeys [2].
Also your example of LA-SF as an example of it being a real drag on time is instead perhaps the canonical best route, for Teslas at least. That’s the corridor between where they are manufactured and their largest market, SoCal. SuperChargers are plentiful, including the super fast 250 kW version that can do 1000mi/hr (when you are at low state of charge.) It also has in the PCH a beautiful view that you’ll want to stop and take in.
So there’s no way you’ll actually spend an hour out of your way, but if you do, why would that single hour actually be material, when the trip is less than 1% of your journeys? Why pick a PHEV for your edge cases?
Rent another car for that trip. Or take a flight (SF-LA fact: that’s also the busiest airline route in the country [3] by aircraft flown; second busiest by passengers moved)
I get the whole “I probably won’t, but I like knowing I could” sense of spontaneity but it just seems a waste to have two separate propulsion systems and the associated complexity just for that.
> With respect, I just don’t understand this use case. You focus on 42 miles as being a lot of range for most cases, but exclude the ~300mi range BEV because it’s… not enough?
You can disagree, but it's a reasonable point
Let's subdivide trips into A <42 mi, 42 mi < B < 150 mi and 150 mi < C. (These numbers assume no charging at the other end. We can tweak the actual numbers up by assuming charging at the other end.)
We can ignore, for our analysis A. Those are 100% plug in. By your sources, 95-99% of trips are in the "A" column, depending on charging on the other side.
So, you then ask "why is it material to stop for a supercharge on 1% of the trips". In this case, you kinda seem to have lost the thread. Why worry about your gas emissions if it's only 1% of the trips? Why advocate renting a second ICE car for a long trip instead of just having a single car where the switchover point to burning gas is just 250 miles shorter a trip?
But really, it's how do you estimate B vs. C. If B is 99% of the combination, a pure EV may be best. If you think C is 99%, then a PHEV is best. In between, you have to make your choices. And those numbers can be highly personal. If you live 400 miles from the grandparents and (the other way) the city you like to visit for a weekend every month, it's clear you want a PHEV. If you those numbers are 100 miles, you probably don't.
I would say it's not "clear" at all, you're putting the cart before the horse.
The long range model S can drive from SF to LA on a single charge.
Even taking into account a supercharge stop, it takes <10 minutes to charge enough to extend your range to make it to grandma's house. In practice, that's faster than a stop at a gas station.
Obviously grandma will need charging at their house to do this^, but if you're driving 400+ miles you're usually going to stay the night which means you can plug into a normal outlet and charge over night.
Obviously, you can quibble about what the cutoff distances are. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of travel is under 42 miles.
As for speed of filing up, that's insane. One undisputed benefit of ICE cars or PHEVs is that gasoline refill is (a) everywhere and (b) significantly faster per mile.
Going from an empty tank to a full tank often takes less than 5 minutes, counting time getting on/off the highway.
I’ve often heard people say about range/charging anxiety: “just use your electric car for your commute around town and for long trips keep your gasoline car or rent one”
PHEVs do that all in the same car. Since much of the charging stations have been monopolized by Tesla in the US, I think PHEVs are the solution to infrastructure growing pains.
Tesla has not "monopolized" charging stations in any reasonable understanding of the word. They spent somewhere south of $1B to built their own infrastructure. Any other company could have done that, but they chose to drag their heels instead. Even still, they could _still_ do that (and maybe EA will be that network). Electricity is pretty much everywhere, and there's definitely room for lots more long distance chargers. I don't understand how anyone could think what Tesla has done with it's supercharger network is a bad thing....
Should they? Why should one private company be forced to build infrastructure for other companies that are intentionally dragging their heels? GM doesn't run gas stations
It would be great if they could be altruistic to let anyone use them, but altruism isn't really a good path to profits in our society
Ok, then the government should be doing it and investing to meet current and future demand. A private company (in a non-regulated market) can't be forced to do so.
I am not suggesting that Tesla has prevented anyone else from building charging stations. I am using the word monopoly in the non-antitrust sense here.
< I'm really excited about the new PHEVs (plug-in hybrids) coming out of Asia. I think that there is a much better chance that PHEVs are the road to mass adoption than pure electric in the short term (ie. 10-15 years)
OT: I have a question about PHEVs that I haven't been able to find a clear answer too. Maybe someone here knows.
It is generally considered bad for an ICE car if you go too long without driving it [1]. That article says you should drive it for at least 10 minutes at highway speeds every two to three weeks.
If I had a PHEV, I could easily go for months where I drive a few times a week, but always entirely for trips that can be done without using the ICE engine. That would prevent the problems mentioned in that article that aren't specific to the ICE engine, but the fuel and fluid problems could still be an issue.
My question is do the PHEVs handle that automatically, such as by keeping track of ICE usage and automatically running the ICE engine occasionally on trips that could normally be done without it? Or is this something I'd be expected to keep track of, and say, skip plugging it in every now and then to force it to use the ICE engine?
My PHEV ICE engine turns on from time to time and keeps on running for short periods of time.
I believe it last happened on Friday when I started the car and it was on for roughly 10 minutes. Have to say I was really wondering "what's wrong with the car" :)
The Chevy Volt (or Opel Ampera in my case, but same thing essentially) keeps track of fuel age somehow and will run the engine to burn fuel if it sits in the tank too long. The other points in that list don’t seem applicable.
I say this to people and they say “but Teslas are so expensive.” And then they end up buying an Audi or BMW, and when they later test drive a Tesla, they regret their decision.
Tesla charging options are only plentiful is some parts of the US. In other regions of the US they are sparse even along interstates. In some regions with this property, like the mountain west, road closures that incur very long unplanned detours are a thing you have to plan for even as an ICE driver. Those detours can take you a long way from a charging station but you can find a gas station in just about every podunk town of 300 people.
There is a chicken and egg problem here. In parts of the country that rely on sparse networks of gas stations for their cars, few people would buy a BEV unless all of those gas stations simultaneously added chargers in the complete absence of local demand.
You don’t need a supercharger to charge or even to fast charge. Other chargers work too. There are CHAdeMO chargers in a lot of places (need an expensive adapter, $450, but very worthwhile purchase). Mountain west? I’ve been seeing CHAdeMO all over the place… Grants, NM. Pagosa Springs, CO. Santa Fe, NM. Lewiston, ID. Taos has a surfeit of Tesla (non supercharger) connectors, most free! Or there’s J1772, everywhere practically, a slower option best for when you need to stop for other reasons, and the adapter comes with the car. Chargers are popping up everywhere. And electrical outlets are in every building pretty much so sleeping in the right place helps too.
You misspelled "California". In major US cities, you are lucky to have one super-charger per million people. If you live in an apartment (as many people do) and cannot charge your car in the parking lot (which, due to power load requirements, most people cannot), you don't have a great way to keep your Tesla filled up.
Superchargers are not the only way to charge a Tesla though.
And about apartments… you’re replying to someone who managed very well with two Teslas in an apartment for two years with no at home charging options. We rarely used the local supercharger, although it helped when fast charging was needed. J1772 chargers are plentiful and cheap (sometimes free).
Nowadays we found a way to make a 110 cord reach, and while slow, it easily keeps two cars well charged.
This is real life experience for me. It’s worked great.
Currently living in one of the poorest and least populated states in the US, where EV ownership is near nil, and there are plenty if chargers in my town. If this isn’t the case where you live, you could always help encourage your local businesses, government, and other entities to consider installing chargers. They sometimes just don’t know there is any interest.
It will be interesting to see what opening up SuperChargers to non-Tesla vehicles is going to do for availability though. I often see the sites near me full or near-full as it is.
> The new Rav 4 Toyota Plug-in Hybrid is really amazing. 42 miles on electric, gas for the long road trips.
For comparison, the Nissan Leaf E+ is quoted[1] at a full-charge mileage range of 239 miles.
> Electric still has the issue that you have to charge for like 40 minutes on a long road trip, which personally seems more frequent than I would like.
Agreed, stopping often to charge can be a hassle, but if you only have to stop once from SF-LA (perhaps taking a break and having a bite to eat while away from the wheel), that'd seem fairly reasonable.
Worth also noting apparent conflicting reports about the emissions claims made by PHEV manufacturers; see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54170207 ("Plug-in hybrids are a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'") for two different points of view.
With a Tesla it’s only 20 minutes to get 80% charge. It would be more than sufficient to do the LA to SF drive. I’d imagine most people would want to stop at least that long during the drive just to stretch their legs.
It's still a logistical challenge in places without high charging accessibility though. That 20 minute charge might add another 20 minutes or even more depending on where it's located.
Are you referring to lineups at the charger? Or having to deviate from your route due to charger location?
I have heard stories and seen pictures of people waiting to charge in California, but I have never personally waited for a supercharger on my many road trips. The infrastructure needs to be built out to keep pace with EV adoption, but my understanding is the california problem is more about how long it takes to get building permits in the state than any lack of desire to add chargers.
As for poor routing, the fastest chargers are rarely more than a few hundred meters from major routes. A couple times they have been more convenient than gas stations. The only charger I've been to that was more than 2-3 lights away from the highway is Owen Sound, Ontario, but that city is known as a travel black hole and doesn't have a ring road or fast way through.
I understood the comment to be referring to requiring a detour for charging. That was also my reason for not buying a model 3. I put in some normal trips that I take, and while it was technically doable, it took me routes I usually avoided due to traffic, tolls, or sometimes weather conditions.
I know my routes are niche (which is why the traffic is on the other road), but for me it just didn’t make sense yet.
I tend to road trip in very unpopulated areas, so in my experience there isn’t much route choice. There is only 1 highway you could ever use. I also find the only times I’d bother with an alternate route are inside a single battery charge (either under 300 km or the start/end leg of the trip).
Your use case is quite interesting. Got an example?
The lack of waypoints in the Tesla navigation is their biggest missing piece of software currently. The navigation is extremely good about recalculating both the directions and charge plan as as you go even if you deviate from the suggested route. I sometimes cheat a little by navigating to a midway point. For example, I set Orangeville as the destination leaving Kitchener-Waterloo for Sudbury since I didn’t feel like going through Toronto.
In the mountain West of the US, there are semi-frequent major highway closures due to weather conditions, serious accidents, etc. It is not uncommon for the shortest paved detour to add 120 km to your trip. That's not a big deal in an ICE vehicle, since every one-horse town near the detour route has a gas station. That fact has saved my bacon several times even with proper planning. People who live out there are accustomed to this reality. Adventurous people can sometimes find much shorter alternative routes using ranch/mining/forestry trails but those don't always exist and you definitely won't be driving your Tesla on those roads.
The worst detour I've experienced in recent years was a serious accident in the middle-of-nowhere Utah, which closed the highway in both directions for almost 24 hours. The shortest paved detour around the accident added 150km of nothingness to the trip.
40 miles is close to a sweet spot 99% EV daily driving range. The current 20-ish PHEVs aren't up to snuff.
In the short run (5 years), I agree that PHEVs are the best use of the available battery materials supply if we want to get to low hanging fruit of 90% consumer trips are EV.
Teslas are great and they absolutely should pursue the research on full-EV vehicles because that is the 10 year future. But how many PHEVs could be made out of a P-100's battery? 10?
... that is assuming the mainline autos hadn't been dragging their feet for 20 years putting a goddamn electric plug on their hybrids, and not pushing the technology.
That Toyota so stringently resists even a plug in for their platforms in 2021 (for example, the new Toyota minivan is a hybrid with no option for a plug) is so mindboggling it must be intentional.
Having to charge for 40 minutes during a 6 hour trip is a non-issue in my opinion. During a 6 hour trip one has to eat at least one lunch/dinner which should account for 40 minutes. And likely an additional stop at a rest room or leg stretcher for 10 minutes somewhere else.
Electrical charging stations will be everywhere, very soon ,very fast. All restaurants, gas stations and kiosks will have plenty. To attract customers and to earn an extra buck. It's very cheap to install compared to tanks and pumps for flammable and hazardous liquid fuels.
I'm considering switching from my current car subscription (because they got bought out by Fair, and since then the service has turned to shit). Hybrids like that sound nice but I'm still eyeing Tesla because they are the only ones who have a reasonably autopilot system.
Many others have lane keep systems that are designed to kill -- if you accidentally fall asleep at the wheel or become incapacitated, it will shut the lane keep system off and crash, instead of attempting to coming to a clean stop and putting on emergency flashers, which is what Tesla does.
PHEVs could make a lot of sense in areas of the US like the Midwest and non-urban West where routine commutes are short (and thus mostly electric) but occasional road trips are common.
We got a Rav 4 plug-in a couple of months ago. It's fantastic - it sometimes gives us 45 miles entirely on battery, which means most of our trips don't use any gas at all.
When we were looking at plug-in hybrid options nothing else even came close in terms of mileage, which I found really surprising. It was our top criteria when selecting a vehicle.
It seems the car is much more complex, but it's not really. The electrical motor makes it possible to have a way less complex ICE engine, for many reasons. It's still an ICE car, but pollution & consumption is halfed.
There is a reason why Toyota Priuses (started building them 20yrs ago) and now Corollas are so reliable and cheap to maintain that you can find them in any cab.
Yes, an ICE car already has an alternator and starter motor, you aren't adding much complexity.
Considering how constrained we are by battery supply I suspect we would have got much more bang for our buck by using plugins as a stepping stone to full EV's.
If your designing a new suspension or whatnot then you or someone else need to build a factory to create it, it’s the same for every other car component. So there isn’t an actual battery limitation, just a question of building more battery factories. One level deeper building the machines or build batteries is more of a limitation which can also be scales up.
People point to Lithium as a limitation, but the price recently crashes in 2019 due to over investment demonstrating much faster EV adoption would and is possible.
Any good sources on hybrid vs conventional engines? I'm very surprised they have a limited increase in complexity.
I'll add that hybrids are more profitable for any manufacturer because it means that you can't take it to your family mechanic for service (You need special training and equipment to work on them because it's high voltage). Because the dealers are making a lot on service, the manufacturer can cut their bonus on sales.
The engines in a hybrid are mechanically the same as their traditional counterparts (except they run Atkinson cycle instead of Otto cycle)
The big mechanical advantage in simplicity is the transmission. While they’re called “eCVTs” in some cases, the transmission is better described as “almost no transmission”. They do not use the same belt and cone system that gasoline CVT vehicles use.
In Toyota systems they use a simple fixed planetary gearset and can vary the output speed simply by varying the ratios of speed of the two electric motors and the gasoline engine, rather than mechanically changing the ratio of the gears like a traditional transmission.
The Honda hybrid system is even more simple. They just directly drive the wheels with an electric motor and use the gasoline engine as a generator. (With the exception of a single lockup clutch that allows the engine to drive the wheels at a fixed ratio at highway speeds)
Hyundai is a weird exception. Their hybrids have traditional transmissions attached to them.
Except for some computerized parts of the system, the majority of them can be worked on by any mechanic, or even shade tree mechanics. The high voltage system requires care, but there are simple procedures to work on it safely. You can find many YouTube videos with instructions on tasks like rebuilding a battery pack, that dealers won’t even do. Most parts on a car aren’t the high voltage system anyway.
Having owned a Prius for a decade, and now a Hybrid RAV4, I can say with confidence that even if they were somehow more complicated, the great feature is that they never need work. Truly exceptional reliability.
The amazing thing about them is that they have no parts that need friction to work like belts, CVT axles or even the clutch. Nor do they have any moving parts like a regular transmission which shift into place.
It's 2 electric motors connected via a planetary gearset to the ICE. Nothing can get out of alignment or get loose.
Serial hybrids IC engines are simpler, because they only power the generator - no need for transmission, gears, and adjusting power through a wide range of rpm. Basically generator+electric engine is the transmisson/gears.
Parallel hybrids ICEs are just as complex as normal ICEs.
There's a WeberAuto channel on YouTube, where prof. John D. Kelly explains them wonderfully, on live examples. What impressed me most is how simple the gearbox of a hybrid Toyota is – it's just three major parts!
I agree. We used the Toyota Highlander hybrid in the winter mountains of Colorado for our taxi service. They could go everywhere a GMC 4x4 could (almost), great on fuel, and were virtually indestructible. Toyota's continuously variable transmission (CVT) is rock solid too, wasn't always, but is now.
I don't even know if CVT is correct. Let's say it's the transmission thingy in 2003+ Toyota Highlander. The whole cars were indestructible, but the tranny impressed the most, especially up and down mountain roads.
This applies much more to Europe as a whole and I don't see it being talked that often.
- At least 9 of the top 50 Germany companies are directly associated with the auto industry
- The top 5 global automobile suppliers is composed of 4 European companies and 1 Japanese
- there's a lot of auto industry lobbying for status quo in the EU, just see the generalized state of diesel engines cheating on tests and the level of actions taken afterwards to just treat it as a no problem
I used the share this view, but I no longer believe it. The complexity is just in different places. Look at a Tesla, it’s an incredibly complex machine. The ICE is effectively a solved problem.
OTOH this is their reason. Japan needs to retool ASAP. They’re the most technologically advanced country in the world though and they have the best process management, so they can do it.
Whoever is saying electric vehicles has reduced complexity has no idea what they are taking about. Literally none. It’s complete fantasy.
The THEORY you could make an EV less complex is probably true, but the REALITY is not.
There isn’t a single EV in the world today that is less complex than it’s non-EV relative.
Chrysler and GM EV and HEV specially I’ve worked on both have entirely separate bus systems just for the power train, this is on top of the already existing PT bus that the ICE vehicles all have. The battery heater, the battery pump/cooler, the multiple charging systems, the additions to the transmissions systems, the ABS systems with ICE that handle stability control were already complex, now more so because they are entirely new devices that bring in regenerative braking and efficiency. All the software has changed around target torques/rpm/target gear for mileage. There is no other brand that defies my assertion.
Literally everything in an EV is more complex. Didn’t have to be, but is.
Edit: lol first hand knowledge of complex systems, physical layout, mounting, diagnostics, wiring, their signals and data patterns… nope, wrong! Classic HN
> Edit: lol first hand knowledge of complex systems, physical layout, mounting, diagnostics, wiring, their signals and data patterns… nope, wrong! Classic HN
I imagine you’re getting down votes because your comment seems to only consider complexity in EV’s and doesn’t talk about the complexity found in ICE vehicles.
If you take an existing ICE platform and adapt it for EV’s of course it’s going to end up more complex from a control perspective. You’ve taken the existing complexity of the ICE platform and just strapped all the EV stuff onto the side.
Perhaps if you could talk about the mechanical complexity found in the ICE powertrain and compare the to an EV you might get a better response.
The number of high load mechanical components found in an ICE powertrain is huge. Components that are forced to operate under an extremely wide range of temperatures and loads, which just don’t exist in EVs.
When ICE cars fail it’s almost certainly a mechanical failure. Software based control systems generally don’t fail, they either work or they don’t. You don’t get “wear” in software.
Now control systems mistakes can result unnecessary wear in mechanical parts, and premature failure. But having fewer mechanical parts significantly reduces the surface area for control errors.
> doesn’t talk about the complexity found in ICE vehicles
What part of “There isn’t a single EV in the world today that is less complex than it’s non-EV relative.” doesn’t cover that it’s a relative difference?
I don’t care about complexity of ICE. That’s our baseline.
There isn’t a single system in EVs that is less complex. Period. You won’t break a fuel pump in a full EV, but will in a hybrid or plug in hybrid, and you’ll break the battery pump in a full EV… so where are you better off there?
If you want to change the topic to reliability, we scrap thousands of tons of electric motors. Sometimes because the connection to the battery is bad (source and drain terminals). Sometimes there is nothing wrong with them, but the dealer fails to diagnose issues like they can with ICE components, most of the time we have no idea what is wrong with them.
Having fewer mechanical parts is better, sure, ok, but do you realize how many more parts are added to EV systems?
You are thinking in terms of classic vehicle design practices. What you are failing to understand, being an outsider, is that we used to design things the good/hard way because they had to last for 60,000 miles without major replacements… now… since as you write there is a lot more software, we design rough enough to get it on to the storage lot awaiting shipping, we get it refined enough by the time the dealers get them, and we keep refining software updates over the year. I have a 2021 company vehicle, the Linux-based radio completely resets going down the road probably once every 100 miles. It’s a completely known issue and the supplier will probably push a fix in 6 months. No one cares. This would have been inexcusable years ago.
Right, software doesn’t wear. But it has a lot more bugs and bullshit. You don’t develop new issues years later - oh wait, yes, we do, all the time. Mechanical parts have a lineage and a hundred years of how to make an x or y, i can replace almost any part and we know approximately when they will fail. Software, relatively the Wild West.
This is why they want OTA updates so badly. To finish them in your driveway.
If my life depended on a vehicle, I’d take a 2014 Jeep Wrangler (or similar decontented vehicle) over any 2021 vehicle by any mfg, that’s ICE or not. But double true that I wouldn’t trust my life on an EV in 2021.
I own an EV (plug in hybrid and a often use a full electric) and like them. But I don’t trust them because I’ve seen the sausage being made.
I think I understand where you're coming from, and the difference between your view and the popular HN take. You are considering complexity in a more complete sense of control theory, interdependence of systems, probabilities of failure, and difficulties in diagnostics. The amount of digital controls and software is a big part of that. The novelty of the systems also means that the ecosystem of support and maintenance is not there (yet?).
The typical "EV is simpler" HN take, I think, instead is thinking of mechanical system complexity and mostly ignoring the digital domain. We can see how all those valves, cams, counter-balance shafts, lubrication systems, fuel systems, and emission control systems go away, and they were the root of our most expensive car maintenance nightmares so far. It is hard to compare these apples and oranges, taking away a bunch of mechanical systems, which were exquisitely modular, and replacing them with highly integrated electronic components.
> We can see how all those valves, cams, counter-balance shafts, lubrication systems, fuel systems, and emission control systems go away, and they were the root of our most expensive car maintenance nightmares so far.
That’s a good point. You aren’t going to have an NVLD leak in an EV.
But… what people aren’t realizing is how much is added to EVs that replaces all this.
How many people realize there is a heating and cooling system for the batteries? Pumps, radiators, heating elements, all sorts of modules for each component, the entire generator system. And it’s all brand new.
From what I've seen from cars being put apparat by Sandy Munro company the complexity of EV cooling system maps roughly 1 to 1 with ICE. Both need cooling loops basically.
There is however a staggering difference between companies. Compare cooling in Ford Mustang Mach-E and Tesla Model Y.
Tesla just brutally crashes Ford in how much they are able to reduce number of parts, especially hoses and hose connectors. Tesla has something like 3x less hoses, 3x less parts and half the mass of the coolant in the loop (22kg vs 9 kg).
Maybe part of what you are seeing is inexperience and incompetence of ICE car manufacturers.
There are also other things that legacy car manufacturers are not willing to risk like megacasting. Something like 50 parts reduction in one cast, and good chunk of the factory floor for Tesla. And apparently the idea was out there long before Tesla but nobody tried it. While Musk loves taking financial risks if they can deliver significant engineering benefits.
> If my life depended on a vehicle, I’d take a 2014 Jeep Wrangler...
I'm glad to read that. I've been feeling a bit backwards by holding on to my Jeep in a world slowly being filled by EVs, but you just made me feel better about it.
I think you're obviously right, but you're also being overly pessimistic and short-sighted. Diagnosis and maintenance efficiency on BEVs will surely improve as the segment matures.
Ok, so a person who is designing and testing components of these systems is pessimistic, but people who are just using theories and idealism are cheerleading, what does that tell you?
Also, it’s not pessimism. It’s just the reality. Automotive engineering has never been sloppier. It’s also never been less complex. It’s ALSO only getting more complex with EV. Be upset about that all you like, but it’s how it is.
So my original point is that anyone who says EVs are less complex is completely dealing with fantasy.
Agreed people tend to fixate on the engine/motor, which might be less complex (even that's debatable), but the rest of the system supporting that motor is complex in it's own right.
> Look at a Tesla, it’s an incredibly complex machine.
Tesla's EVs are overly complex, overly sophisticated. That doesn't need to be the case. Tesla adds enormous amounts of system and software complexity to try to be on the bleeding edge of supposed innovation. Tesla is selling that premise, that brand/image. If you remove it, people won't desire their cars as much, and certainly not at Tesla's price point.
You can make a far less complex, lower cost, 'dumb' EV. China is doing it right now and selling a lot of them.
What'll you'll see out of places like China over the next few decades, are hyper mass produced, high reliability, low cost, low complexity EVs that don't chase the cutting edge. China isn't yet great on reliability in auto manufacturing, they will be however if you iterate them forward in time.
I'd be curious to hear where you think all of that complexity has moved. While ICE are definitely more reliable these days than they were 50 years ago, I don't think the major issue is with them directly, but with the sheer amount of ancillary components they imply - ie belts, alternator, fuel injectors, spark plugs, transmission, radiator, starter motor, starter battery, etc. Those are the source of the vast majority of problems and maintenance for ICE cars. EVs need none of them. For electric vehicles, I'd view the cooling system as the largest source of complexity. And I think those will simplify as batteries become better designed (lower internal resistance from tabless for instance), more dense and less expensive.
I think it's important not to conflate Tesla and electric vehicles. They are building luxury vehicles that have the added complexity and added unreliability that implies.
Most technologically advanced country in the world??? Hahaha, that's a good one! Sure, hankos, fax machines and piles of hand-written paperwork are the pinnacle of technology. Have you ever been to Japan, or are you just going by the stereotype?
The only problem is, it never paid off to hold to a technology which time has passed, however profitable it was. The impact onto the industry of going electric is much less than missing the boat and not going electric in time.
Getting people to switch to electric cars means investing in the infrastructure.
I have a hybrid car and I am not sure it makes sense ecologically. My main reason is the driving experience (especially when starting, it is much better than traditional engine).
If I drive to the mountains (500+ km), I would like to be able to recharge on the way. It takes 20 min per car, so if a full tank is 4 min, we need 5 times more chargers than gas distributors. Good luck bringing that power to a highway stop area.
Switching dozens of millions cars to battery-electric drive trains is not a viable strategy, especially for the logistics sector.
Germany produces 1.6 TWh of electricity per day. Charging 50 million electric cars with a 50-kWh-battery would require 2.5 TWh of electricity. Even if you just charge 1/4 of those cars, you’d still 0,625 TWh, so almost 50% of what Germany produces in a single day.
Germany has around 47 million passenger cars according to the national vehicle agency (KBA).
Battery-electric cars are simply no viable solution to get dozens of million cars have emission-free.
Let alone the ridiculous ranges of these BEVs. A regular Opel Astra Diesel achieves with 1000 km range with a single tank-fill while even the best BEVs will only achieve 400 km on average.
A Diesel can be refilled in 5 minutes, a BEV takes at least 30 to 60 minutes, in many cases even longer due to the lack of sufficient high-current power chargers.
BEVs are simply a step backwards in both comfort abd usability. That’s why they’re no serious alternative and Japan’s hydrogen approach is much more promising. Especially with passenger trains already running on hydrogen and German company Deutz just having introduced a high-power hydrogen engine.
I don't know where your calculation went wrong, but it is wrong. It is very easy to calculate how much electricity electric cars would use, as the distance driven is precisely recorded. For the 45 million cars you have an average annual driving distance of less than 15.000km and at 20kWh/100km you get 135 TWh. That is about 20% more electricity production in Germany. Actually it will be much less, as gasoline and diesel fuel production and distribution uses a lot of electric energy too. The German grid could provide that amount of power today, and its at least 20 years till we have so many electric cars, plenty of time to add that capacity renewable.
The biggest comfort advantage of BEV for the common user is, to rarely have to recharge on the road. If you plug in your BEV into a plain wall socket even every night, you start with a full charge every morning, removing the need to do on the road so in most cases.
The Ioniq 5 already advertises recharge times in 18 minutes, so choose that one, if recharging on the road is common for you, or just buy a Tesla, which are pretty close to that and have the best charging network.
If you want to have "green" hydrogen, you have to use 2-3x as much electricity and for the average consumer, hydrogen cars are clearly a step backwards towards BEV.
Well, the basic hydrocarbons come from the ground in the form of crude oil. But that has to be pumped out of the ground, into the tankers or through the pipelines. That alone adds a significant amount of electricity consumed. Then the refining process. That uses a lot of energy. A large part of that comes from burning even more oil, so the environment impact is huge. But it wouldn't appear on the electricity bill indeed. But still, the refineries eat up a lot of electricity too. All the pumping required, the big destillation facilities might be heated by burning oil, but the control and the operation is electric. And then the gasoline is pumped around even more. Until it is pumped into your car. All of this uses electricity. Finally, even the gas stations themselves use a lot of electricity as for illumination.
I can't name precise numbers - my calculation was really only the worst case szenario. Some calculations claim, going fully electric with cars would only add about 10% to the electricity consumption for all the electricity saved in the fuel supply.
> Passenger trains, trucks and ships are a different story.
In some countries, sure. But most rail in Japan is already electrified - 70% of the system [1]. The remainder would be low ridership routes, many of which the rail companies want to close - but if they don't, perhaps partially battery operated trains would be feasible - charge at every stop and at intermediate locations as needed.
Additionally, trucking routes in Japan are much shorter and slower than North America, making BEV trucks more feasible.
Ships I agree with you, hydrogen is likely best way forward
> BEVs are simply a step backwards in both comfort abd usability.
Comfort? Really? Quiet inside and out, no vibrations, no exhaust fumes, no transmission tunnels for extra leg room, pre-heating or cooling when plugged in at home…
> Charging 50 million electric cars with a 50-kWh-battery would require 2.5 TWh of electricity.
I find much to disagree with in your comment, but this is the most clearly wrong part. Nobody fills up their gas tank every single day, and with a 50 kWh battery nobody is charging it fully everyday.
I just bought my first BEV, a VW ID4. It’s a much more comfortable car with a far superior feel when driving then any of the ICE vehicles I’ve owned. With the range it has I never need to worry about charging it unless we go on a road trip.
My wife and I are planning a road trip though, from Boston to Bar Harbor, Maine. After looking up the route on PlugShare I need to make one stop at a fast charger (about 30 minutes) somewhere along I-95. Hardly a big deal.
If most people drive 20-40 mins to work then the same back each day then they are well within the range limits and can charge every night at home. They never have to visit a gas station. That’s actually much more usable. You shouldn’t drive more than the range of a modern high capacity electric car in one go anyway; it’s simply unsafe. Tesla and other fast chargers take 15 mins and more are being built all the time.
> You shouldn’t drive more than the range of a modern high capacity electric car in one go anyway; it’s simply unsafe.
UHhhhhhh what? Have you never done a 10 hour drive split up with your spouse before? Just FYI, its not particularly unsafe and it happens all the time.
I drove 470 miles yesterday in a Tesla with two ~30 min charging stops. Honestly didn’t feel great and I wouldn’t recommend it —- but the stops really helped.
Tiredness delays reaction times more than being over the drink drive limit. Not having bathrooms breaks can lead to bladder infections etc. Stopping for a 30min break on a long drive is just sensible imo.
> A Diesel can be refilled in 5 minutes, a BEV takes at least 30 to 60 minutes
Electric vehicles can be charged at home and at the office, thus eliminating most refueling stops.
IMO this is a fantastic feature. I don’t own a car currently, but in my previous (gas) car, I always dreaded that refueling stop and would typically put it off until the car was running on empty. The ability to fuel my car while it is parked is a significant benefit in my book, and certainly outweighs the road trip hassle of slower charges.
Electricity is far from cheap in Japan now that the nuclear power plants have all been shut down after 2011. That's also a factor that's not going to change anytime soon.
According to https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E5..., only 8 are currently online, and that's out of 50 reactors. So yeah, nuclear is mostly shut down in Japan. Call me again when it reaches 50% of its former capacity instead of arguing small numbers.
A lot of people in Japan drive "kei cars". These are very compact, have tiny engines and are very simple and cheap. (Not to mention the registration incentives). Until electric cars become simple and cheap, they won't be able to compete with "kei cars".
Kei cars seem like an ideal candidate for electrification though; they don't need to have high top speeds and are also significantly more lightweight than regular-sized cars.
While the Smart and Renault examples are regular cars but small (Mini and BMW i3 are about the same category), the Citroën Ami is a bit different: it can be driven without a licence, could work for teenagers for example, and some other specialised brands exist for those tiny/simple/quiet cars like Aixam (https://www.aixam.com/en/e-aixam-range). Renault also had the Twizy in that category.
Technically it’s not far too wide but it’s…it feels too thick and nice to call it a Kei to me, Kei is more like Ford Transit van scaled down to Smart footprint while retaining four seatbelts.
Maybe this is a pedantic argument like whether a Dyson cleaners qualify as “a typical handy vacuum” but those aren’t bland Walmart specials.
Yeah, they are small, but seem to fit perfectly on Japanese narrow roads and small garages. For a lot of people in JP, it's the only option because of the size, a larger car would simply not fit in their driveway / garage.
For many in Japan, it's the only car option, so I assume that the distance it needs to go is the same as a full-sized car. (I often see them on inter-city expressways).
They do tend to go much slower & the acceleration is awfully clunky, but their range & efficiency is amazing.
Chances are they don’t go far. Most people drastically overestimate how far they drive. Iirc the 95th percentile commute in America is still like 40 miles or so, trivially reachable for even the lowest quality EVs on the market. I doubt that your average Japanese car commuter travels further than your average American car commuter.
I believe this is the biggest misconception among automakers...that people like to buy multiple cars: city cars, long range cards and ...mountain cars? In reality people like the city car to be able to do long range trips as well as that's the only car they can afford/want to buy.
People don't want to buy two cars, one used 90% for everyday trips and the other 10% (i.e in holiday etc).
There’s a bunch of fixed costs to owning a car (space to store it, registration, insurance/vehicle duty, servicing and maintenance) that vary directly with the number of cars owned (yeah, I know maintenance/insurance gets more expensive if you’re doing above-average mileage but that’s on top of a mostly fixed base) and not the number of miles you drive.
I guess the Renault Zoe, with its battery rental model, is a nod to the direction the automakers really want. Instead of buying more than one car, you can buy none and rent the one you want!
I wonder if we will be able to get used to renting things when we need them only sometimes, or if indeed people will continue to want an all-purpose car which then lugs around half a ton of batteries while they run errands all year.
Having a rich daddy with too many cars, it was honestly quite the realization that I could just rent a car and not buy one (or, up till that point, borrow it from dad). The year before the pandemic is when that hit me and so I did that with some friends to go to a conference. Was quite happy with the experience: luxury car for 5 days for iirc 250 euros plus petrol, divided by four people.
>> I wonder if we will be able to get used to renting things when we need them only sometimes
I think there are several issues:
1. The renting process is quite involved, it's still expensive and the variety of cars is limited.
Something like Uber for renting cars with heavy marketing + some city regulation might make people consider owning a city car and renting a "specialized" vehicle for long trips or just renting both the city and the long range one.
2. There is a social aspect to this issue as small cars are seen as "cheap"/worse cars and for some reasons many people seem to like big off-road trucks even if they never go off-road and even if they are over their budget.
Like it or not the car you drive matters to many/most of the people just like the clothes you wear and the mobile phone you use.
I believe a "simple" and single solution to fix all these ills would be to be full self driving capabilities. That way we could hail the car we want when we want it perhaps directly from automakers or from a tech company such Apple/Amazon. I guess the "pride" being driven in a big truck would decrease as well so we would see less of them on the roads.
Kei car is also often seen in highway, but less frequently than streets. Some kei car buyers buy it as a second car for family (example: husband buy Prius or Noah minivan, wife buy kei car like Tanto), so their second kei car replacement by EV kei car is possible market (though still difficult task). Some people buy kei car for the only car, it's more difficult to replace.
However, they need more than 60 miles (!) of range and their batteries mean they're more comparable weight-wise with a normal gas-powered compact sedan (they're roughly 400 pounds heavier than other cars of their class).
And that range is measured when they're new- battery degradation is much more significant when your range barely covers your commute; add cold weather taking off another 20% of that range and now you can't make it to work and back without needing to stop at a charger.
Battery energy density just isn't enough in this application for it to make sense for this type of vehicle.
As the video says, the car can be so cheap in part because of many safety features it lacks. I assume therefore that such a car would have to be more expensive in the Japanese market. But the space seems perfect for electric vehicles.
Agree with you but sooner or later people are going to have to account for the real costs. “Cheap” doesn’t account for the hidden cost to the environment. Small engines, counterintuitively, generally pollute much more per mile than larger engines.
In a lot parts of the world, you cannot sell anything bigger, or more expensive than a Japanese kei car.
Most of South Asia, and Africa drives Suzuki Altos, and Suzuki SX4s are considered there as big cars.
It's definitely, definitely possible to make small, cheap cars on batteries. In fact, easier than bigger ones as power to weight, and driving range scale non-linearly with the car size.
Big, heavy cars pay big premiums for not being able to use stamped parts in suspension for example. Small cars use stamped parts for almost everything.
Heavier cars almost invariably have to use more sophisticated suspension designs, with more parts to provide an equal level of comfort to lighter cars of the same class.
The amount of energy you lose in rolling resistance also varies non-linearly. You often can get an increase in driving efficiency if you have softer tires when you drive on less than idea roads. Etc, etc, etc
>Most of South Asia, and Africa drives Suzuki Altos, and Suzuki SX4s are considered there as big cars.
This is quite untrue about Africa. I doubt whether you've been to any country in Africa if you think that a Suzuki SX4 is considered a big car there. You'd get mocked for driving a "baby car" if you have an Alto.
It makes sense in the US, where space is cheaper and bigger and you have to drive everywhere, but not anywhere else. I saw a US car with the embassy flag in the streets of Malta. The car was the size of the road, the driver was having a lot of trouble making simple turns in the "narrow" streets and gave up trying to do a 3-point turn. Probably could never find street parking for it, has to be a garage. I never saw an American-made car for American use before and I was amazed at how huge it was. You do see a local limo once in a while, but their drivers are usually more savvy as to where they can go with it.
Looks like i-MIEV was discontinued just this March. 10kWh and 16kWh models existed, base model was 2.27m($20k) at that point, launch price was 4.6m($45k) in 2010.
Aside from the points mentioned in the article, I see a lot of arguments about economy: Real income isn't rising while cars are getting more and more expensive. Just checked the price of new Leaf, and it costs the same as median 1 year salary (before tax).
I think that explains why much gasoline "kei" cars (i.e. cars with less than 0.66 liter engine) are popular. They are much cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, etc.
> Real income isn't rising while cars are getting more and more expensive.
New cars have risen in price slower than overall inflation for decades (at least in the US). In real terms (comparing against flat real incomes), cars have gotten cheaper, not more expensive.
In fact, car price movement is different in Japan, steadily rising since the 90s. [0] (Written in Japanese; The second chart is CPI-adjusted car prices)
Maybe before COVID, but car prices are insane right now. Just go to carvana.com , or carmax, etc... You are seeing for example: a 2010 corolla with 100K+ miles in 8K+ dollars, total madness, you could get this car for 4 to 5k easily. I put this example, because this is the type of cars regular folks have access to. Dealers don't even show MSRP prices anymore, in most official sites I have seen in the west coast, you have to call in.
Lumber prices were also insane until the last few weeks. That’s not indicative of a structural change in the market sustainable over a long period of time.
Measured auto inflation is low because of hedonic adjustments. The sticker prices have gone up a lot, but their quality/value (according to folks measuring inflation) has gone up more. For a somewhat tendentious account, with graphs: https://wolfstreet.com/2020/11/11/my-pickup-truck-car-price-...
Not sure what to think of it. Obviously reversing cameras, working A/C and better fuel economy are important and real improvements worth real money.
Also worth factoring in is that cars last longer and with less maintenance than they did a decade or two ago. Electric cars should require even less maintenance.
If today's car costs 50% more than a car from a decade ago, but it lasts more than twice is long, isn't it actually cheaper?
Here in Japan, it's considered that it's good timing to replace car before 100,000km, 200,000km is too much, and 300,000km is really overkill. Maybe the BEV advantage isn't much attractive since such lower mileage and people run reliable Japanese car.
> The rush into electric vehicles has been spurred in part by plans in China, in European nations and elsewhere to either mandate higher sales of electric cars in the coming years or to ban gasoline-burning vehicles.
> Electric cars, Mr. Toyoda pointed out, are only as clean as the electricity that powers them and the factories where they are built. Japan, Toyota’s second-biggest market, plans to go carbon neutral by 2050, but as long as it continues to rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity, he said, the vehicles’ environmental benefits will remain a mirage.
It should be noted that no country are planning to ban fossil fuel-burning power plants. The "carbon neutral" plans seems to be all plans by a few countries to export more renewable energy to surrounding countries than their own consumption of fossil fuels. The intention is still to continue rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity.
For countries like my own that have a set date for both banning the sale of new gasoline-burning vehicles and a date for "carbon neutral", we need to set a date where no new fossil fueled power plants may be built. Preferable the same date. If there are no sales of new ones then the old ones will die off after a while.
I am replying more to the line you quoted than to you, but even when the electricity is generated by fossil fuels, it is still generally more efficient than burning it in your car. The reason being that the power plant is always operating near peak efficiency (often over 50%) whereas the car engine rarely runs at peak efficiency (often under 30% on average), especially when in stop and go traffic. The electric car also benefits over time from improvements in the power plant mix. While you may be technically correct that no country yet has a plausible concrete plan to get to 0% fossil fuels in electric generation, most countries seem to be aiming to greatly increase their percentage of renewable generation.
• The power plant doesn't have to move. You can attach all kinds of stuff to it to capture its emissions and do something with them other than discharge them into the atmosphere.
You are much more limited when it comes to doing that for a car engine. You have weight, volume, size, and power constraints on car attachments that you do not have on power plant attachments.
• You can build power plants far away from high population areas. This doesn't help with emissions like CO2 that are harmful no matter where they are emitted, but for various noxious emissions that harm people who breath them it matters.
Car engines emit their noxious emissions in the cities in the midst of large populations.
And to further add, electrified energy end use cases can benefit from the decreasing costs of solar and wind as prices drop and deployment increases overtime. An ICE vehicle can not get any cleaner or more efficient after it rolls off the lot!
yep having a centralized pollution source is much more controllable and optimizable, a breakthrough in emission filtering techology and in a short time span it can be effectively implemented vs decades long new cars renewal cycle... although replacing a tiny percentage of roofs with solar tiles would make for a robust and smooth transition in sunny countries at least..
It is a fair point to make a comparison to the pollution generated from cars vs fossil fueled power plants and try to determine which one is the worst. Cars has catalytic converters, filters, and where I live a 10% minimum ethanol for gas and 26% for bio-diesel in diesel. Compared to the oil power plants that exist a few towns away and I don't know how well the number stacks up.
As an percentage of the full energy grid, I suspect the electric car is better than nothing in this country. If someone is interested in number crunching it would make for an interesting read to see how much the actual difference is for a new electric car compared to a new IC car, especially in other countries like Germany that have close to 100% wind capacity in optimal conditions but on average still burn a lot of fossil fuel.
In the article, the efficiency section give numbers for how effective the car is to extract energy from gasoline vs extracting energy from the electrical grid. They also give the efficiency of "fossil fuel power plant", but not oil specific.
IC car = 15-30%
Fossil fuel power plant = 50%
Electric car = output of power plant * 0.77
Taking the average we get: 22.5 for IC car, 38% for the electric car. A 15.5% more energy.
I have no idea if those numbers are correct because the website you linked does not straight up comparison between the oil being burned in a power plant and the oil being burned in a car, in order to travel a certain distance.
As a strategy for combating global warming, IC to EV has several numbers to consider. The benefit in the power grid which depend on the country in question. The growth rate of cars. One should also make a comparison to do a similar transition with the power grid itself. And finally the required reduction in emissions to prevent global warming.
My own conclusion is that we need to do both. Doing just IC to EV without removing fossil fuels from the power grid won't be enough. EV will make the car more efficient and allow for more cars on the same amount of emissions, but its an incremental improvement rather than a full stop in terms of emissions.
Your statement makes me wonder - how much does petroleum actually cost? I mean if we could somehow ignore the rent, royalties, and direct taxes, what is the true cost of a gallon of gasoline in terms of capital, goods, and labor? Or is this too variable depending on source of petroleum, refinery, and so on? If so, what is the low end and what is the high end?
Break even on crude oil varies by field and country, but it ranges from the 10/bbl (Saudi) to 150+/bbl (tar sands).
Transport costs are going to vary depending on the mode and distance — pipelines are cheap, ships less so but work long distance, and rail is more expensive, and trucking/flying it is even more.
Refinery costs are going to vary depending on the quality of the input, what’s the output mix, how much cracking is required, and the amount of impurities like sulphur.
So, huge variation all across the board. Best places to get real numbers would be to look at the numbers for publicly traded oil Companies that do the full stack.
One way to evaluate this is to consider MPGe costs, which calculate the number of miles a vehicle can drive for the same price as an average gallon of gas. My Tesla M3 gets between 100 and 140 measured in all kinds of driving (with 147 the EPA measurement.) A BMW 325i gets 21/32 MPG. This comparison is nice because it includes a lot of these hidden costs like battery and delivery and electrical transmission losses. Obviously it doesn’t include implicit and explicit subsidies.
Many countries have plans for coal phase-out, including dates. There could be more, of course, and tighter timelines, but it's there.
Considering the much higher costs of gas and oil in comparison (and compared to renewable) this might just be enough to get out of using fossil energy for most power production. (Except maybe to cover peaks.)
I would like if it were the case that fossil fuels where being phased out overall. A steady decline that matched the existing phase out of fossil fuels in the transport sector would be excellent.
The reason why I don't think that is the case is several. electricitymap.org is one, which goes brown when the wind is calm and green during gales. As much capacity that renewables has, when they don't produce we see the same demand being fulfilled with fossil fueled power.
A second reason is subsidize numbers in EU. The amount of tax money being spent on fossil fuels are one of the more depressing aspects of the energy sector, and seemingly counter-productive to the political message. There also seems to be a strategy that when there is an increase in the capacity of renewable energy, the amount of tax money being spent on grid stability get increased. That money then goes directly to keep fossil fueled power plants operational between dips in the availability of renewable energy. That subsidy is also a reason why the higher costs of gas and oil does not result in stations being phased out.
If there was a date where new construction of fossil fueled power plants was to be banned, the energy sector would have a finite period to find a solution to the grid stability problem that does not include fossil fuels. The only incentive without it is government interest to pay less subsidies, and companies desire to undercut the current suppliers for grid stability. I doubt however either is very good at creating the change we need at the speed that global warming require.
> It should be noted that no country are planning to ban fossil fuel-burning power plants.
There are EU-wide plans of phasing out coal powerplants by 2030, and it's ahead of schedule so far. "Half of Europe’s 324 coal-fuelled power plants have either closed or announced a retirement date before 2030" [1]
EU is doing this mostly by financial incentives not by outright ban on coal, but the effect is the same. Recently a new block of coal-fired powerplant in Ostrołęka, Poland was cancelled and demolished, because it makes no economical sense to build new coal powerplants.
Of course coal isn't the only fossil fuel, but it's by far the most important when it comes to powerplants. Some gas powerplants will probably remain as a way to balance electrical networks during peaks (because they can be throttled faster than other types of powerplants), but it's relatively minor percentage.
> It should be noted that no country are planning to ban fossil fuel-burning power plants.
We need a bit more nuance than this. Ontario, Canada hasn’t strictly banned fuel-burning plants, but they’ve come damn near close to it. Their electric grid is 96% emissions free.
>> Electric cars, Mr. Toyoda pointed out, are only as clean as the electricity that powers them and the factories where they are built
The total disregard for the impact of ICE on their direct surroundings, people who breathe in the exhaust fumes in nearly undiluted form, is very problematic in my opinion. But it's very common these days to focus entirely on carbon emissions.
I love my 96 Miata, and I keep saying the next car I want is an electric Miata. I can't think of a more "no-duh" car to be electric given its light weight... But maybe this explains why it hasn't happened yet.
EDIT:
TIL - next Miata generation to be electrified, sadly "by 2030"
The expense and weight of batteries mean it makes more sense to start at the bigger, more luxurious end of the market and work down. It's also easier to sell a cheap car from a brand with a luxury image than an expensive car from a brand with a value image - hence all the halo hypercars that make a loss.
Miata is the perfect car for electrification. Most sports car drivers would be okay with 200 mile range (less batteries) in exchange for light weight. I think the most I ever put on mine in a day (NA/R) was 120 miles, when parking it for the winter.
Problem is that sports car drivers don’t drive their cars with the expected EPA mpg.
My car is rated for 18/25, I barely get 16mpg and I am still on the freeway quite a bit. I’m less aggressive than I used to be when I was getting 11-12mpg.
Not for everyone – I like to take one of my motorcycles or my sports car out for drives 4-5 days a week and never drive less than 100 miles at a time, all back roads and never on the freeway. That means fueling up every time I ride my Ducati with its ridiculously small fuel tank.
It amazes me how many naysayers are always on these threads about electric vehicles.
It seems to me that the transition is inevitable. Slowly but surely electric cars are becoming cheaper and more capable. It is really hard to imagine that they will not soon be cheaper than ICE cars.
But they just seem so much more convenient and nicer to be around that diesel and petrol cars. No more breathing in exhaust fumes! No more petrol stations! Less servicing!
For a site that supposedly caters to forward thinking technologists, there sure are a lot of people refusing to see the obvious conclusion to the current trend.
Large-scale power plants burn fossil fuels more efficiently than ICE engines. Electricity transmission and charging losses aren't that big, so I'd expect it to be still a net emissions win for EVs. Plus they don't emit NOx right next to you.
If your grid sucks, consider installing solar panels and charging your car yourself.
Lithium batteries are already used to aid power grids. Mass adoption of EVs and smart grid could actually help by providing storage for wind and solar.
It's a little reductive. I'd rather say Japan is typically happy with local maximas instead of aiming at better, newer systems. Sometimes this means that Japan is stuck with obsolete technologies for what seems no good reason, some other times Japan is actually advanced in other ways that seem alien to the rest of the world (the rest of the World not using washlets to clean their butts seems old-fashioned to anyone living in Japan).
Fuel cells were all the rage when I was a kid. You saw them on TV all the time. I don't have to see EVs on TV, they are absolutely everywhere nowadays.
I think you were being sarcastic, but it actually is. Nuclear is so 20th century.
Doing it with PV and grid-scale batteries, now...
(Note: large amounts of electrolysed hydrogen are definitely needed in order to replace methane in fertilizer production and coal in steelmaking. No argument about the need to make hydrogen!)
Japan only just started converting from Tape to Digital for advertising material for broadcasters a couple of years ago, while tape is almost a thing of the past for the rest of the world.
They were so concerned about businesses whose job it is to make the tapes that they literally built a new business to migrate these workers into new jobs.
I think the concern this shows for workers livelihoods is something that much of the rest of the world could learn from. The implementation seems a bit inefficient though.
Why is it infamous to use paper money besides during a pandemic? It’s the only way to buy something without being tracked and profiled, and it makes budgeting easier. You can actually exchange it without an intermediary taking a cut or deciding to block the transaction
The government decided recently that cashless payments are the future so they’ve been heavily incentivizing people to use transit cards and such for payments, as of recent almost all chains and many small stores accept them :)
I'd argue there are advantages to both cheques and paper money over digital. Your purchases can't be as easily tracked if you use paper money for example.
The world isn't rushing towards electric cars. USA, Europe and China are. The rest of the world isn't switching to electric any time soon, because electric cars are expensive and billions need to be invested in infrastructure to make them viable.
I might even say "Urban/Coastal USA, Northern/Western Europe and China" instead of USA, Europe and China. I expect to see the USA and Euro auto markets to become more fractured as climate change deniers, big government resisters, and just folks who romanticize the "good ol days" continue to buy ICE cars.
Heck, it's already fragmented - I just looked at the new car inventory for an LA-area Chevy dealer. They have 65 ICE pickups, 11 ICE SUVs, 7 ICE sports cars and 29 EVs, so about 25% EVs, well above the national average. Then I looked at a rural South Dakota Chevy dealer's inventory - 11 ICE pickups, 7 ICE SUVs and that's it. Zero EVs on offer there.
It might not be fractured in a regulatory sense, just that manufacturers typically sell their EVs in one sort of place and their gas-powered vehicles in another, and dealers only stock what they know they'll sell.
Billions would need to be invested to replace and expand fossil fuel infrastructure too. More billions would be needed for hydrogen.
It's just a matter of who gets the government subsidies/favorable tax treatment, cynically.
When batteries get cheap enough and PV arrays have been sufficiently tropicalized, there will be some switching in the rest of the world. It'd happen faster without fossil fuel interests being able to get the subsidies, though.
I imagine that a big reason is that it's harder to charge enough plug ins in Japan. Japan produces 60% the electricity per person as the US and has areas with huge densities already. Going to a plug in system vs. a hybrid may not make sense in Tokyo. And then it becomes one of those "it won't work here, but when I think about it I forget to include the word here".
Japan is a weird mix of old and cutting edge. It's a country that worships traditions, but traditions need to be regularly questioned and challenged. Traditions prevent you from thinking out of the box and trying new things.
There are examples of this in Japan - they are still trying hard to break away from using paper faxes.
Why not charge electric cars directly with the output of those reactors? Even if you get to higher efficiencies with the electrolysis, the overhead for handling and transporting hydrogen remains.
FCEV (fuel-cell electric vehicles) and BEV (battery-electric vehicles) are a tradeoff. I found [0] from an FCEV proponent to be really interesting (it's hard to find any comparisons that aren't obviously biased, if anyone can suggest one, I'd like to read it).
My overall feeling is that BEVs and FCEVs will _both_ be used in the future. BEVs have some compelling advantages for short-distance travel like intercity commuting (like being able to charge them at home) while FCEVs have compelling advantages for long-distance travel, like higher range and efficiency and faster refueling.
One interesting point from that report is that it addresses the widely-quoted point ([1] for example) that generator -> wheel efficiency for FCEVs is lower. While this is true, it stops just short of the metric we really care about: generator -> miles driven efficiency.
A BEV has to spend a lot of its stored energy just moving its batteries around, while an FCEV uses a relatively light cylinder, so when you look at efficiency in terms of W/miles driven, the reduced weight of an FCEV can render it overall more efficient than a BEV.
FCEVs are also a relatively young technology compared to batteries, so there's likely to be some substantial efficiency improvements still on the table.
The Mirai has an EPA range of 402mi [0] and the Model 3 long-range has 353mi [1], so it isn't a straight comparison.
And FCEVs are still in their infancy. There are only 6 production FCEVs so far [2] with very few charging stations built yet. They haven't reached anywhere near the same level of maturity as BEVs. Just compare the first list [2] to the second list [3]. What was the available range when BEVs only had 6 production vehicles on the market?
So I think it's more accurate to say the theoretical advantage hasn't _yet_ been realized in practice.
Why is the Mirai heavier? Approx 1920kg vs 1611kg (depending on model, year, range).
I'd expect the business part of FCEV to be lighter. The tanks, fuel cell stacks, converter, etc vs a big ass Li-ion battery.
My first guess is the Mirai frame's safety features were double sized. Being the first product to market, Toyota was probably extremely risk adverse.
I haven't found any Mirai teardowns (a la Munro & Assoc, AvE).
I also couldn't find any weight comparisons of Tesla and Toyota electric motors.
What would a Model 3 with FCEV look like? Replace BEV with FCEV, keeping Tesla's motors.
We've seen that Tesla is obsessed with weight reduction and simplification. Like the Toyota of yesteryear. I'd love for Toyota to do it again for FCEV.
Fuel cell and battery electric car R&D are about the same age. Both technologies were actively explored from the 1990s. For personal vehicles BEV is hands down better. The next generation of BEVs charge at double the voltage of the current crop, with charge rates of over 350kW. This brings the 20%-80% charge time down to less than 15 minutes, or about the time it takes to use the facilities and drink a coffee on a long journey. And you can refill the car every night at home on super cheap electricity rates (a major advantage of BEV), so only on actual driving-all-day-long road trips do you ever need to charge during the day.
FCEV (fuel-cell electric vehicles) and BEV (battery-electric vehicles) are a tradeoff. I found [0] from an FCEV proponent to be really interesting (it's hard to find any comparisons that aren't obviously biased, if anyone can suggest one, I'd like to read it).
I have quickly glance through it, but some of the assumptions seem to be pretty wrong. If I look in Fig. 4, at a range of 300 miles, this is what the Tesla Model 3 offers. The Model 3 is about 1800-1900kg, so much less than shown in the graphic, and the only FCEV in that range, the Mirai, is even heavier than the Tesla at the same range. So the weight for the FCEV is just plain wrong. And yes, the pure hydrogen tank is much lighter than a battery, but you have to add the weight of the fuel cell and the buffer battery as well as a lot of piping towards it. While hydrogen certainly has the edge in for much larger storage capacities, I can't see an advantage for car sized tanks. Said Mirai also has the same range as a Model 3. Not mentioned is the space requirement: a Mirai has less interior space than a Model 3, because the Tanks have quite a volume and have to by cylindrical shaped. A battery can basically have any shape desired.
My overall feeling is that BEVs and FCEVs will _both_ be used in the future. BEVs have some compelling advantages for short-distance travel like intercity commuting (like being able to charge them at home) while FCEVs have compelling advantages for long-distance travel, like higher range and efficiency and faster refueling.
With the current state of technology, I don't see any disadvantage for BEV. Recharging on the road is much less frequent than refueling of a FCEV, because you can charge a BEV at any outlet. Especially when parking over night. Considering that, the recharge time at a fast charge is only mildly slower, Hyundai ist at 18 minutes already. The quoted fast refuel times assume that the fuel station has full pressure, which might not be the case if another car just refueld there. And why should a FCEV be any more efficient than a BEV? Currently, assuming it would use "green" hydrogen, it takes about 3-4x as much eletricity.
that generator -> wheel efficiency for FCEVs is lower. While this is true, it stops just short of the metric we really care about: generator -> miles driven efficiency.
Sorry, what should be the difference between those terms?
A BEV has to spend a lot of its stored energy just moving its batteries around, while an FCEV uses a relatively light cylinder, so when you look at efficiency in terms of W/miles driven, the reduced weight of an FCEV can render it overall more efficient than a BEV.
No, the weight of the car has only a neglible contribution to the energy used for driving. For driving at constat speed anyway not - at highway speeds the air resistance is the major facter. Only when in a stop-and-go situation, the weight makes a difference, but there the recuperation of the BEV gets back a lot of the energy.
And in practical terms: the Mirai weights more than the Model 3, where is even the possibility for a gain there? And the almost-obese EQS from Mercedes seems to be more efficient than the Model 3 even thanks to a really low air-resistance. Ironically, its larger size does help with air resistance.
FCEVs are also a relatively young technology compared to batteries, so there's likely to be some substantial efficiency improvements still on the table.
Some for sure. But the big problem is for example the energy used to compress the hydrogen. This is plain physics, how much energy you have to spend to compress a gas. And currently, FCEV use about 3x as much energy as comparable electric cars, I don't see where they should catch up with that.
While I won't debate the facutal differences between the Model 3 and the Mirai, I don't think it's right to judge the potential of FCEV vs. BEV based on the cars on the market today.
BEVs are a relatively mature technology at this point. Tens of thousands (hundreds? millions?) of BEVs have been sold, there are many production BEV models and they've received decades of research at this point.
FCEVs are still in their infancy. There are only 6 production FCEVs and the technology hasn't received nearly the same level of R&D as BEVs.
Comparing the present-day Mirai to the present-day Model 3 is like comparing the Tesla Roaster to an early Prius. If you'd done that, you'd have concluded that BEVs are too expensive and impractical to ever be viable and that hybrids are the future.
Give the FCEVs some time and they'll get closer to their potential.
The Mirai just has been replaced by a new version, so it is not a first generation car any more. And the fundamental problems of FCEV can't be addressed so easily. The tanks are huge and you cannot make them smaller. This means, space in a FCEV is more constrained.
Nor can you change the energy consumption of the hydrogen delivery much.
But the fundamental question now becomes: considering the performance of the electric cars you can already buy, what is the incentive to invest billions into FCEV development and even more so into fuel stations and distribution? Especially, as there isn't much green hydrogen anytime soon?
> Because Japan has a comprehensive hydrogen strategy with the plan to produce the hydrogen in high-temperature gas-cooled reactors.
There is a pretty good chance you have that backwards, and the reason Japan has a comprehensive hydrogen strategy is due to lobbying of their car companies. Australia seems to have a number of hydrogen initiatives being discussed, and most seem tied to Japanese companies.
This really only holds if you think governments have to force people to use electric cars by x date to be competitive.
Investing in the infrastructure needed for mass adoption of fully electric cars is the true national-level barrier. And that's going to take a long time.
We've only just scratched the surface in how much charging power it's going to require... for ex: the vast majority of people living in apartment buildings will be left out without massive private investment in their parking lots.
Otherwise I'm pretty confident that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc can figure out how to make entire fleets of fully electric cars when the time is right.
"Japanese automakers are “hanging on by their fingernails,” he added, and if Japan mandated a shift to all-electric vehicles — which have fewer components and are easier to manufacture — it could cost millions of jobs and destroy a whole ecosystem of auto parts suppliers." - Toyota CEO.
They're terrified. China has all those low-cost electric city cars.
Toyota have their head in the sand. Their roundtable in Dec 2020 shows them cherry-picking facts, stating that though they have a lower rate of electrification than Norway, they have a higher volume of EVs on the road in Japan. However this fails to take into account the per capita stat, with a population of 126m versus 5.4m, Toyota is once again manipulating the stats
Li-ion battery is the very big and expensive key component for current BEV. But there's no chance Japan to win cheap Li-ion race for China/EU/US because it needs much energies and materials. Energies need to be clean for the future exporting. Japan is now in bad situation for clean cheap energies, and no materials. So they also bet other techs, but I wish Toyota bets more for Li-ion BEV now.
Half of their nation is 50 Hz, the other half 60 Hz, and the interlink between the two is stretched to its limit. It would be crazy to dump huge new electrical loads onto their grid, especially post Fukushima, with the increase reliance on non-renewables.
So, my situation is more personal. In our neighborhood, there is a history of vehicles being parked on the street that get broken into, damaged, or stolen. This happens much more frequently with more expensive cars.
Since our garage is not big enough for two cars, that means whatever I have, will be parked in our driveway. And thus vulnerable.
This means I can’t have a Tesla or Lexus, or any other kind of more expensive vehicle, even if I could afford it. The best I can hope for is a nice Toyota or Subaru. Don’t ask about Nissan — you don’t want to get me started on that rant.
Since Toyota and Subaru don’t make any decent BEVs and they don’t appear to be likely to do so anytime within the next decade, the next best thing I can hope for is a good PHEV.
It makes sense for Japan to pursue this strategy from a practical perspective.
There are numerous areas of the economy where the national government could focus on fostering a disruptive domestic industry, and many with just as much of a potential positive impact on the environment and humanity as electric cars. So why instead of choosing one of those other areas, it would choose electric cars, and help accelerate the development of the one technology that would disrupt its most profitable industry?
Thanks. Electric cars cause so much stress cause you’ve got to actively manage the battery life and where you’re going. That is an additional stressor I don’t need in my life
Honestly, the first couple weeks of ownership are like that. Then you realize you can't possibly use 400 km range doing daily tasks and you don't even glance at the range anymore. Plugging in becomes part of the routine like closing the garage.
Even road trips are low stress in EVs with good range. The car navigation adds stops and you can just blindly follow. I manage the stops more actively, but I find it fun (I also optimized furl economy in my gas cars too, so same thinking really). You could easily do a 1000 km day without thinking about range once, just follow the directions.
When the first ICE cars arrived they had to buy fuel from pharmacies and general stores and probably had the exact same anxiety. Electricity is ubiquitous. Pretty soon charging points will be everywhere, with the added bonus that you start every morning with a full 250+ miles of range.
This isn’t correct. My family live in the countryside and they’re more than an hour drive from the nearest rail station. There are buses but only a couple a day and they take a very long time. Their situation is pretty common.
Yeah, usually people who talk about good public transport in any country are talking about the (big) cities (probably the only place they visited).
In cities in Portugal and Spain the public transport is good as well, but I lived outside those in both countries and you have no chance without a car if you have any urgency to get somewhere. A bus once a day (early morning) to pick up and once (early evening) to drop off; so if you rely on public transport, you lose 1 entire day if you go shopping.
well if traffic is generated by 1% of the population and if that traffic is already very crowded, it's almost true. that would mean the streets are very narrow.
Totally inaccurate. While yes, you can get in densely populated areas almost anywhere near jy with a public transport, in countryside more and more lines are being stopped and car is a necessity
I don't see why Toyota or Honda should panic or rush now. They have a reputation for reliability that will ensure that when they do introduce electric vehicles they will sell well. They have experience with hybrid vehicles, which are essentially electric vehicles, so are unlikely to screw up the design. They have a reputation for logistical mastery, which appears to be a major challenge for other manufacturers during the transition. Presumably they have a good relationship with Panasonic, the premier battery supplier.
So why jump in now and fight over 3% of the market, when they can jump in a few years time when it's a bigger market?
If they plan on jumping in in volume in a few years they need to be securing battery supply now, but that wouldn't necessarily be visible to us.
Otoh there are locations where the share of electrics is much higher. Norway: "In total, 17,323 new passenger plug-in electric cars were registered in June, which is 128% more than a year ago and 84.9% of the total car market!" https://insideevs.com/news/517969/norway-plugin-car-sales-ju...
I can't say what's the best business strategy for auto makers but I feel like getting a strong foothold of the electric market early on could prove to be a good long term plan.
And a lot of people, including me, are seriously considering an electric for their next car. My boss just got an electric. To me it seems like now would be a good time to have good products on the market.
I'm looking at the Honda e but for its range & price, it looks more like a .. prototype/halo car than a real product for the consumer market.
By waiting on the sidelines they risk being left behind by expanding technologies that they’re not a part of because they don’t believe in them like other companies.
While a car is a car, an full BEV is not pretty much the same as an ICE vehicle. This is the same mistake that Toyota and others seem to be making.
I wonder if there are enough rare earth materials available to satisfy the world demand for electric cars.
There was an article recently where a British scientist declared that to reach just Great Britain 2050 objectives they would need to absorb most (or sometimes many times more) of the world production of rare earth and other metals.
If this is true, and the UE stays dogmatic about it, I suspect that by 2040 driving a car will be reserved to only the most privileged.
I'm not aware of any rare earth elements used in lithium batteries.
My understanding is that lithium itself is quite common and there should be enough for everyone to drive an electric car, but it's still an open question as to what future reserves will be discovered and how steeply the supply curve will rise with more investment and technology. E.g.: https://medium.com/batterybits/is-there-enough-lithium-to-ma...
Perhaps a bigger concern than lithium is cobalt, but there are cobalt-free chemistries so I don't believe it's a blocker.
I have no idea what you mean by cars in 2040 will only be for the most privileged. There are cars rolling off assembly lines today that will still be on the road in 2040.
It's a pity I can't find the article I was referring to, so I can't answer with certainty, but there was a lot of rare materials needed just to satisfy GB goal.
> I have no idea what you mean by cars in 2040 will only be for the most privileged. There are cars rolling off assembly lines today that will still be on the road in 2040.
Most of the cars sold now in the EU are not electric. If the materials are as rare as claimed in the article, it won't be possible to equip everybody with an EV.
I did my PhD on rare earth compounds. Rare earth elements are generally not used in lithium ion batteries. The metals most people worry about are cobalt and lithium. Rare earths are elements like lanthanum or ytterbium. Rare != rare earth.
Even if we could mandate all-electric tomorrow, it wouldn't make sense or be feasible for quite a while...
At the moment there's neither the capacity (or materials available atm) to make enough batteries, nor the infrastructure in eletry production, delivery, and charging, nor the money lying around to buy them (outside the West), to replace the 1 billion cars all around the world in any short timespan (say 20 years)...
Cars have an average usable lifespan of around 20 years (treated well), so those billion cars are going to be replaced anyway. The question is, what with?
Isn't it? Because the dictionary says: "a task or activity that has no hope of success."
So let me double down: rushing to electric cars without having the capacity/infrastructure (and without the feasibility to have it even for decades) is a fool's errand.
It would be more of a fools errand to try and halt (or slow) the inevitable world-wide transition to electric cars.
Japan were world leaders in electric drive trains with hybrids like the Prius. A perfect way to gracefully transition from ICE to all electric. This was almost 35 years ago (1997). But they squandered that lead by focussing on the dead end technology of hydrogen.
