Clean Up Your Act, Or Else....

The statements by Toyota are really silly.
Germany's co2 emissions per capita is just over half of the United States (Energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Energy in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
They have a much bigger solar and renewables base than the USA.

For Toyota to say they won't roll out the PiP or other PHEVs until they clean up their grid even though such vehicles would emit less co2 than gas/diesel vehicles is just bizarre.
Meanwhile, I bet you can buy Toyota SUVs or sporty Lexus vehicles there.

This is hypocrisy of levels I have never seen from Toyota before. Quite disappointing

 

Germany appears set to stabilize emissions; that is, growth will be covered by clean energy production. In that scenario EVs do not make any difference and rationally would not be subsidized.

Toyota understands that EVs before a clean grid is operating is putting the horse before the cart.

 

I only meant that CARB forces EV production. The limited production and CA only sales of the Fit EV and Fiat EV are part of the same story.

 

So, when is Toyota halting sales of the PPI in Japan? Didn't they shift away from nuclear to less green energy production?

 

Japan is on track by the end of 2013 to have invested ~ $20/month per capita over the last two years in PV. I'll guess that Japan has the most generous feed-in tariff for clean energy in the world.

Japan: The world's new star in solar power - Fortune Tech

 

Interesting.. reading this made me look deeper at Japans production of eletricity or CO2 production, something I had not done. With ~5% renewable and 14% nuke (and the push to move away from Nuke), they are complaining about EU? In the first half of 2012 Germany had nearly 25% of its eletricity from renewables and 11% from Nukes. From 2004 to 2010 Germany reduced its CO2 production by over 10%, japan less than 6%.

So maybe this was not just toyota making excuses to avoid EV, maybe the there is MITI or even direct government tie as the country wants to look good to its citizens, justifying its taxes and pressuring others to invest more even though the average CO2 production per capita in EU is already 10% below that in Japan..
As japan spends more on renewables it will increase their energy costs and decrease their competitiveness so some probably want to slow down EU and try to make Japanese people feel better about their situation.

Looking at Japan vs EU Co2 production and recent history makes the entire action look even more hypocritical.

 

If Japan was continuing it's pre Fukushima energy policy you would have a valid point. I think you should read that article again.

Also, keep in mind it is not the Japanese Govt that is pressing for EVs.

 

Sorry, but I did read the article carefully and a bunch of others. With their investments Japan will be at the end of 2013 at less thatn 1/4 of the German Solar, and Germany has 3x wind compared to solar. Japan's push looks like it will eventually be able to going to replace the nukes, nothing in that or the other few articles I read suggest it will actually reduce their CO2 per capita in the reasonable future Japan is pushing a little harder now, but so far behind that it is hypocritical for Toyota to given the EU an ultimatum based on the grid.

I was just noting that there may be both the corporate pressure (i.e. its not currently cost effective) and potentially political motivation; I have no evidence of Japanese Govt involvement.

And other reason for EVs is national security and economic concerns which is why Germany is now adding in more brown coal as they have lots of it in some regions, shifting to EVs is also about economic impact and reducing import dependency, at least in parts of the EU.

I don't actually recall anything in the EU pushing toyota to make EVs. The EU is just incitivizng their use, without a strong push for who should build them. Toyota decided to criticize their potential customers. You can believe what they said, but I choose to believe there is a different reason.. just as I choose to dismiss the reasons GM offered when they made silly comments about early hybrids and did not join in.

 

The current EV offerings are neither convenient or practical for consumer use compared to conventional vehicles. The cost is to high for the average consumer, without government tax money subsidizing the purchase (which will not last), thus the manufactures can't a make a profit. It's simple math. The Tesla S is a good vehicle, but only affordable to the rich.

Policy, politics or whatever is fun to talk about, but means nothing when it comes down to the bottom line.

 

So you are saying EVs have nothing to do with reducing dependence on the likes of Putins's Russia, OPEC, and putting pressure on the Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejads of the world -not to mention other terror-sponsoring Middle East regines- for oil used in transportation?

 

EU policy for cars is about as good as it gets with the results to prove it, 50% better efficiency than the US. Several EU manufacturers have Diesel hybrids

US is the one who needs to rapidly change it's policy. We have morons in government refusing to raise gas tax and instead, doing the exactly wrong policy, taxing high mileage cars for not using enough gas.

EU gas taxes and equitably gas/Diesel pricing would be the policy to adopt for the US.

 

That will be true until it is not true. Ten years ago similar comments were made about the Prius. I bought one anyway. The economics of fuel are too important to discount. That is the part you left out. Total life cycle cost can be figured out by quite a few folks (including you as well). There presently is a significant niche for EVs that will only expand over time.

EV capital cost will go down. Fossil Fuel Cost will go up. Pollution regulations will get tighter. CARB goals will become more demanding. The EV is here to stay.

 

Just so you understand, I have a Prius and have actively researched and driven the EV's available locally because in my life it is an option as a "limited use extra vehicle". My work commute is 56 mile round trip and charging is available at the Airport while I work my 10+ hr. shift, but this use/cost is not justifiable on my calculator. I know all to well the economics of fuel and total life cycle cost. I work in maintenance for an Airline.

None of this changes the big picture for the manufactures and consumers right now though. There is no direct EV replacement for the "average" consumer's everyday needs/costs to the gas/diesel vehicles currently available without unacceptable limits. Hybrids still have a higher life cycle cost, but the difference is not limiting if one is thrifty. What Tesla is doing right now, and possible in the future, appears to moving things right along in a positive direction. But I think the average person would rather buy a home than a Tesla.

Like I said in an earlier post, Evs to the masses are coming, to some extent, when "whoever owns the color Red" decides it's time, not the consumer. Until an affordable, profitable, practical product and the necessary infrastructure is put in place, this will remain a niche market for limited use by early adapters only. I hope this changes soon, because we have the technology.

 

Tesla is moving beyond the early adopter stage, although it is priced in the luxury market and this is out of the price range of many people.
I have spoken with a number of owners and recent purchasers who bought the Model S because of the performance, some bought it because of the tech, a few to get themselves/the country off of oil and yes, some for environmental reasons, both local and global.

EVs are catching on faster than hybrids were, and are appealing to a far larger market.

 

Chuckle....If you did (know the economics) you would not have spent the extra $3-$5K buying a hybrid since the economics don't begin to favor a hybrid until about year five for the average driver. People do it to use less oil and all the good things that entails...kind of civic contribution reasons.

Actually the EV's, Leaf and Fit, are designed for the average consumers 25 mile each way commute with no work charging and 30% reserve.

Friend took a job with a 50 mile one way commute. He owns a pickup which means $100 a week in fuel costs. Less than the $329 a month lease cost for the EV Fit. The company is progressive and will provide at work charging for his 10 hour shift. So in this case economics favor the Fit from day one.

 

It looks like we have some commonality, but are looking at the situation from opposite sides of the fence. "Affordable, profitable, practical and necessary infrastructure" are things that evolve, not just appear one day or get decided. Telsa is a great example of every single one of those:
1) Model S is a lot more affordable than the Roadster. The sedan following the Model S will be even more so.
2) Model S is profitable, the Roadster not so much.
3) Model S is a great car because it is so useful. The Roadster served a much smaller niche.
4) Lot's of charging stations going up to make the Model S a coast to coast car.

I'm definitely not debating the present situation of EVs commanding a premium. Economics rules, but rules change.

 

And we can change the rules which is what early adopters like Prius, Tesla, Leaf et al owners do...our evolutionary function if you will.

 

When EVs reach 5 million sold, then, I will give consideration to acquiring one.

Until then, Hybrids rule!

DBCassidy

 

Not true about only Cali has CARB. Cali sets the precedence for the rest of the nation for emission requirements.

Think about it, where do you think "50 State Emiission Compliance" comes from, out of the clear blue sky?
Manufacturers abide and comply to have production units for all the country these days.

Not only vehicles, but also the fuels used in them, be it gas, diesel, cng, lng, or electric.

DBCassidy

 

As compared to my 3/4 Ton V10 P/U, I very well know the economics. I also considered the Fit and Yaris before I purchased the Prius for greater cost/value/life cycle savings, but I prefer and can afford more. To quote myself, "Hybrids still have a higher life cycle cost, but the difference is not limiting if one is thrifty." Buy the way, my fuel costs at $3.09 per gallon after Katrina had me paying over $100 a week just to go to work and back. I went from 10 MPG to 50 MPG for $23,500 OTD (Cash) and maintain my cars to last 15+ years if I like them...so find another choir to preach at.

As mentioned, we may see things from a different perspective, but I think we are looking for the same result here. For now though, EVs are expensive limited use vehicles and not viable replacements for everyone. What ever solution does emerge in the future, know it will have to work for everyone...the user, manufacturer, those employed within the current petroleum infrastructure (jobs), the Government (Taxes), the economy and yes...whoever it is really pulling the strings .