Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

You posted it on this forum, I'm not sure what a link to an article from clean teknika has to do with anything as clean technika doesn't post on this forum...

What? Mart posted quotes from and a link to an article on CleanTechnica. Are you saying I shouldn’t comment on the content of the CT article?

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

I think you are a bit confused between being credible and being liked.

It's an Internet forum, who cares if people don't like what you post, that could be because it's uncomfortable truths, that would still make you credible. 

Ok, so the corollary to that is - because a post gets lots of likes it doesn’t make the author credible, just likeable? 😉 

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

However when you post hyperbole, you lose credibility not likes.

So whoever posted this little gem of hyperbole must be seriously lacking credibility.

Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth.

QrizB

JKenH said:

You maybe ought to have a read of a real world review of the Toyota Mirai. Despite your comments Toyota seem to have squeezed in enough fuel tank capacity for a 400 mile range.

Yes, looking at the brochure they've put three tanks in it; one between the front seats, one under the rear seat and a third in the boot. Total hydrogen tank volume 142 litres or 5kg (it's compressed hydrogen, not liquid). That's 600MJ to get roughly the same range as a 100kWh, 360MJ Tesla Model S.

Oddly I can't find a photo of the boot space in the brochure or anywhere on Toyota's website (I've not looked very hard) but the brochure does claim a luggage volume of 321 litres. That's a bit more than my Fiat Panda (260 litres with the seats up).

The brochure puts a brave face on it: "Since 2007, fuel cell prices have already halved". Does anyone recall how battery prices have changed in the same period?

All credit to Toyota, they're trying very hard and they've a reputation for making good reliable cars. We'll find out over the next decade whether they've grasped an opportunity that every other manufacturer has missed, or whether they've committed to a dead-end technology.

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

Perhaps I'm getting old, or tired, I don't know, but 10yrs ago I could understand some people being taken in by the promise of magical technologies that would solve everything - 'clean coal', or 'CCS for FF's', or 'new nuclear / SMR's', all of which had an interesting side effect, they gave the impression that we didn't need to move away from FF's and over to RE asap, - but not anymore.

Once we started to realise how the FF industry helps to promote these ideas and keeps pushing alternatives to RE (or RE + storage) in order to slow down a transition, then we got wise to the misdirection, or at least we should have. At that point a slight change of policy seems to have been deployed, one of taking a working/viable technology, but suggesting its use in fields where it will act as a diversion / digression / delaying tactic.

Now we have HFCV's being touted alongside or instead of BEV's ...... well, I say now, actually that was more like 15-5yrs ago, since so many companies have done the research and trials, and found it just doesn't add up. And at the same time BEV's have moved from slow charging, <100 mile range vehicles, to big batts, and or ultra fast charging.

So why do HFCV's still seem like a good idea to some, often the same 'some' who will say we can't generate enough RE leccy for our needs, or have enough storage, but then push a product needing vastly more leccy generation, and one that currently relies on FF methane? What happens if we start demanding huge quantities of H2, a decade before we have a cheap excess of leccy for that H2 production (on a large scale)? Well, I guess we have to use steam reforming of nat-gas, or divert away additional RE leccy from FF generation displacement, either way, who wins?

So, my views on what Toyota is doing, that's simple, they already know that hybrids and HFCV's have lost, and are the inferior product going forward, but they've literally bet the farm on them, and so need the transition to BEV's to be as slow as possible, whilst they recoup their losses.

ERNST & YOUNG: ELECTRIC CARS ARE COMING SOONER THAN EXPECTED

A steady stream of news items indicates that the transition to electric vehicles will take place faster than many people think. Plug-in vehicle sales have surpassed a 10% market share in California, and Tesla is now estimated to have an impressive 1.7% share of the total US market. In Norway, the world’s EV capital, 3 out of 4 car buyers are now choosing EVs, and Tesla’s Model 3 is the top-selling vehicle (of any kind). In Switzerland, which formerly lagged behind some other European markets, 40% of the cars sold year-to-date have been EVs or hybrids (and yes, Model 3 is the most popular EV there too).

As EV sales increase in key regions around the world, industry analysts are gradually revising their forecasts, and most are bringing forward their predicted dates for the end of the Oil Age.

Ernst & Young, one of the venerable Big Four accounting firms, now predicts that EV sales in the US, China and Europe will surpass those of fossil-powered vehicles five years sooner than previously expected.

EY’s latest forecast is that fossil fuel-powered vehicles will represent less than 1% of global sales by 2045, taking their place alongside sailboats and horses as nostalgic vestiges of historical technologies.

Europe will be the trendsetter—EY predicts that EV sales there will surpass those of legacy vehicles by 2028. China will follow by 2033 and, sadly, the US will bring up the rear, achieving a majority of EV sales by 2036.

But here's the fun bit:-

Contrary to popular belief, the oil industry is not oblivious to what’s going on—oil giants are responding to the news in ways both positive (investing in EV charging companies) and negative (hyping hydrogen in hopes of derailing or delaying the transition to batteries).

Edit - Just a thought, but if Toyota really believes that HFCV's are the future, then why haven't they rolled out a H2 charging infrastructure across the World, or why didn't they start doing so 10yrs ago, when Tesla started rolling out their BEV charging infrastructure?

Great example of confirmation bias. 

A company specialising in aftermarket EV and Tesla accessories posts a meaningless (but very positive) prediction from EY about what EV sales will be in 2033 and in 2045 and for good measure throws in a dig (source an EV magazine) about the oil industry hyping hydrogen to derail or delay the transition to batteries. That sounds good, like really good, confirmation of our biases, just what we like to hear (even if it’s rubbish) so let’s share that and get lots of likes. 

Solarchaser

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

I think you are a bit confused between being credible and being liked.

It's an Internet forum, who cares if people don't like what you post, that could be because it's uncomfortable truths, that would still make you credible. 

Ok, so the corollary to that is - because a post gets lots of likes it doesn’t make the author credible, just likeable? 😉 

Correct, likes does not equal credibility. 

When you quote things from an article, you are posting something that someone else has said, when you post something you write, that's something you are saying.

After years of being on these forums, I'm stunned you didn't realise that.

You think Martyn1981 is the writer for clean tekna??
If not, then your point has no merit and so loses you some credibility. 

michaels

Surely the issue with FCEVs is that it is 2-3x more efficient to use the H2 to generate electricity remotely and transmit it too batteries via the grid batteries than it is to distribute it to filling stations and convert it to electricity in fuel cells in cars?

Now EVs have good range the final argument seems to be fuelling time, 10 minutes was quoted above (for 400 miles?), the fastest charging EVs are currently about 200 miles in 10 minutes?

Solarchaser

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

However when you post hyperbole, you lose credibility not likes.

So whoever posted this little gem of hyperbole must be seriously lacking credibility.

Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth.

Well that depends, has he or she got a history of posting hyperbole?
Or standing behind articles laden with inaccuracies?

I mean it was back in March? April? When you stood behind the article telling us all that chargers in Glasgow were not free, even though I told you through my own experience and with proof from the network running the chargers, it wasn't true.

I have to say, that damaged your credibility. 

It's like a plusses and minuses thing.
You post 5 good well thought out points, you get plus 5 credibility,  you then post silly hyperbole and you lose a point, and go down to 4.

When you target a user very obviously, you lose many more points.

You don't like Martyn, ok we all get it.

Cool, now can we move on without the hyperbole?

silverwhistle

JKenH said:

If the argument for EVs is so overwhelming and the tax position so advantageous, why isn’t everyone driving one already?

It's statements like this that just make me sigh wearily. You know why: cost, availability, range of models, infrastructure, new technology, suspicion. etc. You also know how quickly the market is changing.

Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

That just made me chuckle because I predicted to myself that you'd come up with some such "I'm iconoclastic, free thinking, independent, against received wisdom, etc.".  But you didn't address the practicalities of a widespread hydrogen infrastructure and the difference now that we do have an increasingly established EV infrastructure which is what hydrogen has to compete against. The competition used to be ICE, but it isn't any more.

Toyota make good cars but they have backed the wrong horse, and they know it. Nobody is showing the slightest inclination in following them. Hydrogen may have a future in mobility but it will be based on depot based city buses and the like, not persuading the increasing number of EV owners that they don't really want to charge conveniently at home overnight (or with daytime solar for some of us).

PS: Just did a quick google: ~10k Mirai produced and sold worldwide by 2019, currently 8 car hydrogen refuelling stations in the UK.

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

I think you are a bit confused between being credible and being liked.

It's an Internet forum, who cares if people don't like what you post, that could be because it's uncomfortable truths, that would still make you credible. 

Ok, so the corollary to that is - because a post gets lots of likes it doesn’t make the author credible, just likeable? 😉 

Correct, likes does not equal credibility. 

When you quote things from an article, you are posting something that someone else has said, when you post something you write, that's something you are saying.

After years of being on these forums, I'm stunned you didn't realise that.

You think Martyn1981 is the writer for clean tekna??
If not, then your point has no merit and so loses you some credibility. 

Fair comment when you post an article/link from an independent journalistic source, e.g. BBC news, Guardian, Telegraph, Times etc. However CleanTechnica is not independent. It has an agenda and a bias towards new clean technology, against the old industrial order and promoting redistribution of wealth. 

Our mission at CleanTechnica is to catalyze the clean tech revolution through industry coverage with journalistic integrity.

Our vision is a radical mindset shift, and seeing the corrupt, old, clunky, and dirty economy fade away as the new one rises. We envision, within our lifetimes, a global economy based on renewable and clean energy, permaculture & reforestation, cellular agriculture, smallholder organic farms with smart technology, and electrified transit. We envision good employment opportunities for all, rather than wealth accumulation at the top 1%. And we envision distributed resources inherently moving us toward an egalitarian society. 

If you are going to regularly post politicised articles from a source like that then you must accept that you will be perceived to be aligning yourself with the content. Martin may not have penned the opening sentence quoted “Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth” but he chose to post it. 

Anyway I wasn’t having a go at Mart, I was challenging the content of the article he shared.