[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm looking forward to where the market is going and Toyota isn't in the right place to benefit from that market direction for reasons I shared earlier.

I think Toyota doesn't agree with you about where the market is going. You are sure you are right, I get that. They are sure they are right too...

And they have been making their own ground up EV's for twice as long as Tesla. It's not like they can't, won't, or aren't ready to. They simply aren't going all-in on them. They have a reason, and have explained that reason.

Interestingly, they did plan to be ahead of this curve, and changed their mind. It's not that they have no vision, it's that their vision changed. Look at this 5 year old article from Toyota itself :


Electrification across the entire Toyota and Lexus line-up
By around 2030, Toyota aims to have sales of more than 5.5 million electrified vehicles, including more than 1 million zero-emission vehicles (BEVs, FCEVs).
Additionally, by around 2025, every model in the Toyota and Lexus line-up around the world will be available either as a dedicated electrified model or have an electrified option. This will be achieved by increasing the number of dedicated HEV, PHEV, BEV, and FCEV models and by generalizing the availability of HEV, PHEV and/or BEV options to all its models.
As a result, the number of models developed without an electrified version will be zero.

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/co.../20353243.html

It's not for a lack of institutional ability to think the problem through or plan ahead. It's reaction market forces and economic reality. A calculated outcome.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

I think Toyota doesn't agree with you about where the market is going. You are sure you are right, I get that. They are sure they are right too...

And they have been making their own ground up EV's for twice as long as Tesla. It's not like they can't, won't, or aren't ready to. They simply aren't going all-in on them. They have a reason, and have explained that reason.

Interestingly, they did plan to be ahead of this curve, and changed their mind. It's not that they have no vision, it's that their vision changed. Look at this 5 year old article from Toyota itself :


Electrification across the entire Toyota and Lexus line-up
By around 2030, Toyota aims to have sales of more than 5.5 million electrified vehicles, including more than 1 million zero-emission vehicles (BEVs, FCEVs).
Additionally, by around 2025, every model in the Toyota and Lexus line-up around the world will be available either as a dedicated electrified model or have an electrified option. This will be achieved by increasing the number of dedicated HEV, PHEV, BEV, and FCEV models and by generalizing the availability of HEV, PHEV and/or BEV options to all its models.
As a result, the number of models developed without an electrified version will be zero.

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/co.../20353243.html

It's not for a lack of institutional ability to think the problem through or plan ahead. It's reaction market forces and economic reality. A calculated outcome.

The prevailing headwinds suggest strongly they are wrong, but we will learn over time.

You can’t have winners without losers

[chad86tsi]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...7f1406b516821f

This isn't the future, this is today:

For at least 10 days in a row beginning in late August, the Alert asked Californians to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption, even requesting that electric vehicle owners limit charging to protect the state’s electric grid from power outages. It was not the first time, nor will it be the last.

MIDTERMS 2022: TRACKING THE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO VOTERS AHEAD OF ELECTION DAY

Largely to blame is California’s heavy reliance on intermittent wind and solar power, coupled with a lack of dispatchable sources of electricity to use when the sun sets or the wind does not blow.

Last year, in its rush to transition from coal and natural gas, the Golden State made itself twice as dependent upon wind and solar as the rest of the country. States should view California as a lesson in what can happen if the transition to renewable power is too fast and goes too far. If not, grid reliability will be compromised, leaving consumers to anticipate Flex Alerts as the new normal.

Impartial grid operators and regulators have warned for years that the pace of the grid transition from coal and other traditional fuels to wind and solar is too rapid. In its 2021 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that large sections of the country might face electricity shortfalls for the next 10 years. The fault lies, in part, to the retirement of generating capacity that can run almost continuously and provide essential reliability services that wind and solar cannot.

To make matters worse, NERC’s warning did not consider the massive number of coal power plants expected to retire by the end of the decade. In fact, our analysis found that number to be almost four times greater than what NERC reported. In addition, new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are likely to increase coal retirements even more.

While the retirement of conventional resources might be inevitable, we must allow time for retiring power plants to be replaced with equally dependable electricity sources. Otherwise, the U.S. will have a less reliable and resilient grid. As NERC CEO Jim Robb has said about electricity, “It’s seven percent of the economy, but it’s the first seven percent because without it, nothing else works.”

Some point to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as the answer to delivering the renewable technology and infrastructure necessary to complete the grid transition. But while the IRA provides billions of dollars to incentivize the adoption of wind and solar, history shows that the obstacle of time is not easily overcome.

For example, the U.S. currently has more than 200,000 miles of transmission lines, but research from Princeton University concludes we will need 60% more by 2030 — and possibly even as much as 200% more — to achieve President Biden’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Yet over the last decade, we have added only 1,800 miles of new transmission lines each year. Permitting is part of the problem with federal authorization of large transmission projects because in many cases it takes more than a decade for approval.

Yes, the grid is transitioning, but the integrity of the electric system requires a diverse energy mix. Coal helps provide the reliable and resilient power necessary to meet consumer demand during the transition to zero-emissions generation. But if we continue the headlong pace to prematurely abandon thermal resources like coal, then California’s Flex Alerts will be our nation’s future.

Michelle Bloodworth is president and CEO of America’s Power, a partnership of industries involved in producing electricity from coal.


Good luck charging these EV's, we can barely keep the lights on as it is.

If only somebody spoke up about these risks...

[Cos270]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

I am always deeply confused by concerns like yours. Which overplay the negatives and ignore the rapid technical improvements and positives. Delaying the shift to EVs isn't really an option and that's even ignoring the realities of climate change.

China is the largest EV market in the world and the largest car market as well. Ignoring the shift to EVs would leave us only to buy the leftover technology that isn't being developed for the largest markets. Since the Chinese market is growing the automotive market will chase that market and not a mature market like the US. Business 101...

Same reason you didn't see the auto industry drop the EV shift when Trump rolled back to EV shift Obama put in place and the industry lobbied him for. It didn't matter what the US was doing since the global markets were growth is have moved...

The challenges of charging in cities, battery lifespan, and recyclability are all being actively worked on now that there is guaranteed demand to ensure a profit for the companies who crack the puzzles. For instance, there are EVs out to market now that can charge in 30 minutes from 0 - 100%. That means you could realistically have charging stations that could charge an urban EV within 10-15 minutes to enough charge to last a week or more. Today.

These charging stations can be, and are being built, at shopping centers and other areas. Meaning in the future people may skip gas stations, but instead charge while doing things they need to drive to anyway.

The world changes because those with vision force the rest of us to eventually see their vision. Similar to how no one could have seen the world we have now with smartphones and their power when PDAs came out in the early 90s or even when Windows Mobile smartphones came out in the early 2000s. Yet today they've completely rewritten telecommunications and all of their shortcomings are distant memories as they've been solved. So much so that Apple smartphone CPUs outperform the most powerful Intel chips in desktop computers today...

EVs will reduce our dependence on foreign oil increasing national security...

Really wild how our own Government's 9/11 commission investigation confirmed a link between Saudi and the 9/11 hijackers, but we levied no punishment on Saudi Arabia due to how dependent we are on their oil...

Don't fight the tide...

When the breadlines start in China (before the end of the decade) you think they're going to be rushing to buy EVs? The whole world is pulling out of China. It is fast becoming A market and no longer THE market.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Cos270

When the breadlines start in China (before the end of the decade) you think they're going to be rushing to buy EVs? The whole world is pulling out of China. It is fast becoming A market and no longer THE market.

They won't be driving at all anymore. It will be a creation of a new class of citizens.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...7f1406b516821f

This isn't the future, this is today:

For at least 10 days in a row beginning in late August, the Alert asked Californians to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption, even requesting that electric vehicle owners limit charging to protect the state’s electric grid from power outages. It was not the first time, nor will it be the last.

MIDTERMS 2022: TRACKING THE ISSUES THAT MATTER TO VOTERS AHEAD OF ELECTION DAY

Largely to blame is California’s heavy reliance on intermittent wind and solar power, coupled with a lack of dispatchable sources of electricity to use when the sun sets or the wind does not blow.

Last year, in its rush to transition from coal and natural gas, the Golden State made itself twice as dependent upon wind and solar as the rest of the country. States should view California as a lesson in what can happen if the transition to renewable power is too fast and goes too far. If not, grid reliability will be compromised, leaving consumers to anticipate Flex Alerts as the new normal.

Impartial grid operators and regulators have warned for years that the pace of the grid transition from coal and other traditional fuels to wind and solar is too rapid. In its 2021 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that large sections of the country might face electricity shortfalls for the next 10 years. The fault lies, in part, to the retirement of generating capacity that can run almost continuously and provide essential reliability services that wind and solar cannot.

To make matters worse, NERC’s warning did not consider the massive number of coal power plants expected to retire by the end of the decade. In fact, our analysis found that number to be almost four times greater than what NERC reported. In addition, new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are likely to increase coal retirements even more.

While the retirement of conventional resources might be inevitable, we must allow time for retiring power plants to be replaced with equally dependable electricity sources. Otherwise, the U.S. will have a less reliable and resilient grid. As NERC CEO Jim Robb has said about electricity, “It’s seven percent of the economy, but it’s the first seven percent because without it, nothing else works.”

Some point to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as the answer to delivering the renewable technology and infrastructure necessary to complete the grid transition. But while the IRA provides billions of dollars to incentivize the adoption of wind and solar, history shows that the obstacle of time is not easily overcome.

For example, the U.S. currently has more than 200,000 miles of transmission lines, but research from Princeton University concludes we will need 60% more by 2030 — and possibly even as much as 200% more — to achieve President Biden’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Yet over the last decade, we have added only 1,800 miles of new transmission lines each year. Permitting is part of the problem with federal authorization of large transmission projects because in many cases it takes more than a decade for approval.

Yes, the grid is transitioning, but the integrity of the electric system requires a diverse energy mix. Coal helps provide the reliable and resilient power necessary to meet consumer demand during the transition to zero-emissions generation. But if we continue the headlong pace to prematurely abandon thermal resources like coal, then California’s Flex Alerts will be our nation’s future.

Michelle Bloodworth is president and CEO of America’s Power, a partnership of industries involved in producing electricity from coal.


Good luck charging these EV's, we can barely keep the lights on as it is.

If only somebody spoke up about these risks...

You're still ignoring where the technology is going... As I said in one of my earlier posts... The grid itself is going to change and EVs will offer a lot of new value that will likely make blackouts less common.

There are already bidirectional EV chargers on the market. As they increase in popularity you'll have the ability to pull power from the dormant EV to use to power homes during outages or storms as well as return power to the grid to deal with sudden demand spikes.

https://wallbox.com/en_us/quasar2-dc-charger

https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/28/ar...e-home-market/

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

You're still ignoring where the technology is going... As I said in one of my earlier posts... The grid itself is going to change and EVs will offer a lot of new value that will likely make blackouts less common.

There are already bidirectional EV chargers on the market. As they increase in popularity you'll have the ability to pull power from the dormant EV to use to power homes during outages or storms as well as return power to the grid to deal with sudden demand spikes.

https://wallbox.com/en_us/quasar2-dc-charger

https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/28/ar...e-home-market/

Are you talking about some sort of perpetual-motion/energy device, or do you not realize EV's charge at night where there is no solar and less wind? = carbon charging. Oh, but we are rapidly (almost exponentially) taking carbon out of the grid...

You are leaning on un-invented solutions to problems we already have, and gleefully jumping in face first anyway. Telling anyone who dissents that they are backwards thinking etc? There is nothing backwards about the problems we already have, and until the solutions are market ready, deployed, and scaled appropriately, it's just a dream. Your solutions are coming, but your problems are already here, and no one knows when the solutions arrive, but lets add to the load and let it be the power grid guys problem.



*disclaimer, I work in the energy industry, specifically the national grid. I have a bias, and an insiders view. It's getting worse faster than you think. Even the liberal Pro-EV media outlets are starting to publish that truth.

[G30M]

went to test a Kia EV6 AWD. it is a more relaxing GT car to drive than my 2021 M340i Touring in more ways than 10. there are two or 3 things that are better in the M340i but less than the better points in the EV6.

i have no idea how/why.

now i want one. question is to keep the M340i or have both. most likely keep M340i. also have a 300hp Subaru ICE.

i don't care about the planet. i decatted my Toyota van and ran it like that for 10 years until it died. i also don't like the govt. but unfortunately i think i like EVs!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Are you talking about some sort of perpetual-motion/energy device, or do you not realize EV's charge at night where there is no solar and less wind? = carbon charging. Oh, but we are rapidly (almost exponentially) taking carbon out of the grid...

You are leaning on un-invented solutions to problems we already have, and gleefully jumping in face first anyway. Telling anyone who dissents that they are backwards thinking etc? There is nothing backwards about the problems we already have, and until the solutions are market ready, deployed, and scaled appropriately, it's just a dream. Your solutions are coming, but your problems are already here, and no one knows when the solutions arrive, but lets add to the load and let it be the power grid guys problem.


*disclaimer, I work in the energy industry, specifically the national grid. I have a bias, and an insiders view. It's getting worse faster than you think. Even the liberal Pro-EV media outlets are starting to publish that truth.

Easy now... he thinks the LCD was invented in 1888. Maybe him and Doc Brown found a Deloran...

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

Are you talking about some sort of perpetual-motion/energy device, or do you not realize EV's charge at night where there is no solar and less wind? = carbon charging. Oh, but we are rapidly (almost exponentially) taking carbon out of the grid...

You are leaning on un-invented solutions to problems we already have, and gleefully jumping in face first anyway. Telling anyone who dissents that they are backwards thinking etc? There is nothing backwards about the problems we already have, and until the solutions are market ready, deployed, and scaled appropriately, it's just a dream. Your solutions are coming, but your problems are already here, and no one knows when the solutions arrive, but lets add to the load and let it be the power grid guys problem.



*disclaimer, I work in the energy industry, specifically the national grid. I have a bias, and an insiders view. It's getting worse faster than you think. Even the liberal Pro-EV media outlets are starting to publish that truth.

The whole discussion is around the future. The bans being talked about for EVs are not yet in effect and won't be until 2035 in various states in the US. You can still buy ICE cars everywhere... New car sales are a very small fraction of overall car sales in the US. So even those bans in another decade will take a long time to be a serious deal.

The "challenges" of EVs are all talking about when most people are driving EVs. We're obviously able to support the EVs that are on the road now... As they're on the road now and the world hasn't imploded...

But what I think is at play for many people who are anti-EV is there is a worry that the market might love them enough and the current hurdles may evaporate fast enough that the market voluntarily moves away from ICE before 2035. We'll see what the market does on that front.

I see an OEM like BMW selling ICE cars up until 2035. They may force you up SKU though. Just like how there are still cars available for those who are fine paying the premium for having a "gas guzzler"...

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

The whole discussion is around the future. The bans being talked about for EVs are not yet in effect and won't be until 2035 in various states in the US. You can still buy ICE cars everywhere... New car sales are a very small fraction of overall car sales in the US. So even those bans in another decade will take a long time to be a serious deal.

The "challenges" of EVs are all talking about when most people are driving EVs. We're obviously able to support the EVs that are on the road now... As they're on the road now and the world hasn't imploded...

But what I think is at play for many people who are anti-EV is there is a worry that the market might love them enough and the current hurdles may evaporate fast enough that the market voluntarily moves away from ICE before 2035. We'll see what the market does on that front.

I see an OEM like BMW selling ICE cars up until 2035. They may force you up SKU though. Just like how there are still cars available for those who are fine paying the premium for having a "gas guzzler"...

I thought you were all about looking to the future, so am I. don't fight the tide. The tide is already pulling our grid out to sea. the future looks very dark, but hey, it's the future and the future is bright. Strange paradox...

[DB_Cooper]

[Joe-BMW33]

Ah, I missed this thread and all the entertainment of passionate debate. It's like Coke vs Pepsi, Oil Change at 5k vs 10k, Red vs Blue, Global Warming vs Evolution, ….

But I personally love breaking balls of EV earth savers. I'm going to be driving my V8's still in 20 years with blue smoke spewing a cloud from my dual quad exhaust and it's going to sound better than B&W as I pass all the golf carts with iPads, formerly know as automobiles.