If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The obsession with giant batteries, regardless of their actual technological readiness, as the one, the only, the true solution to mobility is downright daft.

And Toyota are now stepping up the pace, as technological readiness improves, whilst still offering multiple solutons.

Highlights I have picked out:

They have commited to V2G: (from link above to Toyota's press conference)

' BEVs offer new possibilities as mobility that transports electricity. Collectively serving as an energy grid, BEVs can enhance the energy security of society.

We have a timeline on when they expect far better batteries, presumably their solid state:

' we also have plans to release next-generation BEVs entirely different from those of today―BEVs created by carmakers in 2026. This new generation of BEVs will double driving range by using batteries with far greater efficiency,'

And they still plan to offer hybrids, with way increased range, so that instead of a really massive battery, you have an ICE for long journeys:

' . By increasing battery efficiency to extend the EV-mode driving range beyond 200 km, We will reposition PHEVs as "the practical BEV" '

And they can now make hybrids cost competitively with straight ICE:

' the cost of hybrid systems has dropped to one-sixth of the original cost, and now able to make profit, comparable to that of gasoline-powered vehicles. In this way, Toyota has greatly been able to enhance its earning power while investing in the future, growing with stakeholders, and reducing CO2 emissions.'

This is going to tie in with their continued involvement in hydrogen, initially for commercial vehicles, but of course they can potentially replace hybrids with ZEV at all ranges:

' For FCEVs, we will pursue mass production centered on commercial vehicles. As indicated by the blue line on the left-hand graph, one feature of FCEVs is that the energy source, hydrogen, is lightweight, so even when traveling longer distances the vehicle is not as heavy as a battery EV, and less space is required.'

I find their plans for carbon neutrality throughout building, running and scrapping cars credible, as they have never concentrated solely on one aspect, but like other respectable players like Volvo and BMW have put in place proper energy and emission accounting systems throughout, not just headline grabbing stuff:

' We are fully committed to achieving carbon neutrality in 2050 over the entire life cycle of our vehicles.'

And:

' We will work to promote electrified vehicles and reduce CO2 emissions with leaving no one behind, including in emerging markets. Through this all-direction approach, we aim to reduce average CO2 emissions for vehicles we sell worldwide by 33% by 2030 and by more than 50% by 2035 compared to 2019. We will continue to promote decarbonization globally and steadily toward 2050.'

With their multi pronged approach using technologies where applicable and mindful of the differences in various regions of the world, they have demonstrably outperformed VAG, with its mindless aping of Tesla and batteries everywhere, they hope, regardless of cost.

But the big news is that Toyota reckon they will have way better batteries ready by 2026.

And they do not make claims lightly.

Hi Gryf

Peter Rawlinson may be a considerable engineer, but there are a couple of them too at Toyota.

Since Lucid is only building BEVs, he is hardly likely to be singing the praises of PHEVs, whilst Toyota can offer both, so as I noted, not everything has to look like a nail to them, as they have more tools in their box.

Looking at sales in 2022:

https://insideevs.com/news/651947/global-plugin-car-sales-december2022/

' BEVs: about *7.2 million and 10% share
PHEVs: about *2.9 million and 4% share
Total: 10,091,164 (up 55% year-over-year) and roughly 14% share'

Since in many current markets incentives are heavily biased towards BEVs, it seems rather premature to claim that the ship has sailed.

It seems to be still pretty firmly tied up alongside the dock! ;-)

Actually Rawlinson said if you are pulling a trailer a BEV would not be as good as a PHEV or Range Extended EV. You need a very large battery like the Ram Revolution which has a “Giant 229 kWh battery” and even has an option for a Range Extender.

If you want to pull a trailer, and want ZEV, then an FCEV is far superior.

But Toyota once they are happy with the weight and cost of the batteries will be able to offer all drive trains to do the job, and with the roll out of hydrogen stations happening in Europe they will be able to be adequately fuelled.

I just can't see how it can be bad to have all the options, and expertise in manufacturing them all.

So for instance Toyota's continued developement of hybrids has fed straight into FCEVs which use a similar architecture, and might even apply to some relatively minor extent to wireless on the move charging, as you would need a relatively small battery running lots of cycles in comparison to a long range BEVs without through the road charging.

Broad expertise accross the field is helpful, in my view.

@Emphyrio:

With a massive battery research program Toyota work on all sorts of things, no doubt including alternatives to lithium, but with a timeline of 2026 confirmed this is highly likely to be their solid state battery, which is a lithium technology.

Alternatives are a lot further down the road for cars.

OP> …the realization of the hydrogen society that lies just beyond… (BEVs)

This is going to be quite a trick. Follow the price performance curve of batteries, with the assumption that what is in the lab and specialized applications like aerospace will be mass produced at increasingly competitive pricing within a predictable time frame and it’s hard to see how H2 becomes an economically competitive successor. The conversion efficiency is just not there. Even if you assume Toyota will eventually be able to develop cheap fuel cells and storage, shipping electrons is going to beat shipping atoms every time.

@eci

Actually shipping electrons about it rather tough and expensive, and piping hydrogen or even more its derivatives uses a lot more infrastructure and cabling than the single hydrogen pipe which can often do the job of six or seven cables.

That is aside from the expense of installing one charger per home, which aside from the fact that it is somewhere between difficult and impossible for many folk is in many respects a bigger and more expensive undertaking then the single liquid fuel pump with covers 1500 or so cars.

And it is way, way less efficient to produce electricity in regions such as Germany with poor resources, than in for instance Morocco where the same solar panel will generate twice the energy per year and where there are excellent wind resources.

It is not the slam dunk for efficiency you claim for batteries, as even with converting renewables to, say, ammonia and shipping them to destination countries you have that two for one efficiency gain to start with to play with.

And why then go through the extra step of conversion to electricity outside the car, when it can be used as hydrogen in the car which will keep the occupants warm and the small battery at optimum temperature without the substantial range losses for BEVs?

Most places in the States batteries will work fine on locally produced renewable electricity, but that solution does not have the universality you claim, without substantiation.

It is not cheaper and more convenient to ship electrons than atoms over long distances as you claim.

The reverse is the case, and both Japan and northern Europe are not blessed with the renewable resources of North America.

It is not co-incidence that Toyota is a Japanese company.

If you are not going to use nuclear, it is difficult to see how power can be provided there solely by renewables without substantial imports.

And for the distances involved, it most certainly is not cheaper to do that as electrons.

Hi eci.

You argued:

' Considering that is what solar and wind turbines also produce, I’d rather invest in transmission grids than pipelines.'

That is what they are doing for Morocco to the UK, using cables, which is pretty much at the top boundary for anything like economical transmission.

But of course cables, just like pipelines, do not avoid your other critique:

' relying on transmission from sometimes unreliable or unfriendly nations or regions seems like a poor choice. '

And without substantial nuclear, the massive cost differential of producing renewable energy in Northern Europe and Japan compared to more blessed regions remains.

But if you stick ammonia or LOHC etc in a ship, then you have access to low cost supplies from anywhere with decent renewables, and can switch suppliers and widen the supply base far more easily.

That is why the actual plans and investments by, for instance, Germany look at setting up production in wide variety of places, including not only the North Sea using hydrogen pipelines, but places as far apart as Namibia and Brazil.

The basic issue that the engineers are addressing is that, contrary to that which you have argued, for poorly resourced regions like Japan and Northern Europe transporting liquid fuels produced where renewables are cheap and then piping or shipping it is way more practical usually than sending it as electrons.

Hi Gryf:

Even though I have not lived in Japan I am tolerably well acquinted with its latitude!

The issue there is more about the mountainous nature of so much of it, and the high population density, together with the steeply shelving coastline making offshore more difficult for wind.

I haven't come across info on the Allam cycle before, and to be honest I am not very keen on coal for a variety of issues as well as GW, including water pollution etc.

In any case, both Germany and Japan could solve their problems of zero carbon energy production with off the shelf nuclear technology, so long as they use realistic estimates for tsunami risk etc.

What both are going for is importing energy as liquid fuels from areas with better renewable resources, and I am going to assume that the engineers have done some sums to arrive at that solution, given their political constraints.

One point to note is that for both Germany and Japan, but particularly the latter with its immigration averse politics, falling population as the century progresses will mean that it becomes easier to provide for their energy needs from internally produced renewables, as well as due to technological progress.

@Gryf,

As I noted, perhaps surprisingly to some as I have not lived there ( ;-) ) I am and have been for many years au fait with the latitude of Japan and Tokyo, and how it compares to places in Europe and the US, including New York, which is much more akin to the latitude of Madrid than Northern Europe.

And although it is important, the ease of providing renewables in quantity at good price is not solely about latitude.

Anyway, that seems to be the collective opinion of engineers responsible for such matters in Japan, as they are making plans and investing money in the expectation that they will need considerable imports of liquid fuels from elsewhere to decarbonise if nuclear remains a no-no.