Toyota’s Chief Says Electric Vehicles Are Overhyped (2020) | Hacker News Reader

Toyota’s Chief Says Electric Vehicles Are Overhyped (2020)

wsj.com

34 pointsstarkd95 comments

He raised a valid point. Industrialized countries have power grids and the like that were built before such demands for power existed. Adding millions of electric cars in a short time would be a problem for sure, and it would likely lead to coal and gas turbine power plants as those are cheap and quick to set up. Gas turbine actually isn’t too bad but coal is. Also, the need to somehow recycle and dispose of all of the internal combustion engine cars would be a problem. The thing is, these laws only prevent the sale of new vehicles using petrol, not driving the ones that already exist. Toyota does have hybrids and those seem to be acceptable under many of these laws.

The main thing bothering me currently is just the battery tech. I would prefer something that didn’t involve destructive mining and crazy foreign policies like oil and lithium do. But, wants are infinite and technology and resources aren’t.

> Adding millions of electric cars in a short time would be a problem for sure, and it would likely lead to coal and gas turbine power plants as those are cheap and quick to set up.

In LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) terms new coal plants aren't cheap, in fact they are much more expensive than solar and wind [1]. New combined cycle gas plants are cheap, but the global natural gas price spike has changed the opex situation considerably, so LCOE will trend upwards.

EVs are actually a great match for intermittent renewables since they provide their own storage, and are therefore time dispatchable. They are also usually charged overnight when wind is typically available and demand is lowest.

1. https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-o...

Yes, let's completely ignore fact, that solar does not work over night, time when most people are instructed to charge their EVs.

You might have missed this sentence I wrote:

> They are also usually charged overnight when wind is typically available and demand is lowest.

There are also other overnight carbon free sources of energy like hydro.

Solar PV can be deployed more rapidly than coal, 5B having just achieved 1.1 MW in a day (with 10 people)

https://5b.co/news/2022/1mw-in-1-day-5b-smashes-its-speed-re...

They have a system whereby a solar array is concertinaed off a truck.

https://5b.co

At that rate 4 x 660 MW, equivalent to a coal power station, could be deployed in 66 person-years. 130 people could not build a coal power station with 4 large generating sets in 6 months.

Suncable is expecting to complete the Australia-Asia Power Link by the end of 2028, starting construction in mid-2023. It will involve installing 3.2GW in 5.5 years, which is a rate of 1.5 to 1.6 MW/day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link

I assume these are all MW-peak on the solar side, which means the sustained average capacity over a day is 20% of it? While the coal plant manages 4x660MW 24/7 outside maintenance windows?

That's not including the manufacture of the PV and extraction of components to make it, or shipping times, etc, is it?

No. That's all done in a factory off-site, so I didn't consider it as part of the deployment. I'd argue that scaling a (centralised) factory is easier that scaling deployment.

According to Google 178 GW of solar modules was produced in 2020, which is 487 MW/day and capacity is growing exponentially, so production of modules probably won't be a bottleneck going forward.

What about storage?

Electric vehicles charging at home will draw a lot of power when solar panels aren't providing any power.

Lithium is mostly sourced from Australia[1]. In terms of destructive mining and crazy foreign policies that is probably one of the better places.

Lithium batteries are almost completely recyclable now but aren't for reasons: include[ing] technical constraints, economic barriers, logistic issues, and regulatory gaps[2]

Recycling batteries would be one of the great steps forward in environmental progress. It would also reduce dependency on cobalt mining, which is currently done in Congo where your concerns about "destructive mining and crazy foreign policies" are fully justified.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_lithium_p...

[2] https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-re...

Reliance of cobalt is already reducing.

Half of all new Tesla’s now use Lithium Iron batteries which are cobalt-free and have improved safety.

Interesting! I didn't realize that.

>Lithium is mostly sourced from Australia[1].

Thats likely to change.. its only mostly sourced here because we have the skills and infrastructure AND its fairly easy to get to.

the industry is already looking at many other places around the world that have easy to get to resource bodies but not the skills and infrastructure. Those last two are very easy to transfer and build. Lithium mining also wont slow down if Hydrogen goes gangbusters (I'm bullish on Hydrogen)...

100% agree, also I wish the batteries didn't turn into garbage within only a few years (10-20 yrs max), many vehicles stay on the road much longer than that today.

Batteries don’t turn into garbage when you look real life data:

https://maartensteinbuch.com/2015/01/24/tesla-model-s-batter...

Quote:

  On average the batteries have 91% remaining at 270.000 km (170,000 miles). If the linear behavior would continue, then the ‘lifetime’ (still 80% capacity left) can be calculated as follows: 91-80 = 11% times 50.000 km =  550.000 km, plus 270.000 km, gives 820.000 km (510,000 miles)! Note that a ICE car has a average lifetime of 220.000 km (140,000 miles)… And remember: if an ICE fails after say 300.000 km, you have a problem. The battery in a Tesla EV after the suggested 820.000 km (ok, lets take 500.000 km, still great!) still has 80% capacity left!

>Batteries don’t turn into garbage when you look real life data

Not really the same thing, but anecdotally my hybrid Camry just ticked over 220k km the fuel efficiency is a good way to check (NiMH) battery performance over those 10 years.

when we first got it, we got about 4.6lts per 100km. in the middle there it blew out to about 6ltrs for a while but discovered the injectors were screwed, replaced them (au$2800) and ever since we've been hovering around 4.8 to 5.2 (depending on weather for heating and cooling requirements).

That may be. We'll need to wait for the data, which could go off a cliff still. But what we do know is if you have an outlier, it's pretty damn costly.

https://people.com/human-interest/tesla-owner-blows-up-his-c...

There are cheaper ways to repair it outside Tesla:

https://electrek.co/2021/09/13/tesla-battery-pack-replacemen...

  Tesla tried to charge $22,500 for new battery pack when a $5,000 repair did the trick

  While Tesla recently started opening up some of its diagnostic tools to third parties, the automaker still has a lot of limitations when it comes to powertrain diagnostics. Electrified Garage uses some hacks to get past that and figure out what is wrong with the pack. In this case, they detected some voltage imbalances in 2 of the 16 battery modules:


  So how much did it cost? The modules were $1,500 each, for a total of $3,000. Another $750 in parts for contractors and fuses, with the main one being upgraded to the ones introduced in the Model S Ludicrous.

  With diagnostic and labor, it came up to about $5,000, or about 75% less than Tesla was quoting for a full battery pack replacement.

I'm more curious how much money he made off the youtube video. If it was anywhere close to $5K, it would seem that maybe exploding Teslas at their end of life would become a profitable thing to do.

"many vehicles stay on the road much longer than that today."

Do they really, though? Per https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/average-age-of-vehic... the average age on cars on the road now is 12.2 years.

12 years average means there're plenty of 20 year old cars. And many old cars stay on the road, just exported to poorer countries.

No they don't. They spend very little time on the road, most of the time stationary. Obligatory link to Donald Shoup and the "High Price of Free Parking". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking

My cars are all older than that and they are still pretty awesome.

Subaru and a Highlander. Not particularly valuable but they get the job done for my family and I for A-to-B.

Outside of Silicon Valley, I see a lot of old cars on the road.

The above poster used a referenced published average and you responded with your 2 hyperlocal anecdotes.

Averages are averages, medians are medians, and anecdotes are not data.

Sure, lots of people just want a newer car and can't or don't care to reuse or recycle.

If someone is disposing of a perfectly good used car to buy a new car, then someone else is going to buy their used car. And if they sell their old car and it's still decent, someone will buy that too. On down the line until you get to a car that isn't worth owning. And then that car is largely recycled, which is a better use for it than staying on the street polluting. No one is throwing out working electric cars, or gas cars that get good mileage and are in good operating condition.

The cost of solar technology is dropping at an exponential rate [0] [1]. I've heard (and I believe) that solar has undercut coal (and maybe gas?) [2] by at least a year ago, if not more.

In the US, and I imagine Canada and other European nations, we talk about putting solar on an individual house scale and, at best, earning 'credits' to give back to the grid if we have a surplus. Often times there are locations that can't push more energy into the grid from solar because the local grid can't support it.

Nations without this historical infrastructure don't need to be limited by the infrastructure created to support coal and gas plants as a distant and centralized building. They can build solar power plants next to cities or towns and potentially build a decentralized grid. This is analogous to cell phone service vs. land line service. Without the legacy infrastructure, cell phone adoption is much quicker and easier.

Battery technology is also seeing an exponential drop in price [3].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/most-new...

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline

California has a net metering plan that has only gotten worse over time. We're on the verge of enacting NEM 3.0 which will make just having solar have a much higher monthly connection fee, but also will reduce even further the amount of credit you get for sending power to the grid.

Are there any disincentives in creating a solar system that's completely separate/disconnected from the power grid?

Off the top of my head, sure. I'd imagine it would be harder to resell an off-grid home in suburban California, I'd certainly be hesitant to buy a home like that. Any issues could cause outages until you get it fixed, which may or may not be as quick as you'd like. Battery-backed PV systems are more expensive. More energy management would be required of the user, it's not as simple as never really worrying about whether you have power. None of those prevent most people from being able to go off grid, but they would be disincentives.

A lot of what you says makes sense. Except " Also, the need to somehow recycle and dispose of all of the internal combustion engine cars would be a problem. "

We are already well equipped to recycle and otherwise dispose of worn out combustion vehicles. I don't think anybody expects electric cars to accelerate the need for that - existing cars will continue get used by the increasingly less affluent until they are worn out, just like they do now. They aren't going to all just get scrapped tomorrow because electric cars become more common - they will continue to age out of the fleet, just like they do now.

> Industrialized countries have power grids and the like that were built before such demands for power existed

This stinks of fake news to me.

At least for locations with air conditioning systems this seems false. Hvacs require more inrush (start capacitors) and run energy (run capacitors) - and coordinate very poorly with neighbor and industry use (during the heat of the day)

Electric Cars require none of it, 90% of use cases can charge 1-3 nights a week off of a standard 120v 15 amp circuit.

It's also possible to coordinate both your hvac and Bev to not turn on at the same time and to deprioritize for your utility or rate plan.

Here's a real and recent news article about how potential risks and opportunities are being explored regarding electric vehicles and the grid [1]. It basically says they're looking into stuff and working on it. Neither doom and gloom, nor the future is now.

Just like the grid adapted to the growing use of HVAC, it will have to adapt to the growing use of electric cars.

[1] https://californiamobilitycenter.org/latest-california-mobil...

This is a press release by an organization mostly supported by quotes from those organizations.

It's definitely not investigative journalism.

It's the grid reliability organization for the US and Canada. There are more details in the reliability reports they publish.

https://www.nerc.com/news/Pages/California-Mobility-Center,-...

Toyota is pretty well known at this point for lobbying against fully electric vehicles. What I can't tell is whether their push for consumer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles was a screen as part of the lobbying effort or a failed marketing/research effort.

I honestly believe that Toyota and Honda have done their analysis in good faith and believe fully electric isn't the correct solution. They could be wrong or right, but I think they gone by it honestly. You don't push hydrogen this long without reason.

But Ford decided to build electric F-150s? I don't actually doubt that the research was done in good faith, but I also think internal biases also played into it.

The Japanese quite conservative and usually for good reasons. Move fast and break things and fail often isn't in their playbook.

The problem is that hydrogen makes no sense. Most of the hydrogen that we have is produced from fossil fuels, and we have no hydrogen distribution infrastructure.

You could argue that electric vehicles are the most conservative solution because we already have a national power grid, and there's a fairly clear path towards producing green electricity.

Looking at EVs for personal transport only is short sighted. There are already alternatives, at least in the EU and Asia: trains and e-bikes.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and...

eBike = how to expose yourself to elements and then get instantly killed because you didn't see red light.

The other option is to sit forever in traffic jams, at least in Paris where they converted parking lanes to bicycle infrastructure.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-22/how-paris...

It's institutional inertia. They are the kings of the ICE world. They are biased against preserving the status quo.

It also seems to be a common misconception that hybrids are a logical intermediary step between ICE and EV, and this is made more confusing by cars like the original Hyundai Ioniq that came in hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fully electric versions. So I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota's lack of interest appeared to be contrarian when it was the opposite.

Is storage the primary concern with hydrogen?

Storage in the cars? No. But the infrastructure is lacking. Many people who own a Toyota Mirai (hydrogen) refill it at their Toyota dealership (far less convenient than the electrical grid) and are limited to around 80% fuel capacity (since you need 10,000 PSI to fully fill the tanks).

I get the feeling that they want to go the way Airbus is looking like it's going to go with airplanes. Plug in containers that would be like propane tanks in the US. Not sure how practical, but it does cut down on some problems.

Distribution is also a big issue now: EV chargers have a much bigger ecosystem around them than hydrogen fuel stations.

My understanding is that hydrogen has a much brighter future in commercial vehicles where fueling station logistics can be much more deliberately planned. I know Toyota does commercial vehicle sales, but I don't know what their hydrogen fuel cell commercial fleet development looks like.

They really tried with the hydrogen vehicles, and I think the Japanese government encouraged it as a matter of environmental policy.

Now they are scrambling to build battery EVs and whatever lobbying they are doing is a stalling tactic, because they know they need time to catch up with their competitors.

'if Japan is too hasty in banning gasoline-powered cars, “the current business model of the car industry is going to collapse,” causing the loss of millions of jobs'.

This Toyota article is one year old. France is realizing the same potential disaster is on the horizon: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/stellantis-warns-of-ca...

The reality is that Asia has a huge advantage in BEV manufacture and also owns large chunks of Africa where the rare earth minerals are.

I suspect personal transportation is being phased out for the average person, only the elites will have access to vehicles. The rest of us will have to rely on electric bicycles and pre permissioned autonomous buggy travel.

The BEV trapped energy thermal runaway fire risks, recycling challenges and grid inadequacies issues are not going to be solved anytime soon.

How common are thermal runaway fires? Adelaide, roughly 1,000,000 vehicles, 99% ICE gets one or two vehicle fires each day (Winter at the moment) https://sapaging.com/jobs?MFS=1&type=vehicle%20fire

It's hard to say how 'common' they are given the relatively small number of new BEVs on the roads, but the NTSB are clear they are a serious problem with few consistent standards or training for incidents. The huge challenge with BEVs is that trapped energy has to escape if the batteries are compromised or faulty. Like n air compressor the pressurized electricity has to escape

Lithium-Ion Battery Fires in Electric Vehicles - Safety Risks to Emergency Responders https://youtu.be/J6eS6JzBn0k

As this article is firewalled I don't know if this is mentioned in the article, but I heard a Toyota exec (I think it was) once express the following theory for preferring plug-in hybrids to EVS: As most people drive under 30 miles/day most days, and batteries are a limited resource, by giving millions of people 10-40 miles (depending on the model) instead of a few hundred thousand people 300 miles that they almost never use, you end up saving way more energy. Of course this is merely aspirational; they haven't sold millions of plug-in hybrids, but they have sold millions of hybrids (6m+!), and the argument extends in slightly weaker form to their whole hybrid line, so it doesn't sound on-the-face-of-it stupid.

Toyota bet on the wrong horse with Hydrogen and I guess they're now going through the 5 stages of grief.

EVs are already proven for suburban use. Time will tell if 4WDs need to be ICE, Toyota will be praying Ford and Tesla fail.

EVs are completely missing masses. Only rich people have money to buy a car for 30k-60k EUR

They are getting cheaper every year and will be cheaper than ICE vehicles within 10 years. There are also more used EVs on the market each year.

I'd quite like an EV but prices keep going up and up as demand increases. Even with today's high gas prices financially it doesn't make sense for me.

We bought an EV 6 months ago. We financed ~60% the purchase cost over 3 years. We would otherwise never have spent this much on a car.

We calculated our estimated petrol savings and put down a deposit large enough such that our weekly finance payment and estimated charging cost combined would be ~75% of what we’re spending each week on petrol.

Now that petrol prices have skyrocketed, the finance cost of the car + charging cost is less than half of what we were spending in petrol.

So far we’re very happy. Our total running costs for our petrol car was around 28c per km, our total running costs for our EV are around 4c per km. (Total running costs = absolutely everything attributable to the vehicle: fuel/charging, servicing, insurance, tyres, wiper blades, …)

The prices will decrease eventually. The prices have come up because of high demand. Tesla is selling as many EVs as it can make right now, and with great margins. Those margins will ensure that production keeps expanding to meet demand.

It sucks that the prices are high because it keeps some people out for the moment, but production is expanding as fast as it can. Capitalism makes it so the people with the deepest pockets will get EVs first, but that's still many less gas-powered cars off the roads, and we're still going to transition to EVs.

operation cost makes no sense, especially now with electricity prices growth(at least in Europe) is pretty much same or even cheaper to drive ICE car than EV, mind that's with extreme gas taxation with still almost no tax on electricity, do you really believe if majority of cars would be EVs gov won't introduce new electricity prices to milk the owners?

comparing ICE and EVs is not fair, because the latter one is susbisidized from everyone's money, without subsidy they are extremely expensive, their operation cost is same or higher (and let's better not talk about how long will last batteries long term and their replacement cost) despite low taxes

They are very well comparable as both get you from A to B.

Also, a sibling comment[1] seems to say that gas prices have risen more thus making it now even more cheaper to drive an EV than an ICE.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31984490

not where I live in Europe, while gas prices risen a lot, electricity risen even more

Blockbuster says streaming services are overhyped!

Blimps say planes are overhyped!

Horses say cars are scary.

Battery cars say that Ford T is scary.

there is a talk by Tony Seba on technological disruptions on Youtube that I find really interesting. in it he talks about the adoption of new novel technology as an S curve. so when a tech is new its expensive and there are very few adopters but if its genuinely useful then it will slowly disrupt the old technology until it hits a tipping point and the old tech is replaced exponentially. due to the exponential growth, the cost comes down due to economies of scale. the examples he gives are going from horses to cars, flip phones to smart phones (nokia, blackberry), solar panels, etc.

if this does happen in electric vehicles, then any companies that doesnt have a foot in the door will quickly lose market share. i'm a bit scared for toyota bc batteries require alot of infrastructure and materials that need to be developed ahead of time. by the time toyota comes around they might be so behind tesla, vw, gm, ford, etc. in cost that they cant compete on cost or range.

> if its genuinely useful

That is a big if.

Besides the feeling that you're doing something good for the environment, EVs do have some genuinely nice advantages, including much less maintenance, being easier to drive, having better acceleration and traction (you can drive different motors and wheels at different rates), and being able to charge at home.

Range can be an issue for some people when going on long trips (> 300 miles), but the technology will keep improving. I'm sure we'll see EVs with 10 to 15 minute charge times before the end of the decade. It would be a huge competitive advantage to have ultrafast charging, so it's an obvious thing to optimize for.

They can be overhyped and also an important part of the future of transportation.

Unless it is extremely hot, or extremely cold, or you have to go a long way, or if you don’t want to buy an expensive new battery set every five years, or if you don’t have 220v at your house, or if you worry about finding a charging station while you run out of power in traffic, or if you don’t want to use any coal or natural gas to power your car.

You're right! The current technology is less than perfect, so let's stop trying to improve things and burn fossil fuels forever!

What an excellent take.

Fossil fuels? they can be toxic, difficult to transport, polluting, and worst of all, highly combustible, even explosive!

I can't imagine us adopting a technology with such flaws, it could never be made to work.

1/ thermal management system works for temps -50c to +50c

2/ see above

3/ fast DC charging will give you 300+ KM of range for 30min of charging. 99% of the time you charge at home so over a year, you end up saving time with an EV.

4/ Batteries last 8-15 years.

5/ every house as at least 220v

3) 30 minutes for 186 miles isn't great. Normal for an ICE is 5 minutes for 300-400 miles (482-643 km).

4) I have two cars. One is 15 years old, the other is 25. They are cheap, they are reliable, and I get 30 mpg. An 8-15 year lifespan is again, kinda sad in comparison to ICE.

I'm looking forward to electric cars being generally feasible. But the battery tech needs a lot of help. Charging times and lifespan needs to match ICE cars.

Hey, I felt exactly the same way about ICE vs EV. I have a V8 that I tinker with on weekends. I have 4 other ICE vehicles.

The kicker for me was borrowing a friend’s EV for the day. The driving experience was so completely different to my cars it was mind-boggling. The only other time I’ve felt the same way was picking up the first iPhone.

We bought an EV a couple years after that (6 months ago, now) the first couple of weeks we struggled with range anxiety and suffered from inconvenience. Now we’re completely in love and wouldn’t ever buy another ICE. (Except maybe another old Saab…)

This is much less of a problem than you think it is.

30min to add ~200mi of range is enough for 99% of people. Most people who take road trips need to stop every 3hrs for food/bathroom etc. By the time that's done, your car is charge. Remember that typically you charge while your car is parked, so the net time loss is usually less than that of an ICE.

8-15 years is to get to 80% battery degradation. Total loss of vehicle probably around the 500k to 1mil mile mark.

If you have a 15 and 25 year old ICE, you are far better off driving them into the ground than buying an EV. Don't try to dissuade people about the concept of EVs because of your personal circumstance. If you are in the market for a new car circa $40k USD, buying anything other than EV is financial insanity.

> Unless it is extremely hot, or extremely cold, or you have to go a long way, or if you don’t want to buy an expensive new battery set every five years, or if you don’t have 220v at your house, or if you worry about finding a charging station while you run out of power in traffic, or if you don’t want to use any coal or natural gas to power your car.

I’m guessing you don’t own an electric car, but you get your strong opinions from anti-ev sources.

As a Tesla owner, let me put most of these non-issues to bed:

1. Extremely hot - drove to Vegas last summer. 110-120 degree heat for most of the trip there. No issues.

2. Extremely cold — yes, this can be an issue if you need to drive long distances in the cold. Day-to-day local driving is completely fine, and distance is also not a problem if you are willing to stop at charging stations at shorter intervals. I don’t live in a cold area, so I don’t know what those intervals are.

3. New battery set every X years (you said 5). This might be a minimum, but practically speaking it seems to be 10+ for teslas. The original tesla model s cars are about 10 years old, and the ones that need battery replacements due to wear and tear seem to be few —- and the tech has improved a lot since then, and it’s getting even better.

4. 220v at your house — regular plug is fine for local driving. This is what I use. A buddy of mine lives in an apartment with no plug. He just goes to a charger every 2-3 weeks while he gets a haircut. This is very much a non-issue.

5. Charging station in traffic — well, sure, maybe. That’s no different than running out of gas in traffic. It can happen, but it’s usually the result of a series of bad decisions by the driver. I will add that EVs actually get better mileage in the city due to regeneration.

6. Don’t want to use coal and natural gas to power your car — This is a slightly odd argument. NG is relatively clean. Coal is definitely an issue, but the use of coal varies from state to state. In CA (where I live), it’s 0.15% coal, iirc. If your state creates dirty electricity, take that up with your elected officials and your utilities. If you have the means, circumvent this by getting solar (if possible).

I imagine that someone will comment that I am taking a privileged stance as a Tesla owner, and I slightly agree… right now. That said, lower cost EVs will happen in the near future, and lots of folks buy cars that have a purchase cost comparable to a standard range model 3 while having a much higher total cost of ownership than the model 3.

Regarding the article, EVs will definitely require new and different infrastructure both in the US and Japan, but any potential problems are all very solvable.

To bump #4; 220v 40a vs 120v 15amp. average daily commutes are < 30 miles, cars are doing 200+ miles; and having 12 hours of off shift is pretty common.

This is the 10% problem (which also has solutions, like the high-speed charger installed at your local gas station)

The every 5 years thing is greatly exaggerated. There are plenty of Teslas from 2012-2017 still going strong on their original batteries.

I thought every house in the US at least has 220v.

Technically it's 240v in the US.

I'm sure there's an exceedingly small population of people who don't have 240v, but those people also don't have electric ovens, dryers, or stoves/cooktops.

Yes every house in the US does has 220V or 240V. Either way a good majority of people can probably even get away with 120V. Not ideal but good enough for most commutes.

But honestly there’s a lot of people that exclusively charge at superchargers.

I know one person living in 1/2 a duplex, and they don't. They have one phase, and the other 1/2 of the duplex has the other.

GP's point stands, though. EVs aren't the right solution for every single situation, and may never be, but that doesn't mean they can't be an important part of the mix.

My last house didn't. Every major appliance used natural gas.

Most prewar homes don't have 220v either unless it was added later (commonly as part of an air conditioner installation, but even then, often the AC unit has the only 220v circuit).

It's not hard to add 220v to an existing home, but it is less common than you think. Before electric cars existed, the main reason a homeowner would add 220 was for air conditioning, large stationary power tools, or if they were one of those weirdos that preferred electric stoves to gas (before induction existed).

Or an electric dryer?

only those without strawmen living in them.

Toyota completely botched the transition. They were in the lead with Prius and then they make several strange strategic errors. This sounds like rationalization to me at this point. Cheap electric vehicles are very well within reach, especially for highly urban places. And PV for remote locations is totally possible right now, no grid.

(2020)

Added above. Thanks!

I got the cheapest tesla solar panels you can get and that produces more than x3 the electricity I need to power an electric car for 7k miles per year

You are welcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com