> they could have announced a 100% electric vehicle

There's something weird about Ford making a mass-market electric F-150 before Toyota has a mass-market car. I know they're betting on hydrogen, but so many other companies are so far ahead with electric cars that it's a little worrying. The irony is this is the company that's most associated with hybrids.

From a engineering perspective, a purely electric vehicle is very simple, not a challenge and in engineering focused companies thus often considered "unworthy" of time and effort.

Internally you will often hear terms like "golf-cart" and "toy" to describe them. They threaten the careers of whole departments and large established supply chains. This fear/anger often manifests as subtle internal sabotage to pure electric projects.

I work in product development at a major global automaker. I have never heard somebody call a BEV program “simple”, and if somebody is trying to sabotage BEV projects, they’re doing a very, very bad job of it.

No engineer that knows anything about batteries would call a battery pack/BMS design that meets automotive requirements simple.

Simple compared to ICE at their stage (NB: one has benefited from many centuries of man-hour work than the other). So, for their current level of efficiency, a BEV is simpler than an ICE also fewer people are able to produce the former for cheaper than the latter.

I buy this to some extent, but it also reeks of hubris and discounts the value of marketing.

Toyota doesn't need to innovate or push limits. They built an incredibly deep moat of customer loyalty with high end customers. They can coast and just copy what works 5-10yr after the fact and still make money hand over fist (for now).

> What do they mean by "introduce sustainable vehicles practically"

For example, this vehicle will be part of Toyota's Welcab line that offers factory-installed conversions that makes driving accessible to people in wheelchairs. Including a device that will lift your wheelchair up and store it on top of the car while in motion (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_rearview_of_Toyo...).

Tesla by comparison leaves this up to aftermarket accessory designers to figure out.

They are truly thinking about the "how does everyone drive an electric vehicle" problem.

I guess you answered your own question. Toyota doesn't appear to be interested in investing in a global chain of charging stations at this time. So from their perspective, a transition using existing infrastructure is practical.

Price. If we disregard really short range EV:s, full EV:s are significantly more expensive than hybrids still.

Probably not if you factor in long term operating and maintenance costs.

You can get a lot of gas for 10,000 dollars / euros. Engine maintenance is rare nowadays, oil change every now and then and maybe a belt change every 5 years. Both cars have the same tire, suspension, hydraulics, low voltage battery and body maintenance. In general, I think you still have to have periodic expensive maintenance to keep warranty for your electric car.

In local prices, 10,000€ gets you about 7000 liters of gasoline, with 5 liters per 100 km you get 140,000 kilometers. The car would on average probably be ten years old at that point.

Many Priuses do tend to be driven a lot and for a long time, with a quick search I can see a local one that has gone over half a million kilometers. So there is certainly potential for long term financially positive electric cars.

EVs and Plug-in Hybrids cost less to maintain than ICE vehicles. [1] Over 200k miles, ICE vehicles are about double the maintenance cost of EVs or Plug-in hybrids, and EVs are slightly more than Plug-in hybrids.

-At 50k miles; EVs $600, Plug-in $1,050, ICE $1,400.

-100k miles; EVs $2,000, Plug-ins $2,600, ICE $4,400.

-200k miles; EVs $6,300, Plug-ins $5,900, ICE $12,300.

EVs use about 30kWh to go 100 miles [2][3] and at the US national average for electricity [4], that would be about $6,250 to drive 200k miles. ICE vehicles vary but 35 mpg combined is pretty average [5] for compact cars. At the US national average for gasoline [6], that is $18,070 to drive 200k miles. Plug-in hybrids use about 29kWh to go 100 miles and about 48 mpg [7]. Just assuming 50/50 driving on gas or electric, that’s about $9,610 to drive 200k miles.

So maintenance and fuel cost over 200k miles would be roughly:

-EVs $12,552

-Plug-in Hybrids $15,510

-ICE $30,370

Nice calculations. 200k miles is 320,000 kilometers. Most vehicles are never driven that much before scrapping (or maybe they're exported to Africa?)

In the US, people keep new cars for an average of 8.4 years [1], and the average working age adult (age 20-54) drives about 15,200 miles per year [2]. That is over 127,000 miles, and that is average. Obviously if you are someone that trades in their car every 2 years, long term costs aren’t important to you. But lots of people keep their cars over 100k miles, and plenty keep their cars out to 200k. I included 50k and 100k on the maintenance prices, and fuel costs just have to be divided in half for 100k. At basically any distance, EVs and plug-ins are significantly cheaper to maintain and fuel than ICE vehicles.

So maintenance and fuel cost over 100k miles would be roughly:

-EVs $5,125

-Plug-in Hybrids $7,405

-ICE $13,435

[1]https://www.iseecars.com/how-long-people-keep-cars-study

[2] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

yeah sure electric is sustainable. check the pictures of where your batteries rare minerals are harvested, check this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0TtbWfmsaw

Check the pictures of where your gas is cracked from crude oil, or of the farming methods used for your meat consumption, or the trees and forests cut down for banana, soy and palm oil plantations.

Mass production never looks sustainable when framed in isolation, but in comparison to the alternative of fracking in tar sands and leaking methane by the galleon those mines aren't so bad.

Your video also misses the point. Firstly, the mix of where that power comes from will depend on where you live. In places where the grid is dirty, of course it's going to be dirty. In other places there are ample amounts of renewables available at many times to be used. There's also the fact that changing the mix of the source of the power is much much easier than getting people to change vehicles. If solar becomes massively widespread on the grid, everyone with an EV immediately benefits from it. If a new ICE is produced then it's not until the old ones are out of circulation that the gains can happen

by your own logic then we should just skip electric and go full on hydrogen. thanks for confirming what I said

>by your own logic then we should just skip electric and go full on hydrogen

This would be true only if hydrogen extraction, transport, storage, and use had no downsides or costs. Instead of playing childish "gotcha" games, why don't you actually articulate a cohesive point about why hydrogen is the best route forward.

you argue that electricity will become clean depending on where I live (pretty much clean for 5% countries on earth that are full nuclear or small countries as of today) which is probably true if everyone goes full electric and in 50 years but yet say I am childish for saying that once infrastructures will be there for hydrogen it will be way cleaner than electric... "a 1,000-pound electric-car battery requires the extraction and processing of some 500,000 pounds of materials. “Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car ‘consumes’ five pounds of earth.” By contrast, an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.", https://ideas4development.org/en/rare-metals-rich-countries-...

> you argue that

That wasn’t me. I actually think that a hybrid solution is the best way to go, with most passenger vehicles going BEV, and heavy transport (trucking, freight, shipping) going FCEV. Your “once infrastructures will be there for hydrogen” is a big “if”. FCEVs are basically useless without extensive infrastructure for your average person. A BEV can be charged in your garage and would be perfectly usable as a commuter car with zero electric vehicle infrastructure.

Maybe “in 50 years” is not really useful for what we need to do now. I can go out today and buy a new BEV to replace my current car and other than the occasional road trip, get 100% of the same functionality. At my house, I am 10 feet away from the nearest fueling station. If I could even find an FCEV to buy, I would be over a thousand miles from the nearest fueling station. Charging stations, fast chargers, super chargers, etc. just augment and add to what every home has for a BEV. An FCEV needs gas stations like an ICE car, and there is a reason that gas stations are never more than a mile away.

For commercial purposes, it is logistically feasible to put in filling stations at specific end points, hubs, or defined distances along a route and make it work. Maybe that builds up infrastructure so that in 50 years, it could be a legitimate alternative to BEVs for average people.

you can do that. not everyone can. try waiting 20minutes in front of a tesla charging dock for each car that is in front of you. it does not scale. try harvesting the needed rare earth to replace all the fuel cars ull drive costs up, eco-systems will fall.