Once we take that into consideration, it's hard to see their pushback against electric vehicles in a good light.
Yes. Does this make the previous comment any less true? I'd say it's likely neutral or might even make it more true.
Elon was smart to see the potential early on. But GM also started around the same time with the original Volt (which is still an awesome vehicle.)
Before Tesla, existing car manufacturers made cars with low range that were fugly looking, probably trying to show regulating bodies that no one would be interested in electric cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Toyota is the largest car manufacturer in the world. They should not be partaking in these behaviors.
Passenger cars produce 15% of total GHG.
Currently only only 15% of electricity is renewable (varies greatly by country and going to get way better in future).
That said EV's are about 2-6x more efficient in converting that energy to motion tho. Let's assume it's 3x better.
(0.15*0.85)/3 = still 4.25% of total GHG but will get much better in future. Overall ~10% GHG reduction.
The goal to stabilise climate is 60% reduction by 2050...
Do you really believe the entire country of India will be selling no gas powered cars by 2030? Surely this is just an overly-aggressive starting point by governments that they can further bargain on?
Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make that 10% look like small peanuts in comparison?
The answer is no one is gonna actually do this and this specific 100% number is just Govt and Businesses cynically trying to bargain.
It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making.
Why not 99% for example?
Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas.
Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not 99? What about 98? Have you done any actual analysis here or are you just reflexively making the largest demands possible?
A hypothetical 10% of new cars being ICE eventually means only ~10% of gas stations survive, that’s just not enough. It’s vastly more efficient to do that in lockstep so people aren’t stuck with relatively new cars their unable to fuel which then get scrapped.
You seem to be mixing market forces with government mandate here a bit. Why not still allow 1% ICE and see how the market reacts? Maybe you're right and it would result in near-0 but why enforce 0 ICE?
It’s simply bad policy to create a situation where a lot of 5-15 year old cars get scrapped because nobody can find a gas station. The country is much better off when people scrapping cars because they can’t get gas are doing that to 20+ year old cars.
I haven't advocated for 100% of cars being electric; you appear to have me confused with someone else. You keep repeating this in every comment (to me and others) and try to hang responsibility for it on other people. It's sufficient to say you don't agree with the policy goal of the Indian government, rather than projecting it onto everyone you interact with.
It seems you already agree with this so why argue?
Also, EV’s don’t actually require that much energy 450w 24/7 powers a 4kW/mile EV for ~15,000 miles per year. People adding AC in India are a much larger load on the electric grid than EV’s.
I feel this distinction needs to be made every time there's talk about banning ICE.
I have yet to see any proposed laws that completely ban ICE. It's always a ban on selling new ICE. You'll still be able to buy used ICE, and they will eventually fade away through attrition.
Which in a way means PHEV's with 10th of a battery of normal EV would be way better way to accelerate reduction of emissions.
Part of the issue is that supply & demand have to match, but demand for electrical systems is not static. You could theoretically use the EV batteries as reservoirs to store surplus energy during low demands periods, and supply energy during high demand periods. While I doubt it would flatten the duck curve, it could help to smooth it out some.
https://eepower.com/news/nissan-to-leaf-could-power-your-hom...
The upcoming (this fall-ish) Hyundai Ioniq 5 has a vehicle-to-load capacity of 3.7 kW, enough to keep your fridge and freezer running during blackouts.
India had basically no cars at all in the recent past. The country would survive going back to that state. It would not survive months of lethal heat every year.
Is it not practical for Toyota to only offer electric cars for sale in India by 2030? Is it not practical for Toyota to sell fewer vehicles in India in 2030? To pull out of selling in India entirely? I know the criticism is "it's not practical for India to switch to electric vehicles (and keep everything else the same)" but (a) why is that Toyota's "right to challenge" and (b) why assume everything else has to stay the same? Assume the Indian government democratically chose economic slowdown from reduced vehicle sales but still wants those vehicles which are sold to only be electric, citizens should have the right to challenge that but why should international companies have such a right?
Questionable.
In the average western country where almost everyone has their electrical energy needs met, EVs do not have a technological limitation to adoption.
Betting on hydrogen (99% made from natural gas) does nothing to improve electricity generation and distribution in India.
"Toyota’s Indian subsidiary publicly criticized India’s target for 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030, saying it was not practical.", the keyword being not practical, country which struggles with electricity during summer and rations farmers electricity is legislating 100% electric?