It would be nice if Toyota actually had any interest in plug in hybrids. Their only one, the Prius Prime, is more expensive than its competitors and offers less than half their range. What's the point of getting a PHEV if I still spend half my commute running on gasoline?

Exactly. GM showed with a Volt that a PHEV could be effectively a BEV 90% of the time and perform excellently even when falling back into ICE mode, but the Prime came out after the Volt and its drivetrain is inferior in every way to it. I understand the Prime is roomier and so on, but in terms of drivetrain it's woefully inferior.

As a Volt and Mitsu Outlander PHEV owner I obviously have nothing against the PHEV concept. But just comparing the two I can say that the Volt is more of a BEV with high quality range extension, while our Outlander is just a soft hybrid that can only sometimes use the battery exclusively. Pretty much all the PHEVs (including the Prime) are like that, and they gave the whole concept of PHEV a bad name.

EDIT: the Outlander has other attributes that make it innovative and good for us, though, such as its AWD system which uses dual electric motors, negating the need for a longitudinal shaft and differential etc.

My ideal vehicle would be a Volt made by Toyota. I have several mechanic friends and all have warned me against buying any GM vehicle, especially one with as complex a drive system as a Volt.

The drivetrain in the Volt is exceedingly reliable. Like, 0 problems for most people. There's almost no maintenance required.

Other things in the car are the issue. Stupid things like the infamous "shift to park" issue (crappy $2 switch in the shifter mechanism so it doesn't recognize that you're in park even when you're mechanically in park and complains when you turn it off). Or just generally typically mediocre Chevy interior, etc.

Still love driving mine, I'd have a hard time giving it up. It somehow feels very sporty. I find Toyota's very boring to drive.

My impression is that GM had trouble making the Voltec drive train work in larger cars. The Volt is a low-slung, very aerodynamic car. As soon as you turn that into a crossover (as they were rumored to be doing) or a small SUV, both range and gas mileage are going to suffer.

It's too bad. We have a Volt and I would have loved the same drivetrain in a car with more ground clearance and a bit more cargo space.

I assume US drivers drives more miles than drivers in other country. Possibly such PHEV is mainly designed for outside US.

To be fair Toyota announced their new lineup of BEVs just last month, to be released next year. Toyota is late to the party, but they are on their way.

To be fairer, they were very early to the party too.

They bet on electric, very early in the game and more than one kind too!

That’s what’s so frustrating! They had the technology and the scale to go nearly all-in on battery electric about 2 decades ago (maybe with gas backup in the early days) but they squandered it.

Toyota bet on Electric and Hydrogen, then proceeded to double-down on hydrogen. Then never really went all-in on electric and this sadly lost them their early lead.

Toyota still bets solid state battery, but I with they bets current li-ion more

> Their only one, the Prius Prime, is more expensive than its competitors and offers less than half their range. What's the point of getting a PHEV if I still spend half my commute running on gasoline?

The Prime has a 25 mile battery range, which is well over the average driven commute distance in the US (its about the average daily driven distance for drivers.)

It’s about half of what you’d need to comfortably go without gas the vast, vast majority of time. The Chevy Volt has about the right plug in electric range (50 miles) for a future where we have to basically synthesize all fuels.

Exactly. It's a future proof car. If gas gets much more expensive you're ok. If the battery ages and dies you're still ok.

This year they introduced the RAV4 prime, with 48 miles electric.

The Prius prime is still in it's initial design iteration. Major updates occur typically every 7 years for auto manufacturers, so one would expect a new, improved range Prius prime somewhere in the 2023 range.

RAV4 prime is woefully underproduced. Wait times of 2 years, and it'll be almost impossible to get in areas outside of coastal US. Sounds like they haven't nailed down the battery supply chain for it.

But can that 48 miles be exclusively electric or does it fall back to turning on the ICE every time you punch the accelerator? This is my grief of every PHEV I've tried other than the Volt; they cannot be driven as a true EV even when the battery is full because they use the ICE for performance boost, etc. The Volt runs better without the ICE.

I have the Prius prime, it gets a little over 25 mi EV-only and the only time it needs to burn gasoline is if you turn on the windshield defroster because the heat pump can only do so much I guess.

But the performance feels much sportier in EV mode and it has no trouble pulling up to 80mph without any ICE

25mi EV only is like an electric scooter range.

I live in a small town so the only time I drive more than 25 mi in a day is when I'm driving 200+ miles, and then I'm glad it takes gasoline. But yes, 50 mi would be better, but they already took the spare tire out to make room for battery as is (out of curiosity I googled it and wow, Tesla's don't have a spare either. That's probably my least favorite thing, I had to get towed my first week in the car because of the wimpy high-efficiency tires.)

Yes it is, very much so. You need to know your needs well to maximize your purchase, but for us it was cheaper than a Leaf to buy and it works exquisitely. I only hoped Toyota had never bet on Hydrogen for everyone, and ended up with zero-emissions in the hands of no one.

48 miles is probably good enough for 95%+ of people. Also worth noting that that’s higher than any other PHEV in its class (SUV).

The rav4 Prime is sufficient at nearly 50 miles of electric range, but it sucks that it took 2 decades to get there when even GM had the technology basically perfected a decade ago with the Volt.

It’s literally better than their hydrogen vehicles. Even if you had to synthesize the small amount of gasoline they might use.

Longer range plug in hybrids plus electrically synthesized liquids beat pure hydrogen vehicles in cost, refueling ease, and overall emissions.

> GM had the technology basically perfected a decade ago with the Volt.

The Volt is tiny car with limited utility. The RAV4 EV has vastly more cargo and passenger space.

For a single person going from point A to point B it might not matter, but the technical challenge of battery range plus utility isn't the same as battery range disregarding utility.

I have a Volt and it's awesome. It's a hatchback with lots of cargo space (5 seats in the Gen 2 Volt, too). Don't know that you mean about "limited utility." The Volt powertrain would've worked fine in a crossover vehicle like the Rav4 with only a small scale-up.

> I have a Volt and it's awesome. It's a hatchback with lots of cargo space

It has 10.6 ft³ of cargo space. A Yaris (a subcompact) hatchback has 15.4 ft³, Prius Prime has 19.8 ft³, Honda Civic Hatchback has 24.5 ft³, RAV4 Prime has 33.6 ft³ (for models with folding seats, those are all without seats folded.) The Volt doesn't have “lots” of cargo space, it has miserably small cargo space whether compared against other compact cars or other PHEVs.

Depends on where they're located. Outside America, subcompact cars are still the norm unless you need the utility of something large for your immediate family/job. Only got 2 kids? Subcompact.

> Outside America, subcompact cars are still the norm unless you need the utility of something large for your immediate family/job.

Yes, and by that standard the Volt is a big car (not a subcompact), but still has small cargo space for a hatchback (2/3 of a Yaris, which is a subcompact.)

By American standards, its a fairly small car that has very small cargo space relative to its size, and so tiny cargo space compared to what the market expects. And also small compared to competing PHEVs, which to be fair generally also have small cargo space relative to size.

It may be good but no one (in America) wants 48 miles. People complain about the range on current EV’s during winter. A nice round number like 100 has a much better chance of appealing to consumers.

Right but the advantage of a PHEV is that it can switch to using its ICE. With a full tank you should have a range of 1000km+.

Theoretically (if it works well) it’s an EV for short trips combined with an ICE for longer trips in a single car. That should overcome the range and charge time objections to BEVs.

Bonus from ICE is that it generates massive waste heats, so the heat can be used for heater in winter.

If it's going to take 10 years to reach 50% BEV sales, why not focus on PHEV's first. 10x smaller battery still covers 80% of uses.

Or perhaps we are past that point already - I have no idea how that upgrade math checks out...

More expensive and substantially less specs on paper is pretty par for the course for Toyota. But motorcycles only really work when the weather is good and people buy those too. People rationalize these purchases in other ways.

3 major problems none of the EV evangelists are addressing about with EVs are

1. What happens to all the giant lithium batteries on these vehicles after they reach end of life?

2. How will people be able to evacuate a city or state in an emergency situation when charging/electric supply is not present (which is always likely to happen)?

3. Coal burning infrastructure is still inextricably involved in generating the power to charge these vehicles, that must be considered in terms of overall value of EVs in reducing environmental impacts of fossil fuel elimination.

We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.

3) 36% of global grid power comes from coal down from 41% in 2013. It’s expected to hit 22% by 2040.

Secondly coal isn’t nearly as bad as you might thing relative to gasoline. Simply producing gasoline releases significant CO2. Refineries alone release approximately 2.5 lb of CO2 for each gallon of gas, add in exploration, extraction, and transportation means gasoline is doing a lot of damage before reaching your car. Next gasoline > car engines > transmissions is vastly less efficient than EV’s coal > power plants > electric grid > batteries > EV transmission.

Net result while some of the energy comes from hydrogen in gasoline it’s still actually worse for the environment than coal, much worse than natural gas, and vastly worse than everything else.

My physisicist friends did the sums (for professional reasons). Electric vehicles produce less CO2 even if the electricity comes from dirty sources.

there are published papers stating exactly this; one of the first google hits i've got states 54% in a realistic comparison. if they're 2x off the mark it's still a worst-case break even.

https://www.avere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/englisch_St...

> 3 major problems none of the EV evangelists are addressing about with EVs are

This is straight up false. These same points are addressed again and again and again and again by EV supporters but I guess (if I took your claim seriously) no one actually pays attention? (See the sibling comments for folks responding to them.)

I mean, you might still disagree with what they have to say, but you CANNOT claim they don’t address those extremely common points. Is it okay to just repeat a lie like that for rhetorical purposes?

For #2, I'm not so sure the situation is strictly worse than with gas. I lived in NYC during Hurricane Sandy, and it took many days for gasoline to become available (a few weeks, IIRC). Electricity was plentiful, though.

Did you evacuate? Where to?

>2. How will people be able to evacuate a city or state in an emergency situation when charging/electric supply is not present (which is always likely to happen)?

I never understood this scenario. Any situation where there is no electricity supply also means you wouldn't be able to pump gas. You do realize gas stations run on electricity right?

> Any situation where there is no electricity supply also means you wouldn't be able to pump gas. You do realize gas stations run on electricity right?

If you are concerned about emergency readiness, keeping a reserve fuel level in a typical gas (incl. hybrid) cars tank that provides more range than even the overly generous EPA-listed range of any pure electric short of a Tesla Model S Long Range Plus is eminently practical. So, if there is a recharging/fueling outage and need to evacuate, gas wins.

1. They will be recycled.

2. Never heard this one, what kind of apocalypse are you foreseeing ?

3. Centralised generation is easier to mitigate, and later replace with clean generation.

For #2, I think it might be valid for areas which experience hurricanes or other natural disasters.

Though, couldn't you charge your car with a gas generator in an emergency if you really needed to?

Good point! You could carry the gas generator with you when you leave. Maybe some EVs would let you plug in while driving! You'd just have to redirect the generator exhaust out the back via some sort tail-pipe...

Yep, I'm sure you can jerry-rig something. Afterwards, when the emergency has passed and you are back to your boring life, you can then put the generator back in the garage instead of bringing it everywhere you go.

And for 3, it's not all or nothing - it can happen incrementally. I fully charge my Tesla using the panels on my roof, no hydrocarbons were ever involved.

More answers to add to the others already given...

2. Mass evacuations by car are inherently inefficient, we should use public transport.

2. or... petrol supply requires transportation whereas electrical supply does not, the former does not seem inherently better than the latter.

2. or... it's as impractical for everyone to fill up their cars in an emergency as it is for everyone to charge their cars.

Honestly, I don't think petrol is any better here – we've just got more cases of this mostly working with petrol cars, and no examples either way yet for electric cars.

3. Oil refinement for an amount of petrol takes roughly as much energy as an electric car takes to go that distance, so we aren't just shifting oil -> electricity, we're actually doing (oil + electricity) -> electricity. This gives us an immediate and significant win on overall fossil fuel emissions even if electricity is entirely generated with fossil fuels.

3. Coal burning infrastructure is not in any way inextricably linked to the power to charge electric vehicles. Coal burning happens to be how much of the US/China gets its electricity for powering electric cars but the fact that solar power can be fed into the grid with no changes to anything else shows that the "inextricably" is false.

3. Coal burning happens to be used in some countries but in others, green energy production is far more available and there electric cars are much better for the environment.

> We need to realize that the motivation to deploy EVs too early is driven by profit rather than by motives in environmental protection and conservation of resources, then the really productive conversations can occur.

Companies are driven by profit, yes, however there are vast, immediate, benefits to the use of electric cars, as well as significant future benefits that can be realised as we transition off fossil fuels. Saying that EVs cannot be motivated by environmental benefits is disingenuous.

> deploy EVs too early

EVs get cleaner as the grid does, there is no need to wait. EVs are already at least on par with the cleanest ICE cars on every mix of energy generation in the US and only getting better as coal plants shut down and the grid shifts to renewable. Waiting is letting perfect be the enemy of good. No one is suggesting switching to EVs is a solution to climate change. Cleaning up the grid and electrifying everything is a solution, of which EVs are a part.

Used EV batteries command a serious premium for all sorts of re-use. Recycling of the raw materials will be economically valuable once batteries are no longer useful for even stationary grid storage

As others have pointed out, when the power is off gas pumps don't work either. If you're concerned about evac practice good charging hygiene the same way you would store potable water and food. Plug in each day and the battery will always have tons of range.

> Coal burning infrastructure is still inextricably involved in generating the power to charge these vehicles

only in countries which haven't yet decarbonised (decarboned?) their energy infrastructure. In france for example, 90% of electricity is non carbon, and that rises to 100% for several smaller countries

This assumes power grid won’t keep getting greener or more efficient. Unless we go zero carbon we are just delaying the inevitable and sometimes easy short term carbon reduction actually hampers our efforts to zero emissions.

I wonder if these arguments take into account decreased battery life with a smaller battery in a plug in hybrid. From what I know about li-ion, the larger battery should expect many more charge cycles before degradation than the smaller one, given the same power draw.

There would have to be some kind of argument that the bigger battery leaves capacity on the table during its life somehow, which would mean the battery is still expected to be useful when the car is retired?

It really depends on the battery technology. Lithium-Titanate batteries are starting to be used in hybrid vehicle powertrains.

It is much lower energy density than typical BEV batteries. It is also rated at 20x the cycles and can be charged and discharged very quickly with minimal issues.

The technology has come a long way from the NiMH cells that die after a decade.

My laymen understanding is that all EV batteries are composed of lots of smaller cells. So a larger Tesla battery is simply more cells, not larger ones. That would put EV's and hybrids on the same level.

Generally speaking, yes, a larger battery with the same technology is more cells, not larger cells. But the larger battery will use less of each cell's capacity for a given distance driven. So it will cycle each battery less, comparatively.

> I wonder if these arguments take into account decreased battery life with a smaller battery in a plug in hybrid.

I would think that it would be primarily a function of how much of the battery is treated as a 'reserve'. If you have 10-20% set aside that is not "useable", regardless of total capacity, then you could get similar cycles.

There's also the possibility for using super-caps taking some of the brunt for high discharge (2-4s) events which could help with longevity. How expensive are they for these type of use case?

80-20 cycling is important, but discharge rate is as well.

If each cell in a 15kw battery discharges at 1c to move a car, each cell in a 45kw battery discharges at .33c.

Same goes for charging.

Might be diminishing returns, but discharge rates over 1c harm longevity.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1397110

The latest ICCT report shows that in the european market fossil car are around 250gCO2eq/km in life cycle analysis, hybrid at 180 and EV at 80, so it seems quite wrong.

https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...

>depending on your daily driving patterns

This is the key point. Modern highly efficient turbocharged 4 cylinder ICE vehicles can be equally or more efficient than a hybrid in the right circumstances as well. But the vast majority of driving is city streets <45mph, where ICE can't even come close to BEV.

Well in the case of urban areas, outside of some select locations, the charging infra is just not there for BEVs. Even if there were good EV infra in urban areas, a compelling case could be made for improving and upgrading public transportation instead which is going to be more efficient than any personal vehicle - including BEVs.

A sidenote but unless public transport vehicles are electric, they won’t be better than battery electric vehicles. Typical diesel buses with typical occupancy rates have worse emissions per passenger mile then, say, a model three with a typical occupancy rate and grid emissions factor in US.

BEVs are fantastic, have SOME level of infrastructure literally everywhere with electricity (you literally can charge from a 120V outlet just fine), and we’ll need basically all vehicles to be battery electric to get to where we need to be.

It also is trivial to add EV charging infrastructure, which is another under appreciated aspect. It’s easier than installing a streetlight.

Personal vehicles also have a much larger carbon footprint in general (from manufacturing, maintenance, etc) aside from just emissions during operation of the vehicle.

Operations dominate the total carbon footprint of a gasoline fueled private vehicle. (And public transport buses as well.) so the comparison still is valid. To compete, buses need to also be electric (which is, to be fair!, super easy… electrifying all city buses is incredibly easy compared to electrifying all personal vehicles.)

Most bus transit systems are in process to convert their fleet to EV. Most today don't run diesel, but CNG.

There's been quite a few studies questioning the current focus on EVs with ranges of 400km and more. Largely because they are so heavy and are therefore not very energy efficient. The argument is that most peoples daily commute is less than 50km (in Europe), but they still by an overly heavy EV for the 5-10 times a year they go on longer trips. Instead a plugin hybrid could be much more efficient, because you can use it in EV mode for your commutes, but you can still use the car for long trips, without the significant weight (and corresponding inefficiency) increases of an EV. I suspect this is very much a function of the driving pattern, and I suspect in the mid-term future this will change with more efficient battery technology.

The current focus on long ranges is largely because Tesla is leading the charge in electric vehicles and Tesla is an American automaker. Commutes are often longer and conditions vary widely across the country and from season to season making predicting the true range difficult.

Plug-in hybrids may make sense, but I would imagine that including both a full power ICE and electric motor together and having them work together makes a more complex vehicle with more potential points of faliure. You also have the added weight of the duplicate components. The Chevy Volt, for example, weighs more than a base Model 3 and only slightly less than the long range configuration of the Model 3.

But... are we pretending here that the ICE and gas & all the plumbing etc don't weigh anything? It's not like PHEV have zero additional dead weight.

A quick search says "Car engines can weigh up to 1,000 pounds" and "Tesla S has a massive battery weighing 1,200 lbs" - so, are your really saving that much weight with PHEVs?

You can size the PHEV range extender engine to be much closer to the steady state power requirement, and tune it towards such as well. The BMW i3 uses a literal scooter engine for the range extension.

The i3 can't do more than 40mph when using the scooter engine.

It can do more than that, especially if you've got the Euro-spec Hold State of Charge coded to be enabled. With HSOC, you just drive as normal and the scooter engine tries to keep the battery at the charge level you turned it on at. You only really notice that the car is noisier.

Car engines can weigh up to 1000 pounds, but the standard weight is much lower. the VW group 1.4 turbo (probably one of the most common engines around) comes in at 230lb

I feel like this is a bit of a double standard.

If we're questioning "focus on range of 400km or more" then we're already looking at the high-end EVs. Sure there are ligther engines around, but so are lighter batteries, no? Heavy powerful ICEs sell because they're desirable, not because they're the most practical. Long-range EVs sell because they're desirable, not because they're the best match for the average person. I have no doubt that as soon as reasonable city infrastructure exists for EV charging, there'll be a lot of BEVs with small batteries for driving around the city.

People do not just buy cars for daily commutes, it doesn't make sense to solely design around that.

That's my point exactly, the buy the EV to be dimensioned for the occasional weekend trip, but could often be much better of with a car with EV dimensioned for the daily commute and use ICE for the couple of long trips. This would likely be more cost efficient and ecological.

Don't get me wrong I like EVs, but the current crop's design is not such a straight forward winner in terms of ecological footprint over PHEV as many EV fanboys believe.

It will also change as the grid gets excess green energy.

I feel like at least some of this depends on whether the ICE in a hybrid is coupled directly to the wheels or not. I believe in all current consumer vehicles it is, but there are other applications like hybrid trains and city buses where the engine is just running a generator at a constant RPM. Surely that kind of configuration would be the absolute best case scenario for ICE efficiency, and probably even for overall system efficiency (with battery loses accounted for) depending on the ratio of city to highway driving.

In a Chevy Volt, there’s a mechanism that mechanically attaches the motor to the wheels at speed above 35 mph for greater efficiency but below that it is a pure serial hybrid, disconnected from the wheel directly. But it rarely ever runs the engine. Pretty much only if you run out of charge.

Ah, spiffy— that's neat to know that it can switch modes like that. Looks like this has been a matter of evolution over time, too:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096942_2016-chevrolet-...

I guess if you were only connected at higher speeds, that would also greatly simplify the transmission story, since you probably no longer need 1-3.

The Chevy Volt actually uses a continuously variable transmission for that. Makes it sound really weird as there’s not a direct correlation between the sound of the motor and the speed you’re driving.

There are some consumer BEVs with range extenders which work this way too eg the BMW i3. However they tend not to be marketed as PHEVs as such.

It seems that most driving in city streets by individuals is largely unnecessary: items can be delivered (by EV) instead of picked up and commuting can largely be electronic. Long term, it seems that the most important use case for the personal vehicle could end up being long distance travel.

Personal cars act as like a personal room on wheels. Peopl store stuff there and use it as a place to retreat to at work. “Personal vehicle as private space” is a super normie idea, but it’s weird how little play it gets in these conversations. It’s NOT replaced by rideshare or public transit.

Why are we giving them the benefit of the doubt? Toyota has been consistently and EV. They consistently lie about emissions of their hybrids. Their marketing is always spreading FUD about EVs.

Worst of all Toyota has been the leader against all kinds of environment laws all over the world.

Not to exactly counter your point, but Toyota has been doing shady things for a while so I’m not sure if they can be given the benefit of doubt. The things include - going against those new California emissions standards when Trump rolled back emission limits, donating heavily to the politicians who wanted to overthrow the 2020 US elections, and having deals with Panasonic to block easy public access to batteries (better discussion here - https://reddit.com/r/technology/comments/oskyfm/_/h6p62gq/?c...)

By "donating heavily" you mean $56k across dozens of officials.

Politicians are cheap.

There's a long pattern of behavior with Toyota lobbying and arguing against battery EVs and basically spreading FUD about the whole concept. Their marketing for "self charging hybrids" is something they were peddling recently. Sounds awesome until you realize that they did not invent a perpetuum mobile and that instead this means "we burn petrol/diesel to run the engine to charge the battery". That's right, Toyota still makes hybrids that you can't plugin. The 20 year old Prius is a nice example of this "future". Every single mile these things drive are powered by a combustion engine. They have some proper plugin hybrids as well obviously but the marketing here is just awesomely cynical and obviously aimed at drivers who are a bit on the fence about wanting to buy a BEV.

They have a single compliance BEV that they are shipping in China only. It's a hard requirement to be active in that market. They make them in comparatively low volume of just slightly over 10K cars, which is of course next to nothing in the Chinese market. Also, that's only slightly less than the total number of hydrogen cars they have ever produced. Which of course they still insist is the future. Except they don't seem to be in any particular hurry building that future. A cynical person might say that they actually don't believe in that enough to put their money where their mouth is. Though they certainly seem to waste no opportunity to invest in marketing to convince people otherwise.

They are not actually arguing against BEVs because they believe BEVs are impossible. Obviously they are and essentially all their competitors are proving that by shipping electric buses, trucks, vans, cars, sports cars, etc. in increasingly large volumes. Toyota is merely trying to stem the loss of market share for ICE and hybrid vehicles here while they come up with an alternative. They do that by bad mouthing the whole concept of BEVs, by using misleading marketing like self charging hybrids, arguing that instead we should look at hydrogen, and generally just lobbying and arguing that BEVs are a bad thing.

However, at this point it looks more like they are dragging their feet simply because they are late with getting battery supply secured. They couldn't ship anything worth shipping in volumes that matter even if they wanted to and had the factories, designs, etc. ready to go. You need batteries for that and battery producers are fully booked building batteries for their competitors at this point.

To fix that they might prefer addressing this with their own solid state batteries. Which is something they've been investing in quite a lot. The only problem: they're not ready yet. However, they are apparently quite close to announcing a proper EV this year which might actually be using this. It will be interesting to see how quick they can go from a concept car to volume production. It will take a lot of investment and time probably.

So, one cynical interpretation is that they are just trying to buy some time until they are actually ready to start competing on their own terms. Which clearly they just aren't right now. They have no hydrogen car worth talking about (beyond the few concept cars they shipped). No infrastructure to fuel it. And the one EV they ship in China is clearly nothing more than a compliance car. So self charging hybrids it is for now. If they deliver a BEV with solid state batteries and awesome range (both of which might happen soon), my guess is hydrogen stops being the future at Toyota and self charging hybrids will be phased out as well. But even then, it might be years before they catch up.

Specific facts don't really matter in this case. What matters is that Toyota is engaging in behavior (lobbying against EV adoption mandates) that its prime customer demographics (in the West at least) consider icky.

Because of how media works these days writing about that is worth money. There's a lot of rage clicks and eyeball hours to be gleaned by pointing out to these people that yes, Toyota, a brand you people have been putting on a pedestal for a decade will sociopathically act in its own interest including influencing legislators, just like every other bigCo.

May I ask, what business does the Senate have on what car you would be buying?

The effect of carbon emissions isn't limited to only the buyers of a vehicle.

The government is interested in welfare of itself, the state and its resources. If vehicular emissions cause a lot of CO2 emissions and hence climate change, the government will want to protect itself, it’s resources and its people. As for making rules or laws - that’s how the government implements such goals or objectives. (This is a slightly broad answer.)

May I ask, what business does the senate have on where I dump my toxic waste?

Take on action on climate change, that's wrong governing! Take action on climate change? Wrong governing!

Just can't win...