Hybrids are better for emission reductions than BEVs

  • Thread starter Thread starter R P
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 11
  • Views Views 1K
R P

R P

Well-Known Member
According to Toyota, the battery resources needed to produce one BEV is the equivalent of producing 90 hybrids. And the emission reductions provided by those hybrids will be much higher than by a single BEV. IE, one BEV will reduce emissions by 3.7 tons while 90 hybrids will reduce emissions by 130 tons. How can you argue with that?
upload_2024-5-15_17-51-1.webp
 
Not sure I see the math? if one bev = 3.7 reduction then 90 bevs= 330 tons of reduction. When I learnt math (all be it over 60 years ago) a 330 ton reduction is better than a 130 ton reduction. Maybe math has changed since I learnt it. I know cars sure has. My 1965 Ranchero isn't any thing like my 2023 F150 lighting but they is both trucks.;)
 
Where's the beef?

I want to see how they calculated these numbers, and is this just limited to batteries? I get most of my electricity from Hydroelectric power. Does that change the emissions calculation?

Are batteries resources really limited? There seems to be glut right now.

Toyota hybrids are expensive, and you don't even get a heated steering wheel, $42,468 for a Camry XSE Hybrid.

OK, it looks like the emissions reduction figures includes the gas emissions for the hybrids.
 
Last edited:
It was all about battery production. You can produce 90 hybrids for what goes into a BEV. That assumes there is a limited supply of resources to produce batteries. That was probably very true two years ago, and maybe still is now. But obviously if there are sufficient resources available to produce as many batteries as can be sold in BEVs, they will provide more emission reductions in the end.

I just thought it was an interesting argument put forward by Toyota. Can't argue that Toyota (and others) are selling a lot of hybrids these days, which is not all bad. As we know many people are still leery of going full blown BEV.
 
Last edited:
Their argument makes a lot of sense. I don't know how limited the battery resources are, but the supply chain is tight and will take years to develop. There are still a lot of folks buying ICE, so hybrid & PHEV are a step in the right direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R P
R P said:
Did you guys ever hear about Google!!?? There's lots of discussion out there about this. Here is one link.
https://energyminute.ca/news/toyotas-1690-rule-the-case-for-hybrids/
Click to expand...
"Lots of discussion" was the Google problem. Fortunately, you've narrowed it to one source that we can dissect:
  1. Critical mineral supply - the 2024 Camry weights up to 3,600 lbs. My 2019 Tesla Model 3 Std Rng Plus weight ~3,600 lbs in 2019 minus my 200 lbs, 50 lbs of tools, and 30 lbs of two dogs. Both have effectively the same mass. Iron, aluminum, glass, and wiring are effectively the same mass considering the Camry transmission has two motor-generators. Given the recent crash in LiFePO battery price, "critical mineral supply" is inaccurate. So Toyota sales have crashed in China where the market chooses BEVs.
  2. Charging infrastructure - the sins of CCS-1 are replaced by the reliability and efficiency of the SAE J3400. Legacy J1772 chargers will eventually be replaced by smaller and more efficient SAE J3400.
  3. Affordability - in 2019, I paid $24,000 after trade-in for my Tesla Model 3 Std Rng Plus. Today, a Camry costs $27,000 without trade-in. But last year, I bought at used 2017 BMW i3-REx without trade-in for $15,000.
There were other claims in the cited report. Hopefully, the illuminated enumerated clams are enough. But let us address:
  • the 1:6:90 rule - the "1:6" is based on a faulty claim about current material availability. It may have had some legitimacy in the past but we don't know what date that might be. As for the "90 non-plug-in" hybrids, I chose today's Camry which is not a plug-in hybrid. The assertion makes no sense. Especially when operational fuel and electric costs are included over a 5-10 year lifespan. For example, my home electric cost is ~$2.50-2.75 per 100 miles, not including the 15% free charging around town or motels on trips.
Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
That's always the environmental argument of using time. At year zero and assuming metric tons, a BEV will be 3.7t (let's just say CO2 for simplicity) for production and 1.44t (130t / 90 hybrids), arising to 2.26t CO2(e) advantage.

If you use the EPA numbers for an AWD bZ4X versus a RAV4 AWD Hybrid, then for 15,000 mi/year of travel it would work out to:
  • bZ4X 4,650 kWh * 0.373518g/kWh (EPA national average): 1,737kg CO(e)/year
  • RAV4 Hybrid 390 gal * 8.887kg/gal (EPA): 3,466kg CO2(e)/year
So between 12-24 months of driving 15,000 miles/year, the bZ4X will make up the difference of CO2 emissions for the lifecycle. The crossover of EV vs hybrid emissions can also be accelerated if renewable energy is utilized for manufacturing and operation (driving).

Frankly this is the correct position of Toyota because ESG reporting only covers the scope of manufacturing & delivery to dealerships. Emissions created by drivers is out of scope. Same goes for worldwide net zero oil & gas production via virtual offsets.
 
Although I appreciate the CO{2} budgets, I prefer the operational costs that start as soon as the BEV keys are handed over.

Bob Wilson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top