Toyota Study Shows EVs Unnecessary To Lower CO2 Emissions
Virtually alone among major auto manufacturers, Toyota has been a skeptic about the conversion of vehicle fleets to battery-powered electric vehicles
For people incapable of thinking 2 or 3 steps ahead, EVs are “zero emission” and therefore “save the planet” from CO2 (presumed to control the Earth’s temperature despite no statistical correlation).
But this leaves out the environmental and CO2 cost of generating and transmitting electricity (mostly by burning coal in the US and many other countries), manufacturing (and recycling) the enormous batteries, and the energy and wear and tear cost of the much-heavier cars that result.
Energy losses due to resistance in power lines generate heat and cost a substantial fraction of the energy input before the consumer uses the output.
Nonetheless, rival manufacturers such as Ford and GM have leaped into the transition and are investing billions—and enduring billions in losses to convert their products to EVs.
Yesterday, Toyota released a study demonstrating that the use of the “eco mode” on some of its gasoline-powered vehicles saves CO2 emissions and gasoline consumption far more than people realize and may rival any potential savings from conversion to EVs.
Karl Furlong of Car Buzz writes:
Toyota has conducted a study that demonstrates the significant reduction in tailpipe CO2 emissions that can be achieved if more customers use their vehicles’ Eco or EV driving modes. The latter mode applies to plug-in hybrids like the RAV4 Prime, which have large enough batteries to sustain brief periods of driving on only electric power.
While such driving modes are usually associated with sluggish throttle response, customers inclined to ignore these more efficient driving modes could be encouraged to use them more often if they knew the benefits.
That’s what Toyota aims to achieve with this study, which involved Toyota employees and family members covering over 400,000 miles in Eco or EV mode. Some Lexus vehicles were also used as part of the test, and by comparing data from these cars running in their most efficient modes with vehicles that weren’t, Toyota was able to come up with some telling insights.
Collectively, the emission reductions achieved by the study’s participants represented $18,304 in fuel cost savings when matched against the national average. 5,091 gallons of gasoline were saved, and Toyota said the reductions in CO2 were the equivalent of 748 trees sequestering carbon for 10 years. Compared to the baseline, 45,235,623 g of CO2 greenhouse gases were saved.
Using Eco mode in a non-hybrid model sees the most significant benefits, with a reduction in tailpipe CO2 of 26 percent. In a hybrid model, the reduction is 4% since the vehicle already operates more efficiently in general driving.
Remapped throttle inputs in Eco mode and more efficient operation of the HVAC system are the main changes that bring about these reduced emissions.
I drive a Toyota-manufactured car with Eco mode and use it most of the time, getting a lot better mileage than my previous same-sized car got. It doesn’t affect performance that much, but I am not a peel-out sort of guy at stoplights, anyway. Ben Stratton of Wilde Toyota (a dealer) explains eco mode:
When you turn the eco mode on, the system regulates air conditioning, heated seats, and other instruments that use power in your vehicle. This alleviates pressure from the engine. And when your engine isn’t working as hard to drive and power all of those instruments, it contributes to better fuel efficiency.
In comparison to other driving modes, the eco mode makes driving more economical. That means that you’re saving money on fuel costs. But you’re also contributing to fewer emissions and, ultimately, reducing your ecological footprint.
President Akio Toyoda of Toyota, a direct descendent of the firm’s founder, has long been skeptical of EVs. Two and a half years ago, he warned:
Toyota Motor Corp.’s leader criticized what he described as excessive hype over electric vehicles, saying advocates failed to consider the carbon emitted by generating electricity and the costs of an EV transition.
Toyota President Akio Toyoda said Japan would run out of electricity in the summer if all cars were running on electric power. The infrastructure needed to support a fleet consisting entirely of EVs would cost Japan between ¥14 trillion and ¥37 trillion, the equivalent of $135 billion to $358 billion, he said.
“When politicians are out there saying, ‘Let’s get rid of all cars using gasoline,’ do they understand this?” Mr. Toyoda said Thursday at a year-end news conference in his capacity as chairman of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. (snip)
In a country such as Japan that gets most of its electricity from burning coal and natural gas, EVs don’t help the environment, Mr. Toyoda said. “The more EVs we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets,” he said.
He said he feared government regulations would make cars a “flower on a high summit”—out of reach for the average person.
That last item, pricing cars out of reach for average families may be a feature, not a bug, in the eyes of WEF-style elitists intent on reducing the standard of living of advanced countries.
President Toyoda’s views may be the reason why Toyota only offers one fully electric vehicle for sale in the US and is ranked last by Greenpeace in decarbonization.
There is no indication if Greenpeace is aware of the benefits of the eco drive, or if it calculates the emissions generated by manufacturing EVs and generating the electricity that powers them.
As far as I am concerned, Toyota has the right idea, and the alleged benefits of EVs are vastly overstated, while the costs are understated. In my book, it is a reason to prefer Toyota vehicles.
Full disclosure: Toyota was a significant client of mine when I was a consultant. But I have had no financial relationship with them, other than as a customer, for well over a decade.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Auto Beeb
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
CO2 is not a pollutant or a climate driver. Nothing need be done about CO2. Something should be done about the clowns that want to destroy the human race.
Reply
Tom
| #
There is absolutely no reason to lower CO2…unless you are trying to murder lifeforms.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
I repeat: You can lead an “Alarmist” to facts; but you can’t make them think.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Mazda has a very sophisticated fuel injection on a 4 cylinder that gets 49mpg on the highway….6 speed manual….over 200 hp.
Reply
Howdy
| #
The skyactive engine?
I can find nothing about the claimed power output TC, and indeed the higher power vehicles like the SUV copy everybody else and add a motor. In any case, nobody needs 200 HP in an engine supposedly designed to save fuel.
The info I found from 2017 is completely contradictory in that, there is no flame front and the fuel ignites completely all at once, yet it also says the plug fires the fuel which generates a flame front which then causes the fuel to burn all at once? Can’t have it both ways.
It isn’t even total compression ignition as that won’t work over the total rev range and spark plugs run full time. I find the whole thing quite mediocre in a world where max power still over-rides the true concept of the design, AKA max miles per gallon in favour of minimal planet damage, and power above what is actually required is purely squandering of the engine’s strengths making it still, a true ‘gas guzzler’ regardless of it’s, claimed advances. This is how you know the planet emergency is a scam.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Nobody “needs” 200 hp? You are the Judge? Mazda should hire you since you know more about engines than Mazda?
Reply
Howdy
| #
My earlier comment was based on Mazda’s own words, tell them, not me.
It isn’t a judgement TC, but the reality. The tech claims improvements in efficiency and the fuel savings, then cripple that by increasing power output, for as we know, even the planet means nothing compared to a few extra BHP, and baby mollycoddling manufacturers are there to make sure the kiddies have more waste than they can handle at the press of a pedal.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
OK, Howy….whatever you say.
Christian Loosli
| #
https://monimega.com/blog/2019/11/02/audio-100-car-that-ran-on-1-76liters-only-in-1989-never-came-to-the-market! How about that? When something is cheap and good it will never come on the market. Low profit less control. Klaus would’t be happy, how to reduce 75% of cars on earth otherwise?
Reply