• EndOfLine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Toyota already admits that they are behind on their battery technology, despite having decades of opportunities to improve and innovate with their hybrid models.

    Now they want to double down on their atrophy by effectively throwing their money away instead of investing in the future?

    On the surface, this does not sound like a good plan for long term growth and profitability.

      • Snot Flickerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        9 months ago

        Seems like they know first hand about “wasted investment” then.

          • Snot Flickerman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            “Well, we’ve proven to ourselves that we’re incapable of investing without it being a sunk cost that we are too petty to let go and will fight tooth and nail to make profitable… So let’s just skip investing in much of anything new ever because we’re nincompoops. If there’s no guaranteed profit, why invest?”

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        Japan has no lithium to mine. So hydrogen is the best option for them. While I understand this for Japan, there’s a big world out there where Toyota is a market leader… for now.

        • You999@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          You are also missing the fact the Japan’s power grid is in a desperate need of repairs and improvements. Hydrogen won’t fix however it introduces some lower cost temporary fixes that can be quickly implemented. In the long term the correct solution would be to fix the grid but we both know if there’s a cheaper and easier solution what they’ll go with…

          • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Yes, steam methane reforming is the most cost effective. But there are other ways to make it. The most eco friendly was is electrolysis that uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. There are some microorganisms, such as algae and bacteria, that can produce hydrogen through biological reactions—but those aren’t able to scale today.

      • jaschen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        But now hydrogen gas stations in California all closed down. So they sorta need to pivit

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Toyota has bet on hydrogen.

      Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about how you can’t store hydrogen. Meanwhile there are eyewatering amounts being invested into water cracking facilities right now.

      Check out the map of West aus:

      https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2023-11/00232_1_hydrogen_projects_oct23_a4_web.pdf

      Or 15,000 km2 of solar & wind producing 3.5m tonnes of hydrogen pa:

      https://wgeh.com.au/

      It takes a lot of hubris to bet against the largest car manufacturer.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Saying that a company convinced a politician that something was a good idea doesn’t make it true. A lot of money has been invested in really stupid things in the past.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Politicians aren’t pouring many billions of taxpayer dollars into these facilities.

          Large companies, global consortium size companies, are doing research which is leading them in this direction.

          It’s not Toyota execs sitting in a board meeting saying “what can we do to be edgy”, it’s well resourced think-tanks being asked for potential solutions to our energy problems.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Politicians aren’t pouring many billions of taxpayer dollars into these facilities.

            Not billions but tens of millions

            Another one, the first large scale hydrogen project in all of Australia over half funded by the government

            And over $160 million more(AUD I assume) to other projects

            So yea it is pretty heavily government funded

            Large companies, global consortium size companies, are doing research which is leading them in this direction.

            Again, a lot of money is invested in really stupid things. If you’ve worked in a big company you know that, if you haven’t watch a Thunderf00t video then. I personally was in a meeting several months ago where $500,000+ was spent on a new machine, rather then just extend the meeting for a couple hours and plan the process for how it could be avoided.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              The WGEH I linked will cost many billions.

              Just because money has been invested in stupid things, does not mean that investing money is evidence of a stupid thing.

              • aidan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Every one of the largest projects in the plan you linked have been significantly (in the cases I linked half or more) funded by the government.

                Just because money has been invested in stupid things, does not mean that investing money is evidence of a stupid thing.

                No, but it does mean that money being invested doesn’t prove its a smart thing.